U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

24–848 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–268 

NOMINATION OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA OF 

FLORIDA TO BE SECRETARY OF LABOR 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING THE NOMINATION OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA OF FLORIDA, 

TO BE SECRETARY OF LABOR 

MARCH 22, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

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

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director 

LINDSEY WARD SEIDMAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

EVAN SCHATZ, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN RIGHTER, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions, opening statement ....................................................................... 1 

Murray, Hon. Patty, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Washington, opening statement .......................................................................... 3 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ............................. 5 

Cruz, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator fro the State of Texas ........................................ 6 

Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine ....................... 14 

Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ................. 16 

Scott, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ..................... 18 

Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin .................. 19 

Young, Hon. Todd, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana ............................. 20 

Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........ 22 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 24 

Hassan, Hon. Margaret Wood, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire ....................................................................................................................... 25

Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas .............................. 27 

Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 28 

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .................... 30 

Kaine, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ............................... 31 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ........................ 34 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 35 

Paul, Hon. Rand, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky ............................. 37 

WITNESS

Acosta, Alexander, Nominee to Serve as Secretary of Labor, Miami, FL ........... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc. 

Position Statement of Workplace Fairness—Sharon Rusz, Executive Director and Paula Brantner, Senior Advisor ................................................ 49 

Wahington Post article by Marc Fisher .......................................................... 50 

Letters of Support ............................................................................................. 52 

Letters of Opposition ........................................................................................ 65 

Response by Alexander Acosta to questions of: 

Senator Alexander ..................................................................................... 81 

Senator Roberts ......................................................................................... 81 

Senator Collins .......................................................................................... 82 

Senator Murkowski ................................................................................... 83 

Senator Young ........................................................................................... 86 

Senator Cassidy ......................................................................................... 86 

Senator Paul .............................................................................................. 87 

Senator Murray ......................................................................................... 88 

(III) 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

(IV) 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 109 

Senator Casey ............................................................................................ 116 

Senator Franken ........................................................................................ 123 

Senator Bennet .......................................................................................... 127 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 128 

Senator Baldwin ........................................................................................ 134 

Senator Murphy ........................................................................................ 134 

Senator Warren ......................................................................................... 136 

Senator Kaine ............................................................................................ 149 

Senator Hassan ......................................................................................... 151 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

(1) 

NOMINATION OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA TO 

SERVE AS SECRETARY OF LABOR 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in room 

430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Alexander, Enzi, Paul, Collins, Cassidy, Young, 

Hatch, Roberts, Murkowski, Scott, Murray, Casey, Franken, Bennet, Baldwin, Murphy, Warren, Kaine, and Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. 

This morning we’re holding a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Alexander Acosta to serve as U.S. Secretary of Labor. 

Senator Murray and I will each have an opening statement, then 

we’ll introduce our witness. We’re delighted to have Senator Rubio 

with us. Senator Cruz is coming. After our witness testimony, Senators will each have two 5-minute rounds of questions. 

Just 10 years ago, in 2007, Steve Jobs announced that Apple had 

reinvented the mobile phone, just 10 years ago. A micro-blogging 

company named Twitter gained its own separate platform and 

started to scale globally, and Amazon released something called 

Kindle—all that in 2007, just 10 years ago. 

The same year IBM began to build a computer called Watson 

that within a few years defeated human contestants in the Jeopardy TV show, and in 2007 the cost of sequencing a genome started 

falling from $100 million in 2001 to $1,000 in 2015. In a new book, 

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman puts his finger on the 

year 2007, just 10 years ago, as ‘‘the technological inflection point.’’ 

He uses the term ‘‘great acceleration’’ for all the technological, social, environmental, and market changes simultaneously sweeping 

across the globe and argues we’re living ‘‘through one of the great 

inflection points in history’’ as a result. 

Add to that Ball State University’s finding that automation is responsible for the loss of 88 percent of manufacturing jobs; and 

globalization, add that. Add social, cultural, climate changes and 

terrorism, you get a big mismatch between the change of pace and 

ability of the average American worker to keep up and fit into the 

accelerating forces shaping the workplace. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

2 

A few weeks ago a group of Senators sat around in a forum and 

listened to some very smart scientists talk about their advances in 

artificial intelligence. After it was all over one Senator asked where 

are we all going to work? Tom Friedman says that probably the 

most important governance challenge is the great, 

‘‘need to develop the learning systems, the training systems, 

the management systems, the social safety nets and government regulations that will enable citizens to get the most out 

of these accelerations and cushion their worst impacts.’’ 

One of the Federal Government’s chief actors in this drama of acceleration should be the Secretary of Labor. In fact, as many have 

suggested and the House of Representatives has done, the title of 

the job for which Alexander Acosta has been nominated should be 

changed to be Secretary of the Workforce, not Secretary of Labor. 

Labor union membership in the private economy today is down to 

less than 7 percent. The issue for workers today is not whether 

they belong to a union; it’s whether they have the skills to adapt 

to a changing marketplace and find and keep a job; to be accurate, 

to create and keep a job. My generation found jobs. This generation 

is more likely to have to create their own jobs. 

In his inaugural address, President Trump said he heard forgotten men and women who are struggling to keep up and fit into the 

changing world. In his farewell address, President Obama said he 

heard the same voices, too many families in inner cities and in 

rural counties who have been left behind, he said. 

What can we do about it? The most important thing is to work 

with employers and community colleges and technical institutes 

and find ways to increase the number of Americans earning postsecondary certificates and 2-year degrees, or more. Georgetown 

University says that by 2020, 65 percent of the jobs in this country 

will require some college or more, and at the rate we’re going 

Georgetown predicts the United States will lack 5 million workers 

with an adequate post-secondary education by 2020. 

Unfortunately, too many of the Federal Government’s actions 

over the last few years have made it harder for the American workers to keep up, adjust, create and find, and keep a job. To begin 

with, the Obama administration unleashed a regulatory avalanche 

that held job creators back. President Obama’s Department of 

Labor issued 130 percent more final rules than the previous administration’s Labor Department, an average of 85 major rules, rules 

with more than a $100 million impact on the economy, compared 

with President Bush’s 62 a year. Take the overtime rule. In my 

State its cost would add hundreds of dollars per student in college 

tuition, and it would force small businesses to reduce the jobs that 

provide stability families need. Or the joint employer rule and its 

attack on franchising. Or the fiduciary rule that makes it more expensive for the average worker to obtain investment advice. One 

after another, a big wet blanket of cost and time-consuming mandates on job creators. 

There’s the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s EEO1 

form, requiring employers to provide to the government 20 times 

as much information as they do today about how they pay workers. 

There is the ridiculously complex 108-question FAFSA, which I 

know the Dean is well aware of, the Federal aid application form 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

3 

that turns away from college many of the people who ought to be 

going. The Affordable Care Act, which defined full-time work as 

only 30 hours, forcing employers to cut their workers’ hours or reduce hiring altogether. 

Many of these, like the persuader rule, which chills the ability 

of employers to retain legal advice during union organizing activities, seem designed for the purpose of strengthening the membership and power of labor unions. 

We’re fortunate today to have a presidential nominee for Labor 

Secretary who understands how a good-paying job is critical to 

helping workers realize the American Dream for themselves and 

for their families. 

Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz will introduce him in detail, so 

I will not, but I do want to recognize that he—after immigrating 

from Cuba to Miami—Mr. Acosta’s parents worked hard to create 

more opportunities for their son. He’s the first person in his family 

to go to college. He’s been on the NLRB and Assistant Attorney 

General for the Justice Department, a U.S. attorney. He’s Dean of 

Florida International University’s Law School. His school’s president describes him as conscientious, thoughtful, says he doesn’t 

overreach, and he’s already been confirmed three times by the U.S. 

Senate. 

Mr. Acosta, we welcome you today, and I look forward to hearing 

more on your ideas about how to help American workers adjust to 

the changing conditions in our workforce. 

Senator Murray. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander. 

Mr. Acosta, thank you for being here, and thank you to you and 

your family for your willingness to serve. 

The Department of Labor is really at the heart of one of President Trump’s core campaign promises, which was to put workers 

first. DOL prioritizes the best interests of our workforce, enforces 

laws that protect workers’ rights and safety and livelihoods, and 

seeks to expand economic opportunity to more workers and families 

across our country. I would hope that any president would share 

those basic goals, but especially one who has made so many promises about fighting for workers. 

I have to say I was very surprised when President Trump selected Andrew Puzder, a fast-food CEO who built his career on 

squeezing workers, as his first nominee for Secretary of Labor. We 

heard story after story from people who worked at his restaurants 

about lost wages and mistreatment, and I was deeply concerned 

that as Secretary of Labor his history of offensive comments and 

marketing campaigns would signal it’s acceptable to objectify and 

marginalize women in the workplace. Puzder was uniquely unqualified for this role, and I’m frankly relieved he won’t have the 

opportunity to serve in it. 

Just because President Trump’s first selection for Secretary of 

Labor was so deeply unacceptable, that doesn’t mean we should 

lower our standards, because workers and families across the country certainly are not. Instead, they’ve made very clear they want 

a Secretary of Labor who will stand up for the core mission of the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

4 

Department and fight for their interests, someone who will be an 

advocate within this administration for workers if President Trump 

continues down the path of breaking promise after promise to those 

he said he would help. 

With this in mind, Mr. Acosta, I have some serious concerns 

about your nomination which I want to ask about today and in 

written followup questions. 

First, the Trump administration has already cemented a reputation for flouting ethics rules and attempting to exert political pressure over Federal employees. I expect our next Secretary of Labor 

to be someone who can withstand inappropriate political pressure 

and prioritize workers and the mission of the Labor Department 

over, hypothetically speaking, President Trump’s business associates or Steve Bannon’s frightening ideology. 

Mr. Acosta, I am concerned. A review of your history suggests 

that when you led the Civil Rights Division at the Department of 

Justice, you at best ignored an extraordinary politicization of the 

work of this critical division, and at worst actively facilitated it. A 

formal investigation by the Inspector General showed that under 

your tenure, hiring in the Civil Rights Division systematically favored conservative applicants over those who appeared to be more 

liberal regardless of their professional qualifications. 

As Assistant Attorney General, you chose to stay silent on a proposed Texas redistricting plan, instead allowing political appointees 

to overrule long-time attorneys who believed the plan discriminated 

against black and Latino voters. The Supreme Court later affirmed 

the plan did violate the Voting Rights Act. 

You inexplicably sent a letter defending a Jim Crow-era Ohio 

voter challenge law just 4 days before the 2004 presidential election, although the Justice Department had no role in that lawsuit. 

By the end of your time at the Civil Rights Division, prosecutions 

for crimes related to gender and racial discrimination had declined 

by 40 percent. 

Altogether, these actions suggest a pattern of allowing political 

pressure to influence your decisionmaking on issues that should 

rise above partisanship. To me, this raises questions about your 

commitment to defend the civil rights of all workers, which of 

course is fundamental to the role of Secretary of Labor. 

Mr. Acosta, I’m also very interested in hearing more from you 

about your vision for this Department, and specifically where you 

stand on a number of key issues that will be heavily engaged in 

over the coming years. President Trump has spoken out against the 

updated overtime rule which would help millions of workers get 

pay they earned. Our Federal minimum wage has fallen far, far behind workers’ needs. Women still make less than their male counterparts, an economic drain on our country that is especially pronounced for women of color. I’ve also heard reports that President 

Trump’s wrongheaded, cruel immigration Executive order is causing undocumented workers not to come forward for back wages and 

protections they are owed. I feel strongly we need to ensure undocumented workers are safe and receive fair treatment, especially 

in this time of heightened fear and uncertainty. 

These are all challenges I expect the Secretary of Labor to be 

committed to working on, and I will be very interested in your 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

5 

thinking and plans on each because, again, the Secretary must be 

an independent voice for workers who will push back on the President’s agenda to hurt working families. 

DOL also plays a pivotal role in making certain there are consequences when companies discriminate or threaten employees’ 

safety on the job. It supports job training and the development of 

new career pathways for unemployed workers, oversees the quality 

of retirement programs impacting millions of workers nationwide, 

collects and publishes independent foundational data about our 

economy and workforce through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 

much more. 

In other words, the ability of this Department to operate effectively has enormous impact on workers, on families, and on our 

economy. I’m concerned about President Trump’s proposal to cut 

more than 20 percent of the DOL budget. It is difficult to see how 

the Department could maintain, let alone improve its performance 

were such dramatic cuts to go into effect. Under the President’s 

budget, workers would pay the price for a budget designed to help 

those at the top, which is unacceptable. I will want to hear how 

you, as someone who will be responsible for carrying out the critical work of this Department, view the President’s proposal. 

I’m looking forward to your testimony and your responses on 

these and many issues, and I hope we receive clear and thorough 

answers. I firmly believe that workers should have a strong advocate at the Department of Labor, and that is what I will continue 

to push for. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

We welcome Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz. We’ll invite each 

of you to introduce Mr. Acosta, and then I know both of you have 

other commitments. You’re welcome to stay or welcome to go to 

your other commitments after that, and we’ll move to his statement. 

Senator Rubio. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RUBIO

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

Ranking Member for the opportunity to be before the committee 

today. It is my honor to be able to introduce Mr. Acosta, and I 

wholeheartedly encourage the committee and the full Senate to 

support his nomination to be our next Secretary of Labor. 

I begin by saying I know Alex well. As a fellow Floridian, as a 

native of Miami, I’ve been familiar with his work for many, many 

years. Later I came to know him personally as well, and as I said 

when the President nominated him, I think he is an outstanding 

choice to lead the Department of Labor. 

He has a sterling record of public service to our State and country. You’ll learn about that today as you’ll see not just in the materials but in his testimony as well. He was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, appointed by President George W. 

Bush from 2002 to 2003. From there he was selected by President 

Bush to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 

Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he also 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

6 

served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in that 

office beginning in August 2013. 

The two places I would refer you and the place I’ve watched him 

most closely and am most proud of his work, the first is he was 

the U.S. attorney in one of the most challenging districts in the 

country, Florida southern district, and I encourage you to look at 

the numerous cases and the complexity of many of these cases that 

fall under their jurisdiction, and in particular during his time 

there. 

Most recently, he served as the Dean of Florida International 

University’s College of Law, where he has been instrumental in 

getting the school off the ground after its recent founding. He’s 

raised its profile, and it’s begun to graduate well-prepared young 

men and women for their careers. 

Florida International University is a place that I know well. I actually was an adjunct professor there for over 10 years. More importantly, it has a unique role in our community, where a significant percentage of the students, not just at the law school but at 

the school in general, are the first in their family to ever attend 

or graduate from college. It has a higher percentage of such students than virtually any other college or university in America, and 

under his tutelage and under his leadership FIU’s College of Law 

has opened that door for hundreds of young people who ultimately 

would have had to do what I did, and that is take on significant 

student loan debt in order to get their Juris Doctor degree, and he 

has elevated FIU’s ability not just to do that but at a very high 

level. 

With every challenge that he has confronted throughout his distinguished career, Alex has continuously demonstrated his ability 

to effectively tackle the problems at hand with ease. He is a brilliant, brilliant legal mind, someone with deep knowledge of labor 

issues and a proven leader and manager. For these reasons and 

many more, I am confident that Alex Acosta will serve this Nation 

admirably, and I am proud to introduce him to the committee 

today, and I urge you to support his nomination. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member and 

all the members of this committee for the opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Rubio. 

Senator Cruz, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CRUZ

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

members of this committee. It is a privilege to be before you today 

and have the opportunity to introduce my friend, Alex Acosta. I’ve 

known Alex for 25 years. He and I went to law school together. 

We’ve been friends a long time. 

There’s a lot you could know about Alex from looking at his resume, looking at his bio. You could know that he’s smart, that he’s 

academically accomplished, that he’s led a life of public service, 

making a difference in the lives of others. 

One of the things, getting to know someone over the course of 

21⁄2 decades, is you learn their character, and I can tell you that 

Alex is a man of character, a man who takes very seriously fidelity 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

7 

to the law, fidelity to the Constitution, and a man who has a passion for justice. 

Alex began his legal career as a law clerk for Justice Samuel 

Alito on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked in a variety 

of locations, and has three times been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He was confirmed as a board member on the National Labor 

Relations Board. He was confirmed as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Civil Rights. He was confirmed as the U.S. 

attorney for the southern district of Florida. 

All three of those positions are very challenging positions. As 

each of you know, those are not easy assignments. Those are assignments that, almost by their nature, guarantee that there’s 

going to be conflict, there’s going to be difficult and important 

issues presented to whoever is entrusted with leading those offices. 

One of the remarkable things about Alex is that he has been able 

to lead each of those offices with an impeccable record, a record of 

distinction, but also a record of inclusion. Alex, in leading those offices, has demonstrated an ability to bring people together even if 

they have disparate political or ideological backgrounds, to bring 

them together behind a shared vision and a shared commitment to 

justice. That is an important characteristic in any position. 

It’s been an important characteristic in his role as the Dean at 

Florida International University School of Law, which as Marco described is a school that is expanding opportunity to a great many 

people who would never have had the opportunity otherwise. That’s 

yet another demonstration of Alex’s passion for justice, stepping 

down as U.S. attorney. He could have cashed out. There would 

have been plenty of law firms in Florida that would have offered 

him a seven-figure check, and he could have lived in a nice house 

and driven a big car and had a very, very comfortable life, but he 

chose instead to be Dean of the Law School, to make a difference 

in the lives of students. 

To those of us who have known Alex a long time, that is not surprising. That is entirely consistent with the course of his entire life. 

I’ll also tell you, on a personal level, Alex is a surprisingly good 

poker player, and not nearly as good a squash player. 

One additional observation. Alex is a Cuban American. He understands firsthand how incredible the miracle of freedom is, how 

incredible this country is, the beacon of freedom that it has served 

to the world. That is an appreciation that I think is important in 

any government position, but as Secretary of Labor, the mandate 

of Secretary of Labor, the kind of Secretary of Labor I expect Alex 

will be, will be a champion for working men and women, a champion for people who want jobs, who want more jobs, who want higher wages, who want more opportunity, someone who will fight for 

the working men and women of this country. 

I will say I take perhaps particular pleasure in the observation 

that I suspect this is one of the first times, if not the only time, 

that this committee has had three Cuban Americans seated before 

it, and it is a testament of the opportunity that our wonderful nation provides. 

I commend to you Alex Acosta, who I think will make an excellent Secretary of Labor. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

8 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio. 

Thank you both for coming. 

We’ll now move to—you’re welcome to go to your other hearings 

at whatever time you choose to. 

Mr. Acosta, we welcome you and your family. You’re welcome to 

introduce your family if you’d like. We’d be glad to have your statement, and then we’ll begin a round or two of questions. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, MIAMI, FL 

Mr. ACOSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I know today is a very 

busy day in the Senate and there are other ongoing hearings, and 

so thank you. It is an honor to be here as President Trump’s nominee to be Secretary of Labor. 

I want to take a minute to thank Senators Marco Rubio and Ted 

Cruz for their very kind introductions. As both noted, I have known 

them for many years. I appreciate their support and I deeply admire and respect their dedication to public service. 

I am also grateful for their support today because my family was 

unable to be here. My wife Jan is an amazing woman, a fantastic 

mother, and I am deeply grateful for her love and her unending 

and unyielding support. My eldest daughter Delia is in first grade, 

and there’s something called an IOWA test, which is a standardized test that she’s undergoing this week. My wife is with Delia 

and with my 5-year-old Rosalia, who will be in kindergarten next 

year. Back in Miami, I don’t know if they’re watching. I know my 

girls aren’t watching. My wife may or may not be. I really want to 

reach out to them and thank them for everything that they do for 

me. 

I want to thank my parents in particular. My parents are very 

important to me not simply because of what they’ve done for me 

but because my story really begins with them and informs my perspective on what it means to be a Secretary of Labor. They fled 

Cuban. They came to the United States seeking freedom, and they 

found it. They met in Miami in high school. They fell in love. They 

married young. My mother was in her teens when she found out 

she was pregnant. Neither attended college. 

Growing up, they struggled, not as much as other Americans 

have struggled, but they struggled. My mother started out as a typist at a real estate firm. At times, she commuted 90 minutes each 

way for her job. My father served in the Army. Later, he tried to 

start a small business, but he quickly found that his lack of higher 

education, his lack of ability to deal with forms and rules made it 

very difficult for him to be a small business owner. He went on to 

hold various jobs, and he ended his working life as an inventory 

clerk at a cell phone store. 

Our family lived paycheck to paycheck. My grandmother cared 

for me while we grew up, and that was an incredibly helpful and 

loving thing to do because both my parents worked full-time. At 

times my parents went into debt, deep debt, the kind of debt they 

tell you not to go into because credit card interest rates are high, 

but they went into that debt and they took on second jobs to make 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

9 

ends meet, and they did that because they wanted to give me an 

education. 

I am here because of them. My success is very much their success. They were able to give me these opportunities because even 

though they didn’t have a college education, they had something 

very important, and that’s a job. Although at times they lost their 

job, they were always able to find another job, and that was very 

important. 

Today Americans are facing the same struggles, but for many 

Americans only worse. My parents had jobs, but not all Americans 

have jobs. Some Americans have seen their jobs go overseas. Some 

Americans have seen their jobs filled by foreign workers. I’ve read 

and I’ve seen press reports that not only have they been filled by 

foreign workers, but to add insult to injury they’ve been asked to 

train their foreign replacements. Some Americans have seen that 

jobs are available, but that these available jobs require skills they 

do not have. 

Helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, should not be a partisan issue. In my visits with each of you, with each member of this 

committee, it was crystal clear that every member of this committee wants Americans to find jobs, good jobs, safe jobs, even if 

you don’t all agree on the how. 

I share this goal with you. We may not always agree on the how, 

but at least let us begin by agreeing on the need. If confirmed, I 

hope to benefit from an ongoing dialog with each of you as to how 

we can advance these goals within the context of, as the Chairman 

mentioned, a global economy that is changing rapidly with each 

passing year, and within the constraints of limited resources. 

I would like to close with a brief discussion of a few items in particular. The first is the skills gap. As I visited with members of this 

committee, I repeatedly heard that in your States there are jobs, 

but the skills too often are not there. In one of your States, for example, a community college was teaching welding techniques, and 

it turns out that the employers are no longer using that welding 

technique, so why are they teaching an outdated technique? That’s 

not how you teach skills. 

We can and we must work to reduce that skills gap. We need to 

make better efforts to align job training with the skills the market 

demands and the increasingly changing market will demand of its 

workers, especially as advancing technology changes the types of 

jobs that are available in our economy. 

The Department of Labor cannot do this alone. It has to work 

with local governments, with industry, with educational institutions, public-private partnerships that can have substantial positive impact on the American workforce. This is the vision of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, of apprenticeship programs, of Job Corps, and of many other programs not only at DOL 

but across government. 

If confirmed, I will work with you to maximize every taxpayer 

dollar that is directed toward job training programs. 

Second, good jobs should also be safe jobs. Congress has enacted 

workplace standard and safety laws. The Department of Labor enforces these, and if confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under 

the Department’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. As a former prosHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

10 

ecutor, my enforcement efforts will always be on the side of the 

law. If enacted by Congress, it should be enforced fully, it should 

be enforced fairly, and it should not be enforced in favor or against 

any particular constituency. 

Finally, the Department of Labor was formed a bit more than 

100 years ago, and it’s an interesting history because originally it 

was the Department of Commerce and Labor, and then it was split 

into two. Why was it split? The reason was this, that a voice for 

Commerce and a voice for workers, or the workforce, as the Chairman mentioned, within the executive branch would promote better 

decisionmaking. 

I think this concept is absolutely correct. Advocates for the American workforce within the administration are important. Whether 

it is those who are working, those who still seek work, those who 

are discouraged or underemployed, or those who have retired, if 

confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, part of my job will be to be 

one of those advocates. 

President Trump has reached out to both business and to labor 

in his first 100 days. I’m proud to have the support of several dozen 

business groups and also of several private-sector and key public 

safety unions who remember with respect my work at DOJ and the 

NLRB. They know that while we did not always agree, I was always willing to listen and to think and to consider and to seek out 

principled solutions. 

If confirmed, I hope that we, this committee and the executive 

branch, can work together in the same way to address the need for 

good jobs and safe jobs, and in particular access to training in the 

skills that the changing workplace will demand of its workforce. 

I thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acosta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. It is an honor 

to be here as President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor. I know today is 

a very busy day in the Senate, and I am indebted to the committee for taking time 

to conduct this hearing. 

I want to thank Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz for their kind introductions. 

I have known both of them for many years. I truly appreciate their support and admire their dedication to public service. 

I am especially grateful for their support given that my biggest fans—my wife Jan 

and my two young daughters, Delia and Rosalia—cannot be here. Jan is an amazing 

woman, a fantastic mother, and I am deeply grateful for her love and support. She 

is in Miami because Delia, my eldest, has her 1st Grade IOWA tests this week; her 

sister Rosalia will be in kindergarten next year. 

Mr. Chairman, I want, in particular, to thank my father and mother because my 

story begins with that of my parents, and it frames my perspective on the important 

responsibilities I would assume if confirmed as Secretary of Labor. 

My parents fled from a Cuban dictatorship in search of freedom. They met in 

Miami, while in high school, fell in love, and married young. My mother had me 

while she was still in her teens. Neither attended college. 

Growing up, I saw my parents struggle. My mother started out as a typist at a 

real estate firm. At times, she commuted 90 minutes each way to her job. My father 

served in the Army. Later, he tried to start a small business. But he found the 

growing gap between his skills and the demands of being a small business owner 

too difficult. He went on to hold various jobs, ending his working life as an inventory clerk at a cell phone store. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

11 

Our family lived paycheck to paycheck. My grandmother cared for me while my 

parents worked full-time. My parents would often go into debt and, at times, take 

a second job to make ends meet and to provide me with the best education possible. 

I am here today because of them. My success is their success. Their sacrifice and 

perseverance made my education possible. They were able to give me opportunities 

they did not have because even though they didn’t attend college, they had something very important—they had jobs. And though at times they lost their jobs, they 

were always able to find another job. 

Mr. Chairman, today many Americans are facing the same struggles my parents 

endured, only worse. My parents had jobs; but not all Americans have jobs. 

Some Americans have seen jobs go overseas. 

Some Americans have seen jobs filled by foreign workers. Indeed, I’ve read reports 

that some Americans have been asked to train their foreign replacements. 

And some Americans see that jobs are available, but these available jobs require 

skills that they do not have. 

Helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, should not be a partisan issue. In 

my visits with each of you, it was crystal clear that each Member of this committee 

wants to help American workers find good, safe jobs—even if you do not all agree 

on how best to realize this goal. 

I share this goal with you. We may not always agree on the how, but at least 

let us agree on the need. If confirmed, I hope to have the benefit of an ongoing dialog with each of you about how we can advance these goals within the context of 

a dynamic, global economy that is changing more rapidly with each passing year, 

and within the constraints of limited resources. 

I would like to close with a brief discussion of a few items in particular. The first 

is the ‘‘skills gap.’’ As I visited with Members of this committee, I repeatedly heard 

that in your States the jobs are there, but the skills too often are not. In one of 

your States, for example, a community college was teaching welding techniques that 

employers no longer used. Not surprisingly, the students could not get a job when 

they graduated. 

We can and must work to reduce the skills gap. We need to make better efforts 

to align job training with the skills the market demands of its workers, especially 

as advancing technology changes the types of jobs available in our economy. The Department of Labor, along with local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to have substantial positive impact on American workers. This 

is the vision of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), of apprenticeship programs, of Job Corps and of many other programs at DOL. If confirmed, 

I will work with you to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar Congress directs toward job training programs. 

Second, good jobs should also be safe jobs. Congress has enacted workplace safety 

laws. The Department of Labor enforces these, and if confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. As a former prosecutor, I will always be on the side of the law and not any particular constituency. 

Finally, the Department of Labor was formed a bit more than 100 years ago, 

when the Department of Commerce and Labor was split into two. The intent was 

this: that a voice for Commerce and a voice for Workers within the executive branch 

would promote better decisionmaking. 

I support this concept. An advocate for the American workforce within the Administration is important. Whether it is those who are working, those who still seek 

work, those who are discouraged or underemployed, or those who have retired, if 

confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, I will advocate for them. I am proud to have 

the support both of several dozen business groups and of several private-sector and 

key public safety unions, who remember with respect my prior government work at 

DOJ and the NLRB. They know that while we did not always agree on the outcome, 

I always listened and sought principled solutions. 

If confirmed, I hope we—this committee and the executive branch—can work together in the same way to address the need for good jobs, safe jobs and access to 

training in the skills that the changing workplace demands. 

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Acosta. 

We will now begin a round of 5-minute questions, and if Senators 

wish there will be a second round of 5-minute questions. 

Mr. Acosta, let’s start with the skills gap that you spoke about. 

If we’re to think of you, as I think we should, as secretary of the 

workforce, to help workers in this head-spinning environment that 

we find ourselves in, adjust to it and fit into it, we always spend 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

12 

a lot of money on helping people get training. We spend more than 

$30 billion in Pell grants. The average Pell grant is about the same 

as the average community college tuition. We spend a lot of money 

on student loans. Other countries do other things. Germany has an 

apprenticeship system. Some people say our technical institutes do 

a better job than our community colleges. 

If you’re the secretary of the workforce, and if you see that, according to the Manufacturing Institute, 2 million Americans’ manufacturing jobs will go unfilled over the next 10 years due to the 

skills gap, specifically what are some of the things we should be 

doing about it? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for the question. First, let me 

touch on the first part of your comments, which is the spending 

that we spend on education. It’s critical, if confirmed, that the Department of Labor work very closely with the Department of Education, because there is a lot of spending that’s taking place in 

Education, and we want to make sure, to the extent possible and 

feasible, that individuals have the opportunity to align their education with the skills the workplace will demand. 

More specifically to the second part of your question, you mentioned apprenticeships. As dean of a law school, I’m a big fan of 

learning by doing. We recently started a program which is a full 

semester internship at a law firm, in addition to the public defender’s office or a State attorney’s office, and the students have the opportunity to spend a full semester there because they can learn by 

doing. 

If you look at some of the apprenticeship programs where individuals work and they get credit while they are working, or some 

of the other programs that are available in community colleges that 

focus on locational opportunities in partnership with individual 

businesses, those are all options that we should be looking at because they’re alternative ways of educating, they’re alternative 

ways of providing skills; and importantly, it is a way for students 

to acquire skills to be used in jobs without taking on the enormous 

debt that we’re seeing in some secondary programs right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you one other question. The overtime 

rule, fortunately it’s not in effect, thanks to a court. In my view, 

it’s one of the worst examples of regulation by the previous administration. It caused millions of Americans to punch time clocks that 

they didn’t want to punch. It raised tuition, according to our universities, by hundreds of dollars per student because of its cost. It 

cost my local Boy Scout council to have to dismiss counselors. It received widespread condemnation around the country, and even in 

Congress there was bipartisan opposition. 

There was a doubling of the threshold. There was an impact on 

non-profits. What are you going to do about the overtime rule? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, it’s 

pending in litigation. Let me offer a few observations. 

First, the overtime rule hasn’t been updated, I believe, since 

2004, and I think it’s unfortunate that rules that involve dollar values can sometimes go more than a decade, sometimes 15 years 

without updating, because life does become more expensive over 

time. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

13 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me press you a little bit. Doubling the 

threshold, applying so heavily the impact of it to non-profits, 

doesn’t that concern you? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Mr. Chairman, it does. The point that I was making 

is that I think it’s unfortunate that it goes so long without adjusting, because when they are adjusted, you see impacts such as the 

doubling of the amount that does create what I’ll call a stress on 

the system, as the Chairman mentioned, particularly in areas, both 

industry and geographic areas, that are lower wage historically. 

One of the challenges that we face in addressing the overtime 

rule is since 2004 there’s been no change, now there is a very large 

change, and how should that be addressed as a policy matter I 

think is a very difficult decision but a very serious one, because the 

economy does feel a substantial impact from such a large change. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow on 

that. 

As the Chairman mentioned, the Department of Labor did finalize the updated overtime rule last year, and that rule helped restore the 40-hour work week, which is the cornerstone of protection 

for middle-class workers. Before that overtime rule, workers could 

be asked to put in extra hours—60, 70, 80 hours a week—without 

earning a single extra dollar for the overtime hours that they spent 

away from their families. That new overtime rule expanded the 

number of workers who qualify for overtime pay, increasing economic security actually for millions of families. 

After months of Republicans in Congress and big business fighting to block that overtime rule, as you stated, the court is now considering the rule and blocking overtime for workers from taking effect. 

Let me ask the question a little bit differently. Do you believe 

that workers should be paid overtime for the overtime hours that 

they work? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I do believe that workers who are entitled 

to overtime pay should receive pay for their overtime. 

Senator MURRAY. Will you defend this rule in court? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, as I was saying in response to the Chairman’s question, the overtime rule hasn’t been updated since 2004. 

We now see an update that is a very large revision, and something 

that needs to be considered is the impact it has on the economy, 

on non-profits, on geographic areas that have lower wages. 

I’m also very sensitive to the fact that it hasn’t been updated 

since 2004. If confirmed, I will look at this very closely. 

Let me also add that a related issue to this is the question of 

whether the dollar threshold is within the authority of the Secretary. When Congress passed the statute, it provides, in essence, 

for a duties test. One of the questions that’s in litigation is does 

a dollar threshold supersede the duties test? As a result, is it not 

in accordance with the law? I mention that because I think the authority of the Secretary to address this is a separate issue from 

what the correct amount is, and the litigation needs to be considered carefully both with respect to what would be the appropriate 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

14 

amount if the rule were to be changed or revised, but also what is 

within the authority of the Secretary to do. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. This is an issue I’m going to be following 

closely. It’s an issue of fairness, and I really do believe the Secretary of Labor’s job is to make sure that workers are treated fairly. 

Let me move on to another issue. You have served as a highranking Federal official, one of the few Cabinet nominees of this 

President who has done so. However, in your time leading the Civil 

Rights Division at the Department of Justice, staff under your supervision broke Federal law by systematically discriminating 

against individuals based on their political affiliations. An Inspector General investigation found that staff on your management 

team sought out conservative candidates and rejected liberal ones. 

Your staff referred to conservatives as ‘‘real Americans’’ who were 

‘‘on the team,’’ and according to the IG report your staff called liberal Department lawyers commies and pinkos and told a subordinate that, 

‘‘Your division shouldn’t be limited to hiring Politburo members who belong to some psychopathic left-wing organization 

designed to overthrow the government.’’ 

Your deputy said he should get an award for effectively breaking 

the will of liberal staff. 

These were your staffers acting under your supervision. Do you 

take responsibility for the acts of discrimination that occurred 

under your leadership? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, you’re referring to the actions of one of the 

deputies in the division. I believe the Inspector General’s report 

found that the other deputies that oversaw the other divisions or 

the other sections of the Civil Rights Division did not engage in 

that conduct. That conduct should not have happened. It happened 

on my watch. It should not have occurred. That language should 

not have been used, and I deeply regret it. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. It leads me to ask you, will you stand up 

to the President or others in the Administration if they ask you to 

use political views on statements and hiring decisions? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, political views on the hiring of career attorneys or staff should not be used, and the answer to your question 

is if I am asked to do that, I will not allow it. I’m very aware of 

the Inspector General’s report, of the impact it had on that section, 

and I would not allow that to happen. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

Senator Collins, and then Senator Bennet. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, first of all, thank you for sharing your inspiring personal story. It really is a story of opportunity in America, and in 

many ways that is the mission of the department that you’ve been 

nominated to lead, to create more opportunities for American workers. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

15 

The Department has a program known as the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Program that helps Americans who, through no fault of 

their own, have lost their jobs as a result of foreign and often unfair competition. In Maine, for example, we’ve lost more than 38 

percent of our manufacturing jobs. That’s nearly 31,000 jobs in 

total over the last 17 years. 

The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been crucial in 

helping many Maine workers, who have been hit very hard by mill 

closures and shuttered factories, get the skills that they need for 

the jobs in higher demand industries. For example, in fiscal year 

2015, 740 Mainers benefited from TAA, and more than 70 percent 

of those who went through TAA-provided education or re-training 

found employment within 3 months of completing the program. 

The so-called skinny budget that was released last week proposes 

large cuts in the Department of Labor, but it’s unclear what happens to TAA. What is your view on that program? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for the question. I appreciate 

the way you set up the question because you provided data. If confirmed, something that I think I would need to do, and do very 

quickly because budget season has already begun, is assess the efficacy of the job training programs. Budgets are to be determined. 

The skinny budget has been submitted. Congress will have the 

final say on the ultimate budget, but dollars are going to be more 

scarce. That is the reality, and so we’re going to have to make difficult decisions. 

You’ve provided data that shows how successful that program 

has been, and I think the principles that need to be used to guide 

the spending are how successful is the program, does the program 

address particular needs such as the needs of displaced individuals 

who have lost their jobs because of, for example, the closing of a 

mill. In that context, the rate of return on the investment of taxpayer dollars in the skills I think is particularly high, because if 

you have someone who has been doing a job most of their life and 

that job no longer exists, and now you provide them the skills to 

do another job, they’re going to hold that job for a long time, and 

they’re going to become part of our economy again, and they’re 

going to be paying taxes. That rate of return on those programs I 

think is very strong. 

Based on your information, I hope that program remains because 

it sounds like it’s incredibly successful, at least in your State. Let 

me add, there’s also room for differences within States where some 

program might make sense in Maine but it might not make sense 

in another State, and I think we need to be very sensitive that onesize-does-not-fit-all. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you for that response. 

Despite the success of the TAA program, there still is a category 

of workers in my State who are older workers who are in many 

ways the forgotten story of this economic recovery. Older workers 

are having increasing difficulties in finding employment. In Maine, 

almost half of the private industry workers are over 44 years old, 

and our paper mills, which have lost more than 1,500 jobs over the 

past 3 years alone, have a disproportionately high number of older 

workers. For many of them, working the paper mills has been the 

only job they have ever known. Their families have worked there 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

16 

for literally generations, and it’s very difficult to tell someone who 

is 54 years old, who has done this his entire life or her entire life, 

that they need to retrain for a new job or leave a community that’s 

been their home their entire life. 

If confirmed, what ideas do you have for helping older workers 

in my State and others who have lost jobs due to mill closures and 

other factors? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, very briefly, because I see the clock, I will 

just say that I think those ideas can’t come from Washington. What 

Washington needs to do is go to them and ask them what ideas do 

they see in their local area and then work with them and the local 

governments to address that, because I don’t think we here in 

Washington can understand what they’re going through in their 

small town in Maine. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

Senator Bennet. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. Acosta, congratulations to you on your nomination, and 

thank you for your willingness to serve. 

I want to press you a little bit on what Senator Collins was just 

asking you. Let me come back to that in 1 second. 

In Colorado we are trying to establish an apprenticeship program 

throughout our universities, community colleges, school districts 

and businesses, and I’d like to invite you if you’re confirmed to 

come out there and meet with the people that are working on that 

project to see how the Department of Labor might help them or 

help us do that better. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Gladly. 

Senator BENNET. Good. Thank you. 

Virtually this entire campaign was about bringing back jobs and 

wages to places in America where people who suffered huge economic dislocation because of, some would argue, trade, some might 

say automation, but the dislocation has been real. Median family 

income has fallen in many places, and there’s a hopelessness about 

what the economy is going to bring. 

With respect to you, I’m not sure the answer that it’s all up to 

local communities suffices. The President ran for president saying 

he was going to make that huge difference, he was going to bring 

those jobs back. 

Apart from training, which I stipulated when we talked about it 

in my office is an enormously important thing that we need to do 

better and we’re wasting billions of dollars not training people for 

jobs that exist in the 21st century, putting that aside, what’s the 

plan? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for the question, and let me first 

make the point that one of the reasons that I said it’s important 

to go to the local communities is because when the Senator and I 

met in private, she gave me information about the educational 

background and the abilities and the other opportunities in that 

area, and that is, by definition, going to be different than what’s 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

17 

available in Colorado. I do think it’s important to visit Colorado 

and visit Maine and understand the different areas. 

Going to your point, we need to look at several different levels 

for job creation. The President has made clear that every Cabinet 

agency should review regulations for unneeded regulatory burden. 

Small businesses produce—depending on whose numbers you look 

at—between 7 and 8 new jobs, 7 and 8 out of 10 new jobs. Efforts 

to encourage small business will foster job creation. 

It’s important to look at the issue I highlighted about foreign 

workers taking American jobs, particularly in those circumstances 

I highlighted, where Americans are being asked to train their foreign replacements. That is not the intent of the H1B. As a matter 

of fact, there’s an attestation that has to be made that you are not 

affecting the working conditions of an American worker when you 

do that. One question I would have is how often is that happening 

and is that something we should be looking at with a greater degree of care? 

We also need to work with public-private partnerships. I know 

that there is a lot of discussion about an infrastructure program, 

and an infrastructure program will certainly bring back a lot of 

jobs. For all of these, it’s not just the jobs as part of an infrastructure program or jobs that are developed for small business, but as 

individuals get jobs, they spend money. Then those individuals that 

spend money go to restaurants, and you have this multiplier effect 

throughout the economy that I think is incredibly valuable. 

Let me finally touch on education. I do think it’s important to 

touch on education because the economy is changing rapidly, and 

our educational institutions cannot ignore what the workplace is 

going to be demanding going forward. 

Senator BENNET. Mr. Acosta, I also just wanted, for the record, 

to note that, and I appreciate this, you’ve been a supporter of immigration reform in the past with Senator Rubio as part of the 

Gang of Eight here who passed the Senate bill on immigration, and 

part of what you observed in 2012 was that the current system allowed the abuse of immigrant workers. Do you still feel that way, 

and do you still support immigration reform? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, there is a need to have immigration laws 

that are transparent and clear, and I do think that we have an 

issue of abuse with immigrant workers. When workers are not part 

of the system, the system can abuse them. I also think it’s important that we enforce our immigration laws, and I don’t see enforcement of immigration laws as separate from immigration reform. 

Senator BENNET. Mr. Chairman, I realize I’m 15 seconds over. I 

apologize. 

Along those lines as well, you mentioned the H1B program. We 

have huge difficulties with the H2A and H2B program being administered in a way that’s actually useful to workers and to businesses. I look forward to having a chance to talk with you about 

that at a later time. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bennet. 

I was going to call on Senator Hatch, but he’s not here, so I’ll 

call on Senator Scott. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

18 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here again. 

A couple of questions that I’ve heard so far during this hearing 

have to do with the overtime rule. Moving from $23,600 to about 

$47,000, according to some studies, would cost about a half-a-million jobs in the economy, so your comments seem to be a mixed 

bag. According to Tammy McCutchen, who was an hourly and wage 

person at the Department of Labor under the Bush administration, 

moving it up from $23,000 to maybe $32,000 would make sense 

based on the previous formula that’s been used for decades. What 

would be your approach? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for the question. If you were to 

do a cost-of-living adjustment—and, as I mentioned, the world has 

gotten more expensive and salaries have changed since 2004—if 

you were to apply a straight inflation adjustment, I believe that the 

figure if it were to be updated would be somewhere around 

$33,000, give or take. 

I think the question that I will have to face if I were to become 

Secretary of Labor is, No. 1, what to do with the litigation; No. 2, 

if we determine that the rule as it currently stands should not be 

the rule that eventually takes place within this litigation context, 

what would be the correct amount. I understand that there’s a desire on the part of members of this committee for me to State this 

is exactly what I would do, but this is an incredibly complicated 

rule. This is something that gets updated about every 15 years. 

For me to sort of on the fly at a hearing State with certainty, 

I don’t think it’s the responsible approach. What I would say is, No. 

1, I understand the extreme economic impact that a doubling has 

in certain parts of the economy. I understand that it goes beyond 

a cost-of-living adjustment. I understand as well that because of 

the size of the increase, there are serious questions as to whether 

the Secretary of Labor even has the power to enact this in the first 

place, which is what a lot of the litigation—not a lot—which is 

what the basis of the litigation is. Those are issues that I would 

want to consult with the individuals at Labor and at Justice that 

are overseeing the litigation before determining. 

Senator SCOTT. I certainly hope that you have already invested 

a lot of time contemplating what you would do as the next Secretary, as opposed to not having invested any time in that conversation, which will be a very important conversation between the 

overtime rule and the fiduciary rule. These are things that you 

should be contemplating already. 

Let’s move to a different topic. Senator Bennet has mentioned it, 

perhaps Chairman Alexander, and the Ranking Member as well 

have talked about the importance of apprenticeship programs. 

South Carolina is perhaps the leading State, at least one of the 

leading States in the country, on the success of our apprenticeship 

programs. I’d love to hear how you would encompass or integrate 

into your objectives going forward an apprenticeship model, taking 

into consideration the one that Corey Booker and myself have 

sponsored, over 17,734 apprenticeships and 6,400 participating programs in South Carolina. We have companies throughout the counHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

19 

try in South Carolina, from BMW, Boeing, Continental, General 

Electric, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Bosch, also industries like health 

care and finance, that all integrated in South Carolina and involve 

apprenticeship programs. I’d love to hear your model. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, first let me say that South Carolina really 

is a model of apprenticeship programs. Some of the qualities that 

make it so successful are the integration or the public-private partnerships where employers are not involved in name but they’re 

really deeply involved in directing. These are the types of apprenticeships we need. This is what the workforce is demanding, and 

I think that involvement of employers is very, very important. 

I know that South Carolina at the State level also provides incentives for employers to engage in apprenticeships and to hire apprentices, and particularly when someone is learning, when someone is quite literally an apprentice, my understanding is that 

makes the South Carolina program particularly noteworthy and attractive for an employer to hire an apprentice. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Scott. 

Senator Baldwin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Acosta. Congratulations on the nomination. 

One of the first responsibilities—and you alluded to it a moment 

ago in terms of the fact that it’s budget season. One of the first responsibilities of the Secretary is going to be identifying where to 

cut, frankly, because President Trump’s budget calls for a $2.5 billion cut to the Department of Labor, a 21 percent decrease from 

current enacted levels. This is really significant. President Trump’s 

budget only specifies $500 million of cuts, mostly to seniors seeking 

job training, and leaves about $2 billion unspecified. 

I’d like to ask you how are you going to approach this incredible 

task of making this math work. You could eliminate 15 Job Corps 

centers for vulnerable youth. You could eliminate the entire Employee Benefit Security Administration, charged with protecting 

workers’ retirement funds from fraud, or get rid of the Women and 

Apprenticeship Grant Program. How are you going to approach 

this? Are you going to do 20 percent across the board? Are you 

going to cut various bureaus? What are you going to do? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for the question. First let me 

say that as the nominee I haven’t had the opportunity to provide 

input yet into the budget process, and if confirmed it’s something 

I’m going to have to take on very quickly because it’s moving. 

My personal perspectives—and again, Congress will make ultimate decisions on this, and so Congress may have a different view. 

My personal perspective is this should not be across the board, and 

at the same time it shouldn’t focus on particular programs because 

that’s a little bit too—because programs aren’t quite that—how can 

I put this? 

Let me come at it this way. You mentioned, Senator, the Job 

Corps centers. There are some Job Corps centers in some States 

where the Job Corps centers are highly successful, and for those 

States those Job Corps centers work exceedingly well given the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

20 

population, given the geographic diversity of that State. Those Job 

Corps centers, from my understanding, are working well. 

There are some other Job Corps centers that have a history of 

violence associated with them that concerns me. As a matter of 

fact, the Department of Labor has looked at some of those Job 

Corps centers and has identified some of those issues. This requires 

an analysis on a few levels—— 

Senator BALDWIN. I want to just cut you off because we have limited time. You’re not going to look at across the board, and what 

I think I hear you saying, to summarize, is that you wouldn’t eliminate programs per se, but you would look at success. I think you 

said that earlier in a response to the Trade Adjustment Assistance 

question for Senator Collins. 

Mr. ACOSTA. That would be fair. 

Senator BALDWIN. What troubles me is in areas where we’re not 

seeing success, is pulling it away and not offering those programs 

the answer, or is it going in and fixing and adjusting and providing 

those opportunities? If you pull it away, you’ve left people high and 

dry in training and many other areas. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I understand your question, and I think we 

don’t disagree. First it’s a question of what is success, right? Because if you have a particularly troubled area, a little bit of movement can be success. Second, just because you pull—if there’s a Job 

Corps center in a particular geographic area that isn’t working, 

that doesn’t mean you pull away from that geographic area. That 

just means that maybe in that area the money is better spent on 

another program than on the Job Corps center. 

I don’t think it would be right to abandon any one area. That’s 

why it needs to be an analysis based on the program and the geography to ask what does this State need, what does this part of that 

State need, and really look at it on a local basis. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. 

Senator Young. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR YOUNG

Senator YOUNG. Welcome, Mr. Acosta. Great to be here with you 

today. 

I’d like to first get your thoughts on how we can better link our 

unemployed Americans to job opportunities. As Secretary of Labor, 

this is something you’ll have direct oversight over. There are already programs out there to help facilitate these linkages. Less 

than half the available workforce has the appropriate training to 

fill available jobs. Some communities are innovative in serving 

local need. 

In my own State, we have Jeffersonville, IN. They partnered 

with Ford for their next-generation learning program. This partnership engages businesses, educators, community leaders, various 

other stakeholders to enhance the workforce system throughout the 

region, which is in southern Indiana. It’s going to connect high 

school graduates to relevant post-secondary education that will directly filter into businesses around that community. 

Every member here can no doubt cite localized, specific examples 

of creative solutions to this linkage issue, which is so important if 

we’re going to have flexible, effective labor markets, which in turn 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

21 

leads to faster economic growth and higher wage growth. Perhaps 

you could speak to how you as Secretary of Labor will foster this 

sort of engagement and maybe serve as a conduit for information 

related to best practices so that folks back in the States and our 

localities can scale up what’s working. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for the question. It’s interesting 

that even in this hearing, several members are pointing to successes in their particular States. And you’re right, those need to be 

compiled and put into best practices so that they can be duplicated. 

The other point that I would identify is not only are these successes based on local partnerships, but they’re based on public-private partnerships. It’s not the Department of Labor going in on its 

own. It is businesses working at a local level with educational institutions and with other local entities to align the training opportunities with what the workforce—the employers—are demanding, 

and that partnership I think is so critical. 

Going back to Senator Baldwin’s question of wouldn’t you be 

walking away from a particular area if a program isn’t working, 

the point I was trying to make is, no, if there’s a program that’s 

not working in a particular State, if there’s a program that’s not 

working in Indiana, for example, but there’s a program that’s working fabulously well, then we should look at that program that’s 

working fabulously well and perhaps double down on that program 

if that program is going to address the needs that were otherwise 

addressed by the program that isn’t working. 

Senator YOUNG. I like to hear common sense from my would-be 

Secretary of Labor. That strikes me as common sense. That’s a 

good thing. I look forward to working with you to operationalize 

that concept through programs or policies and so forth. 

In my remaining time, perhaps I could pivot to the gig economy. 

The availability, the preference for so many of our workers to take 

multiple part-time jobs, to do freelance work, is just the way so 

much of our economy is moving. It’s creating unique challenges for 

our workers, and we, from a public policy standpoint, are going to 

have to adapt to these challenges. 

One of those challenges is for parents, their daycare responsibilities, if, in fact, they either require a job outside of the home or 

they wish to work outside of the home. I have four young children. 

We have some flexibility, my wife and I in our lives, and some family members that help out. We figured out a way to make it work. 

A single father who is caring for a few children works the night 

shift of Walmart, I don’t know how they do it. I don’t know where 

they find acceptable, available daycare for their children. 

I’m not asking you to solve this problem, but could you at least 

speak to this problem as perhaps the next Secretary of Labor and 

how you might explore innovative ways to deal with it, partnering 

with our States and localities to make the gig economy work for 

more people? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you. The gig economy is something 

that the Department of Labor needs to address, and at several levels the rules at DOL aren’t designed—they haven’t caught up to 

the gig economy. They assume a more traditional workplace. It 

goes beyond the issue that you raised to several issues within the 

Department of Labor. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

22 

It’s incredibly important. There are individuals in my office who 

are single parents, and I see them, and they have to juggle. They 

have the means to juggle, and it’s still incredibly difficult. It’s 

something that we’re going to have to talk about and address, but 

it has to be at the local level. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Young. 

Senator Warren, and then Senator Hatch. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARREN

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, you are the President’s second choice for Secretary 

of Labor, and I’ll be honest, I’m glad it’s not his first choice, Andrew Puzder, who is sitting here today. It is hard to imagine a candidate who would be worse than a man who made his fortune by 

squeezing workers on wages and benefits, a man who repeatedly 

broke the laws that he would be charged with enforcing, a man 

who bragged about replacing his workers with robots who would 

never sue him for race or sex discrimination. That said, the test for 

Secretary of Labor is not are you better than Andrew Puzder. The 

test is will you stand up for 150 million American workers, and 

that starts by making sure that workers are safe on their jobs. 

A Department of Labor rule to protect 2.3 million American 

workers from exposure to lethal, cancer-causing silica went into effect last summer. SI just want to know, Mr. Acosta, will you promise not to weaken the silica rule in any way, and not to delay future compliance by even a single day? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, as you mentioned, the silica rule went into 

effect. I should, however, make clear that the President, through 

an executive action, has directed all Cabinet secretaries to put together a group to review all rules within each Cabinet agency. 

Senator WARREN. I’m aware of that. 

Mr. ACOSTA. And to examine them. 

Senator WARREN. This is a rule that has gone into effect. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, Senator. 

Senator WARREN. I just want to make sure you’re not going to 

delay this rule any further. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I understand. The point I’m trying to make 

is that the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all 

rules and to make determinations if any rules should be revised. 

Based on that executive action, I cannot make a commitment without—because the Department of Labor has been ordered to review 

all rules. 

Senator WARREN. I want to understand what that means when 

you say Department of Labor has been ordered to review all rules. 

You’re about to be named as Secretary of Labor, and your name 

goes on the bottom line for enforcing the law. Either you’re going 

to stand up for 150 million American workers, including people 

who are being poisoned by silica, or you’re not, and I think that’s 

a fair question for us to ask. Are you going to stand up for the people? Finally we have a rule in place so that people will not be 

poisoned by silica. 

You’re saying that’s just open and you don’t want to give an answer one way or the other on how you look at that? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

23 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, what I’m saying is that the rule is in effect, 

but there is an order—the rule, the final rule was promulgated, but 

there is an order, an executive action, asking all Cabinet officers—— 

Senator WARREN. You can’t give us your own sense of whether 

or not the silica rule is something that ought to be enforced? You’re 

going to do this review, and you’re telling me you can’t say whether 

or not we ought to just take out rules that will cause people to die? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I am not advocating taking out rules. I am 

making the point—— 

Senator WARREN. Can I take that, then, that you will enforce 

that rule? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, all Cabinet officers have been asked to review—— 

Senator WARREN. You’ve said that, and I’ve heard it. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Fair enough. 

Senator WARREN. I’m trying to ask for your opinion, and you’re 

telling me, evidently, that you want to be Secretary of Labor but 

you have no opinion on whether or not high on your list of priorities would be to protect a rule that keeps people from being 

poisoned. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, high on the list of priorities will be to protect the safety of workers with appropriate rules. 

Senator WARREN. You will decide what appropriate rules are, but 

you don’t want to give a hint right now? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, there is an entire staff at the Department 

of Labor—— 

Senator WARREN. Yes, there is, and they’ve already looked at this 

rule, and they already have comments on this rule, and they already received comments from the public about this rule, and they 

strongly support this rule. I raised this rule with you when we 

talked about it 2 weeks ago, so this should be no surprise that I’m 

asking you about this. 

Mr. ACOSTA. I gave the same answer, and I look forward to hearing from that staff, if confirmed, their views on this rule. 

Senator WARREN. And following their advice? 

Mr. ACOSTA. If that advice is appropriate, yes. 

Senator WARREN. You will decide if it’s appropriate? I think 

we’ve got how this dance works. 

Let me ask you another question. Another huge responsibility of 

the Secretary of Labor is to make sure that workers are paid fairly, 

and last December a new Labor Department rule requiring employers to pay their workers overtime when they work more than 40 

hours a week was set to go into effect. It would mean a raise for 

4.2 million people. Lots of employers were preparing to comply, but 

just days before the deadline a Texas judge blocked the rule, siding 

with giant companies over American workers. 

Will you commit to appealing the judge’s ruling to protect these 

workers? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, as I previously mentioned, I will commit to 

examining both the rule and the legal basis of the judge’s decision. 

Senator WARREN. Let me stop you there. I appreciate that because that’s exactly what you said to me 2 weeks ago. You’ve had 

time to take a look at it, and it’s not a long ruling, to read the rulHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

24 

ing and to look at the comments, to look at what went behind this. 

It’s time now for an answer. Are you going to appeal it or not? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, again, the Department of Labor has staff 

that spent a long time working on this rule. It is also in litigation. 

It would be important to consult with the legal officers at DOL regarding the position that they’re taking in litigation—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re a minute over, Senator. 

Senator WARREN. All right. I’ll quit there, but I’ll say, Mr. 

Acosta, the Department advisors have already made clear their position. I just want to know if you’re going to follow through on it. 

They have prepared an appeal. That, evidently, at least by measuring their actions, is their advice. I just want to know that you’re 

going to be part of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll have time for a second round of questions. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Senator Hatch. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HATCH

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, welcome. Happy to see you again. We know that 

you’ve given this government a lot of effort in the past, and I know 

that once confirmed you’ll do a very good job in this particular position. 

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs protects 

workers and potential employees of Federal contractors from employment discrimination. It is my observation that the OFCCP is 

using statistical analysis rather than equal consideration and opportunity in evaluating contractor hiring practices and is falling 

short of addressing real employment discrimination. 

In the fiscal year 2016 Labor HHS appropriations bill, the committee pointed out, 

‘‘OFCCP appears to prioritize specific quota results rather 

than equal consideration and opportunity because of its reliance on statistical analysis in evaluating contractor hiring 

practices.’’ 

How would you go about leading the Office to enforce non-discrimination standards on actual evidence of actual discrimination 

rather than on statistical generalizations? 

Let me add just one more question. How do you propose promoting actual discriminatory treatment instead of presumed discrimination based solely on statistical benchmarks that may not be 

uniformly equitable? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for your question, and let me 

say that I remember appearing before your committee in a room 

very similar to this, and thank you for the courtesies that you extended me at that time as well. I think it was two floors down. 

The issue that you raise is the use of disparate impact in employment cases within OFCCP. The disparate impact is a valid and legally acceptable part of liability in employment litigation. Without 

more, I would hesitate to say that OFCCP shouldn’t use acceptable 

tools that are generally considered valid in employment contexts in 

enforcing the Executive order that it is charged with enforcing. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

25 

Senator HATCH. OK. Utah has several large employers in health 

care and financial services. I hear all the time from these businesses about the need for skilled workers, and I’ve heard you talk 

about your ideas of how can we modernize one such model, apprenticeship. I’m working with Ranking Member Murray on promoting 

and supporting employers with apprenticeships. In addition to apprenticeship efforts, what role do you see DOL playing in encouraging other employer-led training best practices? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you. DOL needs to take a leadership 

role in compiling best practices and working with employer groups 

to encourage employers. As you were asking the question, I had a 

remembrance of a project that we had with the Restaurant Association around disability compliance, and we worked with the Restaurant Association when I was with the Civil Rights Division to 

encourage restaurants to comply with the ADA. The point that we 

made to them is that compliance can make business sense. 

Working with associations that have access to employers to encourage apprenticeship programs, to encourage job training programs, to learn from them what needs to be done and what can be 

done I think is important. This can’t just be government. It has to 

be in partnership with employers. 

Let me also add that I don’t think the Department of Labor can 

do this alone. The Department of Education is such a key player 

in this, and in all candor their funding is somewhat deeper than 

the Department of Labor’s funding. It’s very important to break 

down the silos, to not have this department doing this and that department doing that, but to really work together as one executive 

branch addressing these issues. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is almost up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. 

Senator Hassan. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murray. 

Good morning, Dean Acosta. Nice to see you here. 

I will just add support to the comments you’ve heard from just 

about everybody on the committee about the importance of job 

training. It’s critical to the State of New Hampshire, as is our Job 

Corps center, which is one of the newest, if not the newest, Job 

Corps centers in the country. I had the opportunity to be at its first 

graduation just recently, and it was great to see the lives that were 

changed through that Job Corps center. I hope you will do everything, should you be confirmed, to support both job training and 

our Job Corps centers. 

I wanted to focus a little bit on the importance of OSHA to the 

men and women who constitute our country’s workforce. Strong 

and targeted enforcement by the Labor Department not only saves 

lives but also saves valuable resources for employers. A substantial 

body of empirical evidence demonstrates that OSHA inspections reduce injury rates at inspected workplaces and lowers workers compensation costs to the tune of billions of dollars annually. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

26 

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has 

about 45 percent fewer inspectors today than it had in 1980, when 

the workforce was almost half of current levels. In New Hampshire, we have only seven OSHA inspectors to oversee safety and 

health at 50,000 worksites. With these numbers, it would take 

OSHA 122 years to inspect every workplace in New Hampshire just 

once. 

President Trump’s budget blueprint proposes to cut DOL’s budget by 21 percent. Can you commit that if confirmed as Secretary 

of Labor, you will advocate for and seek funding that will maintain 

OSHA’s enforcement budget at no less than current levels? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I can certainly commit that I—let me come 

at it this way. I would be very concerned in a situation like you 

mentioned, where there are only seven inspectors, because going 

from seven to six has a substantial impact. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Can I commit to no less than current levels? That’s 

a very precise statement. Something is going to have to give somewhere in the budget. My background is a law enforcement background. Worker safety is incredibly important. I mentioned it in my 

opening statement for a reason, and I would have a lot of concern 

if the number of inspectors in any one area fell to the point where 

they could not do their job. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. I want to move on to the area of 

making sure that we are including more people who experience disabilities in this country in the workforce. Section 14(c) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act authorizes employers to pay sub-minimum 

wages to workers who experience disabilities. Oftentimes, this type 

of employment occurs in a secluded environment, some might say 

a segregated environment, known as a sheltered workplace. 

In 2015, with the support of the New Hampshire business community, New Hampshire was the first State to eliminate the payment of sub-minimum wage, and there have been efforts in Congress as well to end this practice. 

First of all, do you support this practice of paying people who experience disability sub-minimum wage? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I certainly support the authority of any 

State to eliminate that. With respect to at the Federal level, this 

is a very difficult issue because you don’t want to disrespect individuals in any way by—the very phrase ‘‘sub-minimum wage’’ is a 

disrespectful phrase. Yet, you want to provide incentives or systems to ensure that individuals that might not otherwise have a 

job have access to a job and are trained into a job. That’s a very 

difficult balance that I’m happy to have a further discussion about. 

Senator HASSAN. I hope we can, because I think it isn’t the 

phrase ‘‘sub-minimum wage’’ that is disrespectful; it is disrespectful 

and, frankly, discriminatory to pay people who are qualified to do 

a job sub-minimum wage on the basis of the fact that they experience a disability. It’s going to be really important that we continue 

this conversation. If you go back and look at the work of the National Governors Association, for instance, around this, it was employers who came to us and said this is a population that’s doing 

the job, why are we paying them, why are we allowed to pay them 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

27 

sub-minimum wage? I would look forward to working with you on 

that. 

I do have additional questions, but I understand we’ll have a second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s correct. Thank you, Senator Hassan. 

Senator Roberts. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, thank you for coming by on your courtesy visit. 

Thank you for being here today. You were certainly well introduced. I think you should be confirmed. 

I’m going to take a little bit different tack here than some of my 

colleagues. I’m not going to ask you about President Trump or 

whether or not you will follow his Executive orders. Despite what 

some may think to be contrary to current law, I’m not going to ask 

about the budget, I’m not going to ask you about the campaign, and 

I’m certainly not going to ask you whether you are for death by silica. 

I’ve got a different view. Many folks here, not only on this committee, with a lot of exceptions, but in Washington look at this 

through a telescope, and we have an entire regulatory agenda, and 

it is intended for job safety, it’s intended for non-discrimination. I 

can just go down the entire alphabet soup of agencies we have 

here—clean water, clean air, et cetera, et cetera. 

When it gets down to 105 counties in Kansas, people wonder 

what in the heck is going on. Here come regulations that they’ve 

never seen before, and I know this because I go to town hall meeting after town hall meeting after town hall meeting. I don’t get the 

questions saying so-and-so is running a business where my safety—if I go in there, or if I’m a customer—is endangered, or his 

workforce is endangered. 

They hold up the piece of paper, maybe two and three, and say, 

‘‘what is this regulation?’’ I don’t understand it. They do not have, 

normally, a CPA or an attorney or somebody to figure out exactly 

why they have received that. 

I used to work for my predecessor in the House. I’m one of these 

people who are below the swamp; they can’t drain me out. 

[Laughter.] 

My job was to go out and figure out what this new animal was, 

called OSHA. We had the first OSHA person go out, way out west. 

They went out to Sharon Springs. Sharon Springs is not the end 

of the world, but you can see it from there. We have Mt. Sunflower. 

It’s 4,000 feet high. The trick is not to climb it. The trick is to find 

it so you can see it out there on the high prairie. 

The OSHA person was supposed to go out to Goodland, KS but 

just missed it. I don’t know how you could do that, but he fell 

short, but could stay all night, and looked high and low for somebody, somebody, anybody that he could walk in and say, ‘‘hey, 

you’re not performing your job right.’’ He went into a manufacturer 

on canvas webbing that goes on the top of grain trucks, and they 

had a stamping machine in there that put a hole in the canvas 

webbing, obviously to tie the rope to put it over the grain truck. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

28 

They fined him—him, one person. I think the fine was $1,000. 

He came to the courthouse, and he was giving my predecessor a 

hard time, and he says I’ve got just the guy who will take care of 

it. Roberts, you go over there and take care of that. I go over and 

I look at this stamping machine, and the fine was because it endangered a person’s leg, the way it was constructed, and it was 

constructed so that a wounded veteran from Korea who had lost a 

leg could pull the stamping machine. Obviously, that was not explained to the OSHA inspector. 

Mr. Molstead, who ran that company 40-some years ago, never 

paid the fine. Multiply that by thousands in the entire business 

community. I don’t need to go down all of the regulatory agenda 

and the job losses and the red tape and the paperwork. What I 

want to know is can we get a cost/benefit yardstick that makes 

sense where you have the regulatory cost and obviously the regulatory benefit? 

You’re on the benefit side. The small business community is on 

the other side. I want to know what is your overall philosophy on 

regulation on behalf of an awful lot of people in Kansas who feel 

that they are being ruled and not governed. I can tell you if they’re 

in business in a small community on the town square and they’re 

not performing their job right and they’re discriminating against 

people and they’re just pretty much bad news and it’s a bad workplace, they’re out of business. That’s just the way it works. 

Can you give me your overall philosophy on regulation? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, briefly, because I noticed the clock, I’d 

make two points. No. 1, the President, through execution action, 

has ordered—and it is important that we eliminate regulations 

that are not serving a useful purpose, because they are impeding 

small business. Small business is what creates jobs in this country, 

7 out of 10 jobs by best estimates. If we’re going to create jobs, we 

need to free up small business. That would be my big-picture view 

on regulation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator Murphy. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURPHY

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, thank you for your willingness to serve. Good to see 

you again. 

Just a followup on Senator Warren’s line of questioning, a point 

of clarification. During this pending review in which you’ve been 

charged to look at all regulations, determine which ones are appropriate according to your standards and the President’s standards, 

you still have an obligation to enforce existing regulations. 

The silica rule, for instance, will be enforced by your department 

pending this review? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, we would enforce all rules that are in effect 

pending that review, yes. 

Senator MURPHY. Including the silica rule. 

Mr. ACOSTA. I believe—I’m hesitating only because of one item 

that I remember, to the extent it is in effect. I know it was promulgated. Assuming there is no stay, then yes. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

29 

Senator MURPHY. OK. Second, to followup on Senator Baldwin’s 

questioning regarding funding, I get a little worried when I hear 

you talk about accepting a lower level of funding for job training. 

The President’s budget has winners and losers. There’s a lot more 

money for defense. There’s money for a wall, and that comes at the 

expense of other programs. We would hope that you would be an 

advocate for the programs that the Department of Labor funds. 

In Connecticut, for example, the plus-up in defense dollars 

doesn’t do us the maximum amount of good without the Department of Labor dollars. We can build additional submarines at Electric Boat, but if we don’t have the workforce pipeline necessary to 

staff the supply chain, those jobs will go overseas. At the Eastern 

Connecticut Manufacturing Pipeline, it’s not about mismatched resources. It’s simply about not having enough resources. We have a 

92 percent placement rate in manufacturing jobs from the pipeline 

program. Three thousand people are trying to sign up, and they 

can only take a couple of hundred a year. The consequence of not 

fulfilling that need is that the jobs will just go to other countries 

because we can’t hire the folks here. 

Let me ask you Senator Baldwin’s question in a little different 

way. Do you support the 20 percent cut that’s been proposed to 

your department? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you for rephrasing, because I never 

said that I accepted when I was speaking, or I don’t recall saying 

I accepted when I was speaking with Senator Baldwin. I wrote myself a note when the budget, the skinny budget came out, and it 

was a quote from the OMB director. He said, to paraphrase, ‘‘we’ve 

got $20 trillion in debt.’’ It’s not enough that a program sounds 

good. A program has to be shown to be good. I wrote myself that 

note because, if confirmed as Secretary of Labor, one of the things 

that I want to do—and I forget which of your colleagues had great 

data, but I want to go through these programs and compile the 

data, because for a lot of these programs I believe the rate of return on investment of taxpayer dollars is quite significant and 

would pay for itself very readily in money saved and taxes paid by 

the fact that individuals have jobs. 

I readily embrace that as part of the job, and if confirmed, I’m 

certainly going to speak up and present all that information and 

advocate. 

Senator MURPHY. You’ll find an abundance of programs that are 

underfunded that will allow you to make that case. 

Last, I appreciate the number of times in which you’ve made references to the intersection between the Department of Education 

and the Department of Labor. The fact of the matter is, as Senator 

Alexander pointed out, most of the workforce training in this country is funded by the Department of Education. 

You and I had the chance to talk in my office about the migration of public dollars away from not-for-profit education to for-profit 

education and really the stunning lack of results we’re getting from 

for-profit job training programs. One-third of for-profit graduates 

are today making less than a minimum wage over the course of a 

year. Twelve percent of students are attending for-profit schools, 

but 36 percent of students who have loan defaults today come from 

those for-profit schools. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

30 

I know you’ve thought about this in the context of your work in 

graduate education in Florida. Shouldn’t there be a role for the 

Federal Government to ask more of all centers of job training, not 

just the ones you fund but of colleges as well, and demand results, 

results that we’re not getting today from a lot of these for-profit operations? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I have thought of it in the context of law. 

In law schools, the accrediting agencies are looking more for results. It’s less about the input and more about the output. What 

is the bar passage rate? What is the job rate? What you are seeing 

is that some of the for-profit law schools are facing challenges and 

have faced challenges with the Department of Education because 

they haven’t—because the results are not necessarily on par. 

To the extent that these are—well, I don’t want to go beyond— 

to the extent that these are Department of Labor programs, I certainly would want to see the results and the metrics to make sure 

that it is being done appropriately. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Murphy. 

Senator Enzi. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Acosta, for being willing to go through this process and serve. You have a tremendous amount of background. I 

have a number of areas that I’m interested in. The Senator from 

New Hampshire, of course, mentioned Job Corps, and she was the 

next-to-the-last State to finally have one Job Corps center. We were 

the last State to have one Job Corps center, and ours is in the middle of a reservation inhabited by two warring tribes, with high unemployment. They’re working together to get kids into this Job 

Corps, and it’s making a huge difference. They’re doing energy industry training, and that’s heavy equipment and mechanics and 

welding and other things that are tied to the economy, so their job 

placement is tremendous. I’m hoping that you’ll take a look at that. 

Another pet thing that she happened to mention was the OSHA 

inspectors. Something that we keep overlooking is the VPP program where we allow big companies to hire an inspector, a trained 

inspector to come in and look at their business, and if there’s anything the matter, they have to fix it immediately. If they do that, 

they continue to be a VPP company. There isn’t any provision for 

the small companies, though. I’ve suggested that the small companies ought to be able to hire an expert for their particular type of 

business. 

One of the high places for injuries is in the printing industry. If 

all the newspapers in Wyoming went together and hired somebody, 

they would really like to be able to have somebody come in and inspect their premises, and if there’s anything that’s found wrong 

they fix it right away, and then they still get to be a part of this 

program. I hope that you’ll take a look at that. 

She also mentioned the sub-minimum wage. Senator Harkin and 

I worked on that for years while I was the chairman of this committee. We knew that the purpose of that was to be able to get an 

evaluation for people that haven’t been evaluated so they could find 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

31 

their place in the workforce. It was not intended to be a lifetime 

sub-minimum wage. We tried to do some things to eliminate that 

possibility and get people who are trained into the workforce. 

Are there any of those three things that you’d like to comment 

on? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, thank you. I will gladly followup on the 

programs that you have mentioned. It’s important that we think 

outside the box and that we—on the private enforcement matter, 

I would just say I think there can be a role for that, but we need 

to ensure that it’s under appropriate guidelines. 

Senator ENZI. OK. Thank you. 

At the start of the Obama administration, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division ended the longstanding practice of 

providing opinion letters but answered questions about the specific 

applications of the labor laws. These letters were made public and 

they were a useful tool for employers and employees alike who 

were trying to understand the law. A typical administration issued 

dozens of these letters each year. The last administration, though, 

replaced opinion letters with administrator’s interpretations that 

only give broad opinions on a subject chosen by the agency, leaving 

many specific details unanswered. They only issued a total of seven 

interpretations during the entire Obama administration. Many employers and employees who were trying to comply with complex 

labor and hour laws and regulations and who want to be in compliance would like to see a return to the opinion letter system. 

Will you commit to restoring the most robust and interactive 

compliance assistance system so folks can spend less time trying to 

decipher the law and more time complying with the law and growing successful businesses and creating new jobs? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, there’s a value to opinion letters, and I 

think the value comes from the fact that they’re grounded in a specific set of facts and not in broad legal premises. I see no reason 

why I would not encourage opinion letters. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. One of the innovations we’re seeing 

right now is the on-demand economy, the Uber, the Lyft, the Air 

BNB and other services where users can connect to goods and services more directly through an app on their phone or through a Web 

site. 

What kind of information or data do we need to ensure that we 

properly understand that segment of the economy? Do you think 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics is able to capture that information? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I do not know if the Bureau of Labor Statistics is capturing that information. I think that’s a very important 

question and one that I will followup on if confirmed. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. I have some other questions. I’ll submit them. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Enzi. 

Senator Kaine. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, Dean Acosta. I appreciated our visit in your office and 

appreciate your public service. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

32 

The committee needs to ask about, and you’re entitled to respond 

to, an article that appeared in the Washington Post online version 

last night and this morning, and I’m just going to read the opening 

to it. I’m going to ask you some questions because you deserve an 

opportunity to address it. 

‘‘Labor nominee Acosta Cut Deal with Billionaire Guilty in Sex 

Abuse Case.’’ Just the first three paragraphs, and then I’ll introduce the article into the record. 

‘‘There was once a time before the investigations, before the 

sexual abuse conviction, when rich and famous men loved to 

hang around with Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire money manager who loved to party. They visited his mansion in Palm 

Beach, FL. They flew on his jet to join him at his private estate 

on the Caribbean island of Little St. James. They even joked 

about his taste in younger women. President Trump called Epstein a terrific guy back in 2000, saying that ‘he’s a lot of fun 

to be with. It’s even said that he likes beautiful women as 

much as I do, and many of them were on the younger side.’ ’’ 

‘‘Now Trump is on a witness list in a Florida court battle 

over how Federal prosecutors handled allegations that Epstein, 

64, sexually abused more than 40 minor girls, most of whom 

were between the ages of 13 and 17. The lawsuit questions 

why Trump’s nominee for Labor Secretary, former Miami U.S. 

attorney Alexander Acosta, whose confirmation hearing is 

scheduled to be on Wednesday, cut a non-prosecution deal with 

Epstein a decade ago rather than pursuing a Federal indictment that Acosta’s staff had advocated.’’ 

I’d like to introduce the article for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be introduced. 

[The information referred to may be found in Additional Material.] 

Senator KAINE. I’d like to ask you about this. First, a couple of 

questions. My understanding is that there is a pending civil lawsuit filed by a couple of the victims in that case seeking to argue 

that they should have been given notice prior to the plea deal being 

entered into. Is that your understanding as well? 

Mr. ACOSTA. My understanding is that there is a pending civil 

lawsuit. The Department of Justice has defended the actions of the 

office in that matter under both President Bush and President 

Obama’s administrations. 

Senator KAINE. The opening that I read suggests that you decided as U.S. attorney to cut a non-prosecution deal, that part of 

the decision was that that non-prosecution deal be held private, not 

appear in the public record, and there’s an allegation that I just 

read that you did not pursue a Federal indictment even though 

your staff had advocated that you do so. Is that accurate? 

Mr. ACOSTA. That is not accurate. Let me address that one of the 

difficulties with matters before the Department of Justice is that 

the Department of Justice does not litigate in the public record or 

in the media and litigates in court. Let me set forth some facts. 

This matter was originally a State case. It was presented by the 

State attorney to the grand jury in Palm Beach County. The grand 

jury in Palm Beach County recommended a single count of solicitaHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

33 

tion not involving minors, I believe, and that would have resulted 

in zero jail time, zero registration as a sexual offender, and zero 

restitution for the victims in this case. 

The matter was then presented to the U.S. attorney’s office. It 

is highly unusual, and as I was speaking to some of your colleagues 

that have been involved in prosecutions, they mentioned that they 

don’t know of any cases personally where a U.S. attorney becomes 

involved in a matter after it has already gone to a grand jury at 

the State level. 

In this case we deemed it necessary to become involved, and we 

early on had discussions within the office, and we decided that a 

sentence or—how shall I put this—that Mr. Epstein should plead 

guilty to 2 years, register as a sex offender, and concede liability 

so the victims could get restitution. If that were done, the Federal 

interest would be satisfied and we would defer to the State. That 

was very early on in the case. 

I say that because the article goes on to talk about a view that 

the U.S. attorney’s office was not aggressive in this matter. 

Senator KAINE. Can I read one other statement from the article, 

‘‘Federal prosecutors detailed their findings in an 82-page 

prosecution memo and a 53-page indictment, but Epstein was 

never indicted.’’ 

And then there’s a quote, ‘‘The agreement you described will not 

be made part of any public record, the deal between Epstein and 

Acosta says.’’ The document was unsealed as part of the civil suit 

in 2015. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m going to give you, Senator, time to ask your 

question and the nominee time to answer the question, even 

though it goes over the 5 minutes. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, again to address your question, I can’t discuss the details of the case, but let me take it generally. It is pretty 

typical in a prosecution for an indictment, a draft indictment, to be 

written. That doesn’t necessarily mean that that draft indictment 

is filed because that draft indictment does not consider often the 

strength of the underlying case. 

As part of any plea, it is not unusual to have an indictment that 

says these are all the places we can go, yet at the end of the day, 

based on the evidence, professionals within a prosecutor’s office decide that a plea that guarantees that someone goes to jail, that 

guarantees that someone register generally, and that guarantees 

other outcomes is a good thing. 

Senator KAINE. Was that a consensus decision in your office? 

Mr. ACOSTA. It was a broadly held decision, yes. 

Senator KAINE. I’m over my time, Mr. Chairman. I may come 

back to this in a second round. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Do you feel like you’ve had time to sufficiently answer? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Mr. Chairman, I think I have. 

The CHAIRMAN. We can come back to it if you’d like to. 

Senator Murkowski, thank you for waiting. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

34 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Acosta, for the time that you gave me in my office a week or so ago. 

The issue of Job Corps has been raised by a couple of my colleagues, and we had an opportunity also to speak about that, and 

I’ve indicated to you that I think the Job Corps that we have in 

Alaska has been successful. We have seen good support in that 

those who graduate are actually finding jobs in the area that 

they’re trained for. I noticed that the President’s skinny budget 

doesn’t really look as favorably on Job Corps as I might or as Senator Enzi might. 

I would ask you, you indicated that evaluating the Job Corps 

centers not by the percent of graduates but by the percent of students who get jobs for which they’re trained is something that you 

would be looking to, and I would again urge you in that vein as 

you’re looking at Job Corps and other job training. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Understood, Senator. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me bring up the issue of our fisheries 

and the seasonal employment aspect of it. As we have discussed, 

we have a limited labor pool in Alaska made more complicated and 

difficult because of the very compressed season in the summer 

where our fisheries are going full tilt, and a reality that for us to 

be able to meet the immediacy of the demand for that labor pool 

it’s been important to rely on these H2B visas. 

What we have seen, unfortunately, is that we’ve got a processing 

bottleneck that has been left unresolved. Our processors have been 

in a situation where they’re not able to buy fish from the fishermen. That ripple-back effect is really very, very detrimental to our 

seafood industry. 

Current H2B regulations State employers cannot submit applications for H2Bs prior to 90 days before the first date of employment. 

Then the number of workers that have requested each application 

are counted against that cap. What we see is, because Alaska’s 

fishing season is later, that cap is used up by the time our employers and those in the industry are requesting their H2B visas. Add 

that to the slow processing times and it has really been complicated and very, very difficult. 

I would just urge you, as you review the situation with the H2B 

visas, I would urge that you seek permanent solutions to this. We 

recognize that there are perhaps some administrative remedies 

that could be made immediately that could help States like Alaska 

and others that face this same seasonal aspect to our labor force 

but later in the season. I would just ask this morning if you will 

commit to review the way that these semi-annual caps are structured that really leave Alaska’s fish processors at a clear disadvantage simply due to the timing of their season. Whether it’s quarterly caps rather than halves, maybe that is the fix, but I would 

ask that you not only look at that but also commit to working with 

me to ensure that we have more timely processing of these H2B applications. 

We also had an opportunity to discuss the unused worker applications and the prospect of being able to return those to the availHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

35 

able pool. Whether or not there’s an audit of that to determine how 

much is out there, again a commitment that you will be working 

with us, because we’ve got a situation where if we can’t get the 

workers, the fishermen can’t fish, the tender stock tendering, the 

dollars that pass over at the fuel dock stops, the welding shops 

aren’t working, the grocery stores aren’t working, the gear stores 

aren’t working. Everything shuts down in a very small economy. 

Can you speak to where we are with your view on these visas? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I am happy to commit to work with you on 

all the issues you raised. I have a concern, which is what you articulated, because your local economy in Alaska is dependent on 

these workers, and if you’re out of cycle, that is not the fault—that 

is not your fault. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. ACOSTA. You have my commitment to look and understand 

why this hasn’t been adjusted and if possible to find an appropriate 

solution. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I thank you for that. I would also urge that 

this be placed as a very high and an immediate priority—— 

Mr. ACOSTA. Absolutely. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Because of the timing that we 

are up against currently. 

Mr. ACOSTA. I fully understand, and I’m glad to do that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Franken. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANKEN

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, thank you for coming to my office for a visit. We 

talked a lot about workforce training, which I plan to get to in a 

moment. But now I want to talk about pensions. 

If you’re confirmed, you’ll be the leading Federal official charged 

with protecting the pensions of more than 10 million Americans. 

Among those are 400,000 Central States members across the country, including 20,000 in Minnesota. The pension fund faces insolvency and could run out of money in less than a decade. 

Last December I spoke with over 300 retirees in Minnesota. 

These are middle-class workers, warehouse workers, truck drivers 

and other demanding blue-collar jobs. They are very worried about 

what will happen if Central States goes insolvent and their pensions are slashed. Many of them are disabled or too elderly to return to work. If this looming crisis isn’t addressed, these workers 

could lose their homes, their ability to pay for prescription drugs, 

and the ability to put food on the table. 

If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, you’ll be the chair of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which ensures pension funds 

like Central States. Based on current projections, PBGC Multiemployer Fund may actually run out of money before the Central 

States plan runs out of money. That’s two major insolvencies totaling nearly $60 billion. If you’re confirmed, that means one of the 

largest pension crises in American history could land on your desk. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

36 

Yes or no, have you or the Trump administration proposed a plan 

to make the PBGC’s Multiemployer Pension Insurance Fund solvent? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I have not proposed a plan. I have not seen a plan 

that’s been proposed that has worked in the past decade. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. What about a plan to help the Central 

States fund? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Again, Senator, I have not proposed a plan. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. How about this? Yes or no, will you commit to ensuring that no one will have their pension benefits cut 

from what they’re receiving right now? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, this is an issue that this Congress has 

been working on for years, that the prior administration tried to 

address and had difficulty addressing. I wish I could commit to 

that. That has a $60 billion price tag, as you mentioned, and if you 

expand it further to include city and State pension funds, you’re 

talking about an approximately $2 trillion price tag. 

This is a fundamental issue that we’ve got to think about, and 

it’s not just the executive branch but the executive branch working 

with Congress, because these workers worked, they have expectations. I fully understand that. I get it. I also understand that this 

is an issue that has not yet been solved, and if I could come up 

with a solution right on the spot, I wish I could. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. During his campaign, President 

Trump said that he would help working Americans. We have a situation where hundreds of thousands of these workers or retirees 

may lose their pensions. There are a number of ways this could be 

paid for and we could fulfill the promise that was made to these 

workers. We should raise the funds needed to support these workers by closing the carried interest loophole that benefits Wall 

Street and private equity managers. By closing this loophole, which 

even President Trump wants to get rid of, we would raise more 

than enough money to fix the Central States fund, and I just would 

urge that. 

I’ll move on to workforce development. Last Friday during a 

press conference with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, the 

President said, 

‘‘Germany has done an incredible job training the employees 

and future employees and employing its manufacturing and industrial workforce. It’s crucial that we provide our American 

workers with a really great employment outlook.’’ 

In this case, I completely agree with the President. 

I see I’m getting down to my time, so let’s just kind of review 

what we talked about. Will you, if you’re confirmed, work with me 

on making sure that we follow some of Germany’s and Switzerland’s models and that we do focus—and we talked about some of 

the funding cuts. Will you work with me to make sure that we 

have a robust plan to train our workers for the jobs of the present 

and the future? 

Mr. ACOSTA. We discussed it during our meeting, and I will recommit to working with you on that, yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

37 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. We’ll have time for 

a second round if you want to follow that up. 

Senator Paul. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL

Senator PAUL. Congratulations, Mr. Acosta, on your nomination. 

As you know, we’re in a big, huge national debate over what to do 

with healthcare, how to fix healthcare, and there is an aspect of it 

that may cross your desk and that you can actually participate in. 

The Chairman and others have mentioned how really the biggest 

problem we have is in the individual market. It’s about 11 million 

people, maybe another 10 or 20 million people who don’t have insurance that might get individual market. The problem with the 

individual market is it’s a crummy place to be. You’re kind of by 

yourself hanging out there. If you get sick, you’re worried about 

your prices rising, et cetera. It’s better to be in a group plan. 

If you had your choice to be in the individual market or be in 

a group plan, you’d rather be in a group plan, which gets to the 

Department of Labor. The Department of Labor gets to approve— 

let’s see if I can quote it here—whether an association, a health association, ARISA group plans, qualify as a health plan under single 

large cap. The definition is they have to be bound together by a 

commonality of interest. 

I would think that gives a significant degree of latitude. I’m not 

a lawyer and I haven’t read the whole statute, but my 

encouragment is to get really involved with this because imagine 

this: Imagine that the AARP, which has over 30 million members, 

what if they formed a health association and they had one person 

negotiating with the insurance company? All of a sudden, it’s 33 

million people negotiating instead of you and your wife. This could 

really change the whole insurance market. It might be changed 

simply by having someone at the Department of Labor say that everybody in the AARP has a commonality of interest. 

This is one of those things where the law may not even need to 

be changed but we could expand health associations simply by having someone there who says, ‘‘gosh, what a great idea this would 

be.’’ I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I don’t expect you 

to have a full-blown answer on this, but I would love it if you 

would assign someone to look into it and that really within a 

month of being approved I hope somebody can come back to us and 

talk to my office and anybody else interested about how we can expand these health associations and maybe announce it so everybody knows there are State associations. 

Many of them—like I was at the Chamber recently, and they 

have 2,000 members. I’d like to see all of the Chambers in the 

whole country get one buying representative, and then you have 

this enormous leverage. It’s a whole game-changer in the marketplace, and there’s no mandate, there’s no law, there’s no subsidy, 

there’s nothing other than enabling people to organize, similar to 

the prospect of what labor did. When labor wanted to organize to 

have leverage against management, they organized. Consumers 

ought to be able to organize, and anything we can do or you can 

do to help that, I would appreciate it. If you’d like to make a comment, that would be great too. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

38 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, let me just agree to, commit to that. The 

timeline of 30 days is very reasonable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Paul. 

We have time for additional questions if you’d like to. Senator 

Enzi, do you have any additional questions? 

Senator ENZI. I don’t. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. I do. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Acosta, thank you. Women in this country earn about 80 

cents on the dollar of what men earn, resulting in a gap of nearly 

$10,470 each year. This is true actually across professions, ages, 

and education levels, and the gap in pay is far worse for women 

of color. The marketplace alone will not fix this problem. 

Do you believe there is a pay gap? If so, do you agree that it 

hurts women and families? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I have seen data that reflects the statement that you made, and to the extent that that pay gap is there, 

it shouldn’t be. 

Senator MURRAY. What steps, if you’re confirmed, will you take 

as Labor Secretary to address that pay discrimination? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, certainly gender discrimination, which includes pay discrimination, should not occur. I know that there is 

a Women’s Bureau within the Department of Labor, and I certainly 

would as a first instance consult them and charge them with looking at this issue. 

Senator MURRAY. Will you commit to maintaining the budget for 

that Women’s Bureau? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, ultimately I make recommendations as to 

the budget. The recommendations go to OMB. Ultimately they are 

issued by the President and decided by this Congress. I cannot 

make a commitment as to what the budget may or may not look 

like at the end of the day. I can only talk for my own views and 

recommendations. 

Senator MURRAY. Do you think it should be a priority? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I certainly do think it’s important to have an office—— 

Senator MURRAY. As Secretary, will you fight for keeping that, 

or—— 

Mr. ACOSTA. It’s important to have an office within the Department of Labor that focuses on women’s issues. I know that there 

is a lot of focus on women entrepreneurship as well that’s very important, and I am happy to look at that closely and try to make 

sure that that is available. 

Senator MURRAY. Will that be a priority for you? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I can certainly say—I hesitate with the 

word ‘‘priority’’ because if everything becomes a priority, then 

things are no longer priorities. I can certainly say it is a priority. 

We talk about small businesses, and women running small businesses is a great thing, and that’s something the Department of 

Labor should focus on and encourage. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Certainly I can say that that would be a priority. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

39 

Senator MURRAY. I appreciate that. I worry because your answer 

was you look at it, you make recommendations, then OMB, all this. 

Either you as Secretary say this is a priority for me or not. 

Mr. ACOSTA. I’m happy to say it’s a priority. I believe in a unitary executive, and so I don’t think any Cabinet secretary can 

make commitments because ultimately we have a boss. 

Senator MURRAY. That’s what worries me. I would just say that 

you answered that by saying you would go to the Women’s Bureau 

to give your advice on this. If it’s not there, that’s going to be a 

problem. 

Let me go to another question. It’s one about an issue that happened in 2004, and I want to go back and have you have a chance 

to answer this, because just days before the presidential election 

back in 2004 you made a controversial decision to weigh in on an 

Ohio case about voting rights and access. That was a departure 

from standard practice of the Department of Justice so close to an 

election, and you wrote to an Ohio judge saying that laws like 

Ohio’s, which allowed one voter to challenge another, helped election officials enforce the law. 

At the time you sent the letter that the Ohio Republican Party 

had announced plans to use the law to place 3,500 challengers in 

polling places around the State on election day. Experts testified a 

disproportionate number of challengers were to be placed in predominantly African American precincts. You wrote the letter even 

though the Justice Department had no role in this case. The Justice Department was not a party to the case, and it had not filed 

a motion to intervene. 

Mr. Acosta, you involved the Department of Justice in a case in 

which it had no role days before an election and with full knowledge that the law was going to be used to mount challenges in 

ways that suppressed the vote of African Americans in the State 

where the electoral outcome determined the outcome of the election. I wanted to ask you if you regret the decision to send that letter in 2004. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Acosta, the time is up, but you may take 

whatever time you need to answer the question. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, let me first start by—sorry, I should have 

brought glasses. There is a sentence that is very important from 

that letter, and you paraphrased it. 

‘‘Thus, a challenged statute permitting objections based on 

United States citizenship, residency, precinct residency, and 

legal voting age, like those at issue here, are not subject to facial as opposed to as-applied challenges under the Act because 

these qualifications are not tied to race.’’ 

I would say, first, we provided amicus information in part because the Ohio statute, as I recall, did not have a provisional voting requirement, and early on in the letter we say that if you’re 

going to have a challenge statute, you need to have a provisional 

voting requirement under HAVA, which was enacted by this Congress. It was the first major election where HAVA came into play. 

Second, I read that sentence because that sentence was put there 

with intentionality, and it was put there to make clear that we 

were not weighing in on how this was being applied in Ohio. We 

were not taking a position on what was being done in Ohio specifiHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

40 

cally. It was on its face these are permitted, but we are not taking 

a position as applied. We did not take a position as to how this was 

being applied in Ohio. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. That was a very legal answer to a question. In your own words, do you regret sending that letter? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, as an attorney for the Department of Justice, sometimes you have to do things that are unpopular but are 

legally correct. The letter is legally correct. I wish the letter was 

not interpreted the way it’s interpreted, but the letter is legally 

and substantively correct, and sometimes lawyers have to do what 

is legally correct. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. I’m way over my time, but let me just finish by saying as Secretary of Labor, I want to know if you will— 

and you don’t have to answer it, it’s just a concern I have—bow to 

political pressure, which I have seen under this Trump administration a tremendous amount of political pressure, and you’ll have to 

stand up for workers, and that’s why I raise this issue and others, 

because that will be your job. 

Mr. ACOSTA. May I answer, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I’ve heard that, and I’ve heard that concern a lot, and let me say this. I’m a lawyer. I’ve been a prosecutor. 

I have prosecuted UBS, the international bank, and as a result of 

that prosecution they changed Swiss law. I prosecuted major drug 

cartels for 200,000 kilos, the heads of the Cali drug cartel for 

200,000 kilos of cocaine. I have been in public service the better 

part of my professional career, and I’ve seen pressure, and I don’t 

for a second believe that senior officials would or should bow to inappropriate pressure. 

We work for the President. He is our boss. All Cabinet officials, 

as I believe—in preparation for this hearing I watched Secretary 

Chao’s hearing, and she made the point that we all work for the 

President and we all will ultimately follow his direction unless we 

feel that we can’t, and if we can’t, then we resign, and that’s our 

choice. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

Senator Enzi. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t have any questions but Senator Murray stepped on a nerve that I’m very sensitive to, and that’s the disparity in women’s pay. 

I’m interested in the disparity of anybody’s pay and know that 

there’s a Federal law that says if you’re doing the same job in the 

same company, you’re supposed to be getting the same pay. As I 

travel around Wyoming, I explain to people that if they’re not in 

those circumstances getting paid the same amount, let me know 

and I will help them take it to court. 

On the other hand, if I have a female engineer working for a coal 

company making a lot of money, and the guy that runs the meal 

room makes a lot less money, he doesn’t have a case. That’s a different job. What we’ve got to do is get people moving up the ladder 

to where they’re getting paid what they ought to be getting paid. 

In this hearing room, one of my favorite hearings was a young 

lady that wanted to try something non-traditional, and she became 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

41 

a brick mason. When they started as a brick mason she got to do 

pavers out on yards and in courtyards and things like that. After 

she’d done that for a while, she got to build some of the fountains 

in New York City, and she was so prolific at it that she got to hang 

the marble on the outside of skyscrapers. 

I asked her what her job progression had been through these different things, and I can tell you that hanging marble on multiple 

stories pays a lot better than a U.S. Senator. That’s what we want 

to have for people. 

In Wyoming, we have something called Climb Wyoming, and it’s 

for single moms who want to get into a non-typical job. In Gillette, 

my hometown, the jobs that they’re trained for is a warehouse supervisor or a truck driver. They’re amazing people that pick up 

these skills, and they make more money than some of the men in 

our community. I got to speak at one of the graduations. It was for 

the truck drivers, and I was amazed at how much they can make 

even if because of the family they can only work around town. I 

think they started at $18 an hour just around town. If they were 

able to make day trips out and back and still comply with the 

needs of their family, it went to $25. If they were willing to take 

long-distance trips, it really went up. 

When I was at the graduation for them I said, ‘‘you can do something that I can’t do.’’ They said, ‘‘what?’’ I said, ‘‘back up a semitrailer.’’ That’s one of the requirements for it, and they can do that. 

Women have more concentration than men do. They have more 

multi-tasking skills than men do. Consequently we ought to be encouraging them into the markets where they make more than the 

men do, and that’s one of the things that I think if you can encourage through Job Corps and the other training sessions, I hope 

you’ll do that, and I’m asking you if you will. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Fair enough, Senator. Yes. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Enzi. 

We’ll go to Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dean, I would like to close the loop on the previous discussion. 

I have a question about the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

I asked you whether the agreement not to prosecute federally in 

exchange for an agreement on other matters was something that 

was a consensus within your office, and I think your testimony was 

that it was the generally held position of your office. I’ve not been 

a prosecutor, although I’ve practiced law. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was broadly held—— 

Senator KAINE. Yes, broadly held position of the office. Thank 

you. 

I want to just read this. 

‘‘In 2007, Acosta signed a non-prosecution deal in which he 

agreed not to pursue Federal charges against Epstein or for 

women who the government said procured girls for him. In exchange, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to a solicitation charge 

in State court, accept a 13-month sentence, register as a sex 

offender, and pay restitution to the victims identified in the 

Federal investigations. This agreement will not be made part 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

42 

of any public record’’—the deal between Epstein and Acosta 

says. 

What is the reason why a deal of this kind has the specification 

that it will not be made part of any public record? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I wish I could respond to that. You’re asking for—I hesitate not because of concerns but because this is a 

matter that’s pending litigation. Let me try to answer your question—— 

Senator KAINE. Then maybe you can answer it generally. I understand. 

Mr. ACOSTA [continuing]. In a different way. There are times 

when in negotiating an outcome, there are agreements that are 

made that are ancillary. What we sought and what we presented 

at the very beginning was 2-years plus registration, plus individuals being able, victims being able to—— 

Senator KAINE. Seek restitution. 

Mr. ACOSTA [continuing]. Seek restitution. What was obtained 

was 18 months plus registration, plus individuals being able to—— 

Senator KAINE. This says 13 months. 

Mr. ACOSTA. The agreement called for 18 months. As it was applied by the State of Florida, it ended up being 13 months, which 

is a separate issue. 

Ultimately, there are other provisions that are part of that, and 

that is part of the give and take of a negotiation. 

Senator KAINE. I understand your concern since the matter is 

still pending, but as a general matter, if something is allowed to 

be part of the public record, then more people become aware of it. 

In this case there were allegations that, I guess eventually, somewhat more than three dozen women had been victimized by the individual. If something is allowed to be public, it informs the public 

and provides opportunities for people to come forward. If something 

is prohibited from being part of any public record, it has a way of 

making it more difficult for people to bring forward claims. Isn’t 

that accurate? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, something that I think has changed over 

time is trust of government, and that’s relevant to the issue that 

you raised because there was a time when keeping something— 

when having something confidential was less of an issue. The public expectation today is that things be very public. If there is something that I have learned or thought about it’s how careful someone 

should be when something is not made public, because often a very 

positive outcome—again, not talking about this case but generally—a very positive outcome can become a negative outcome not 

because of a change in the underlying substance but because by 

something not looking public it is looked at with suspicion. 

Senator KAINE. This is a question. The U.S. attorney position is 

a position of great power, and you’re dealing with a lot of people 

who are in very vulnerable positions. The Secretary of Labor position is a position of great power, and you’ll also be responsible for 

situations when there are a lot of vulnerable people. This is why 

I’ve been asking this question. Let me ask one other one. 

During the campaign, President Trump often ridiculed the BLS 

unemployment numbers, calling them ‘‘phony’’ or ‘‘a hoax.’’ Will you 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

43 

commit to keeping the Bureau of Labor Statistics independent and 

maintain and defend the integrity of its conclusions and data? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I’ll answer your question, but if I could circle back, I just want to make one final point. 

Senator KAINE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. ACOSTA. At the end of this case, I received a telephone call 

from the special agent in charge of the FBI who had been part of 

this entire process and had been at the meetings and had been involved, and he called to just say congratulations, this was really 

hard fought and well won. I say that because this truly was a point 

of pride. 

There was a New York Times article that was written concurrent 

to this that said, ‘‘But then the United States Attorney’s Office in 

Miami became involved.’’ Initially, the Epstein team was elated Mr. 

Epstein would avoid prison. Then the U.S. Office became involved, 

and last summer Mr. Epstein got an ultimatum, ‘‘plead guilty to a 

charge that would require to register him as a sex offender, or the 

government would charge him with sexual tourism.’’ 

Senator KAINE. Since you’ve added on, then I want to add on. 

You are aware that Mr. Epstein served that 13 months, he was allowed out during the day. He had to sleep at a county jail, but he 

was basically allowed to move and go around the community and 

do whatever he wants, and then that became a subject of significant criticism. 

Mr. ACOSTA. I am on record condemning that, and I think that 

was awful. 

Senator KAINE. You would say that was a problem with the way 

the State administered the State sentence. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, and I think it was wrong. 

Senator KAINE. OK. How about on the Bureau of Labor Statistics? 

Mr. ACOSTA. On the Bureau of Labor Statistics, briefly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has kept statistics for decades, and it has 

a procedure. It’s a transparent procedure that makes clear how 

they calculate, that publishes for public comment any changes that 

may take place, and that procedure is very important because BLS 

keeps data that is used not just for today but for the future, and 

that process is very important. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Kaine. 

Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, so far you’ve refused to answer my questions, hiding 

behind an Executive order that President Trump issued asking 

agency heads to review pending regulations. I’m not asking you 

how you will respond to President Trump’s Executive order. I’m 

asking you about what your priorities will be if you’re confirmed as 

Secretary of Labor. You’ll be called on for your judgment, and hardworking Americans want to know what your values are, what it is 

that you prioritize. 

So far, you’ve said you can’t commit to enforcing a rule to protect 

2.3 million Americans from exposure to lethal, cancer-causing silica, and you won’t commit to appeal an injunction to the Labor DeHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

44 

partment’s overtime rule that would give 4.2 million Americans a 

$1.5 billion raise in a single year. 

Let me try a third one. Let’s see if you’ll protect workers saving 

for their retirements from financial advisors who would cheat 

them. On April 10, a Labor Department rule is set to go into effect 

that would require advisors to recommend retirement products that 

are in the customer’s best interest instead of products that give advisors the highest commissions or the fanciest prizes. Those conflicts of interest now cost Americans $17 billion every 

year. President Trump has said he is currently working on a 60- 

day delay of the April 10 implementation date. 

My question is, if you are confirmed before this delay is finalized, 

will you promise to stop it? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, there is an executive action that addresses 

with specificity the fiduciary rule, and it has asked the Department 

of Labor to look at the rule and to assess specific questions. Will 

the rule reduce the investment options available to investors I believe was one of them. Will the rule increase litigation? Will the 

rule financially impact retiree investors? The executive action, as 

I recall, directs the Secretary of Labor and the Department of 

Labor to repeal or revise the fiduciary rule if any of the criteria 

laid out in that Executive order is found. That criteria really regulates and determines the Department of Labor’s approach to the fiduciary rule. 

Senator WARREN. That’s the question I’m asking you. We know, 

for example, that a 60-day delay is estimated to cost Americans 

about $3.7 billion that they’re just going to get cheated out of by 

unscrupulous retirement counselors, and that’s money they’ll never 

get back. That is gone to them. 

That’s the question I’m trying to ask, about where your values 

lie, how you see what this retirement rule does, how committed you 

are to protecting the American investor here, and retirees, so they 

have a chance to retire with some dignity. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I don’t have access to the specific numbers 

that you have, but if the question is, do I think it’s important to 

protect the American retiree?, absolutely. I understand that, particularly with the demographic changes that we’re seeing, retirees 

are shifting from 401(k)’s to IRAs, and that the protections under 

IRAs—— 

Senator WARREN. Sir, let me stop you there. You say you think 

it’s important to protect—because the Chairman rightly will catch 

me for being over time. You think it’s important to protect retirees. 

It’s important to protect retirees. We’ve got a rule here that will 

protect retirees, documented, to the terms of $17 billion a year. I 

just want to know generally, do you support this rule? Do you 

think this rule is a good idea? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, with respect, the rule goes far beyond simply addressing the standard of conduct that investment—— 

Senator WARREN. How does it go beyond addressing the standard 

of conduct of investment advisors? I’ve read this rule. This is about 

the standard of conduct, and it says the standard of conduct is an 

investment advisor can no longer recommend products that are 

going to earn a whole lot more money for the investment advisor 

at the cost of giving a worse product to the person, the retiree, the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

45 

investor. That’s all it’s about. That is what it’s about, is that conduct. 

That’s the question I’m asking. On behalf of millions of retirees 

around this country, do you support this rule? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, with respect, there is an executive action 

that directs how the Department of Labor will approach this rule. 

If I’m confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I believe and support my 

following Executive orders of the President, who would be my boss. 

Senator WARREN. I have to say, Mr. Acosta, this has really been 

frustrating. You have dodged every one of my questions. None of 

these were trick questions. I asked you exactly these questions 

when you were in my office 2 weeks ago, and you said in all three 

cases not that you would hide behind an Executive order from 

Trump; you said you would get me answers to these. 

I understand that you may not want to answer my questions, but 

there are about 150 million American workers who are pretty interested in the answers to these questions. These are questions that 

determine whether or not they can go to work every day without 

worrying about getting lung cancer at their workplace, whether 

they’re going to be paid fairly for their work so they’ll have enough 

money to put food on the table and send their kids to college, and 

whether after a lifetime of back-breaking work they’re going to 

have a chance to retire with some dignity. 

If you can’t give me straight answers on your views on this, not 

hide behind an Executive order but your views on this and commit 

to stand up for workers on these obvious and very important 

issues, then I don’t have any confidence you’re the right person for 

this job. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Acosta, we’ll go to Senator Murray, but I 

wouldn’t have any confidence in you for the job if you did answer 

the question that way, because I have a completely different view 

than Senator Warren does. The fiduciary rule deprives millions of 

Americans of an opportunity for advice. We have a different point 

of view, and I’ll ask you this question: Have you been asked, have 

you been directed by the President, should you be confirmed, to review regulations once you’re Secretary of Labor? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I have been directed pursuant to the executive action. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you the Secretary of Labor yet? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I am not, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. Would it be presumptuous of you to announce—I wonder how many regulations you may be reviewing as 

a result of that direction. Do you have any idea? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I do not because I haven’t spoken to individuals at the Department of Labor about that issue because I’m 

not yet confirmed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Under the fiduciary rule you’ve got specific directions about how to conduct the review should you be confirmed. 

Mr. ACOSTA. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you are confirmed, you will conduct the review 

according to the directions of the President of the United States, 

and then you’ll try to deliver a fair opinion. Is that correct? 

Mr. ACOSTA. That is correct. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

46 

The CHAIRMAN. I might not like it, and the Senator from Massachusetts may not like it. I hope she doesn’t like it because I hope 

you come down on the side that I am. It’s thoroughly reasonable 

for you to review a regulation according to the President of the 

United States’ direction after you’re Secretary of Labor. That’s my 

own opinion. 

Senator Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it’s critical 

that workers have a true advocate in the Department of Labor, a 

Secretary of Labor. I have some questions and I know some of my 

other colleagues do as well. I hope we get clear, thorough responses 

on that. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask unanimous consent to enter 15 

letters from 105 organizations expressing concerns with Mr. 

Acosta’s nomination to lead the Department of Labor into the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. They will be included. 

[The information referred to may be found in Additional Material.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask consent to introduce 19 letters of support—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MURRAY. Does that mean I trumped you? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Nineteen letters of support representing 85 

groups, business groups, including some labor unions, in support of 

your nomination. 

[The information referred to may be found in Additional Material.] 

We’ve had a good, thorough opportunity to ask questions. Are 

there further questions? Senator Kaine? Senator Warren? Senator 

Murray? 

[No response.] 

I have one question, then we’ll conclude the hearing. Thank you 

for being here. 

I talked at the very beginning about Tom Friedman’s book, which 

I found really very good in trying to capture a lot of the conditions 

that probably surrounded the last election, which is the head-spinning acceleration of so many different forces, especially causing 

American workers to not be able to fit into the workplace. 

One area where American workers are still able to fit into the 

workplace is our franchisees. There are hundreds of thousands. The 

number is about 700,000 Americans who have franchises. In other 

words, they have an opportunity, typically in their hometown, to 

take a restaurant franchise or some other franchise, and typically 

work 12 hours a day for many years, and often it’s a family working that long for many years, and it’s a way that you can still live 

in your own community and work in your own community and be 

reasonably independent and move your way into the middle class. 

In my way of thinking, the prior administration’s Joint Employer 

definition that was first established by the National Labor Relations Board begins to up-end the whole concept of franchising and 

to threaten it, making it more likely that a large company would 

decide not to have franchises but to just own all the stores itself. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

47 

A restaurant company that had 800 restaurants, for example, instead of having 700 franchises might just say, under the broad 

Joint Employer definition that’s in the NLRB and that seems to be 

spreading in the Department of Labor, it makes more sense for the 

parent company to own it, depriving hundreds of thousands of 

Americans to be a franchise owner. 

Let me ask you these questions. In order to be treated as the employer of an employee, shouldn’t the business person have direct 

and immediate control over an employee? 

Mr. ACOSTA. That is one of the traditional criteria, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that indirect control or even 

unexercised potential to control working conditions could make a 

franchisor and a franchisee joint employers? 

Mr. ACOSTA. That would be an untraditional approach. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the person who hires, fires, 

pays, sets work hours, and issues directions to employees should be 

considered the employer? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I’m sorry, that hires, fires—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Hires, fires, pays, sets work hours, and issues directions—— 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes. That is—— 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. To employees should be considered 

the employer? 

Mr. ACOSTA. That is the usual approach, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Acosta, for your patience and for 

your answers and for your willingness to subject yourself to a confirmation session. All in all, it went very well. Part of the reason 

may be your experience, the fact that you’ve been before the U.S. 

Senate three times, nominated by the President of the United 

States, and you’ve been confirmed by the Senate. I have no doubt 

that you will be this time. I look forward to working with you as 

the Secretary of America’s workforce at a time when many Americans are trying to find a way to fit into work, and hopefully working together with Congress we can make that easier. 

This committee has a broad array of views, but many times in 

the past, very important times, we’ve been able to take our differences of opinion and come to a consensus such as our law to fix 

No Child Left Behind, which President Obama called a Christmas 

miracle, and our 21st Century CURES Act was passed last year, 

which Senator McConnell called the most important bill of the last 

Congress. 

Maybe some of the most important work we can do during the 

next couple of years would have to do with helping the American 

workforce adjust to the head-spinning conditions in which we all 

find ourselves and fit more easily into the workplace. I know that’s 

a concern of the Senator from Virginia. He’s talked to me many 

times about that. Both of us used to be Governors. We understand 

that most of that work, much of that work has to be done, as you 

said in your response to the Senator from Maine, we have to understand what it’s like in Culpepper and Nashville before we issue orders from here. Nevertheless, we can have a national interest in it. 

If the Senators wish to ask additional questions of our nominee, 

questions for the record are due by the close of business tomorrow, 

March 23. For all other matters, the hearing record will remain 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

48 

open for 10 days. Members may submit additional information for 

the record within that time. 

Thank you very much for being here today. 

The committee will stand adjourned. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Thank you for the courtesy. 

[Additional Material follows.] 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

49 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

POSITION STATEMENT BY WORKPLACE FAIRNESS—SHARON RUSZ, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR AND PAULA BRANTNER, SENIOR ADVISOR

As the Senate HELP Committee prepares for the confirmation hearing of Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor, Workplace Fairness weighs in on what he must 

prioritize to be a suitable selection for the post. 

There are three points of particular interest to Workplace Fairness and the working people that we serve. 

• A Labor Secretary must guard against politicized hiring in the Labor Department. 

• A Labor Secretary must aggressively pursue investigation, litigation, and enforcement against employers who violate workers’ rights. 

• A Labor Secretary must commit to providing comprehensive, up to date, easy 

to understand information to the public about workers’ rights in the workplace and 

procedures for pursuing remedies. 

While Mr. Acosta’s positions in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ and NLRB called 

for him to recognize and protect the rights of minorities and other under-served 

communities, his involvement politicized hiring at DOJ, and his lack of any real 

record on workers’ rights issues are concerning. 

In light of these things, and the many questionable appointments already being 

made by the Trump administration, Mr. Acosta must assure us that the Department 

will engage in nonpartisan hiring in order to most effectively pursue its mission. Mr. 

Acosta must further provide assurances that he will act to protect and advance the 

rights of workers by aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against employers 

who take advantage of workers, especially those who are most vulnerable. Immigrants and members of the LGBT community, for example, are already seeing 

frightening signs of animosity from the Trump administration that have had a 

chilling effect on the likelihood that these workers will speak up and pursue justice 

when their employers violate their rights. The Labor Secretary must be sensitive 

to these concerns and take steps to address them, lest employers be allowed to run 

roughshod over the most underserved people in the workforce. 

The Department of Labor’s mission is to promote worker welfare and assure workers’ benefits and rights. In order to effectively protect workers and their rights, the 

Secretary of Labor must also place a high level of importance on continuing to provide workers with comprehensive, accessible information about their rights in the 

workplace, and transparency about the aims and goals of the Department going forward. It is key to the Department’s mission that workers know their rights, and 

more importantly, know what steps to take to make a complaint when their rights 

are violated. Under a new presidential administration, workers and workers’ advocates must be kept apprised of rules changes, and changes in guidance and enforcement actions. But just as importantly, the Department must continue to provide information about all of the established laws and regulations that it enforces. 

With the recent spate of agencies removing large sections of content from their 

websites, workers and their advocates are concerned. Removing vital legal and procedural information from the Department’s website would have a detrimental effect 

on the enforcement of the laws that protect workers because they may not understand their rights, or know how to seek remedies for employer violations. We must 

be assured that as Secretary of Labor, Mr. Acosta would recognize the need to keep 

the people he is charged with protecting informed about their rights, their employers’ obligations, and how they can go about making complaints. 

ABOUT WORKPLACE FAIRNESS

Workplace Fairness is a nonprofit organization that provides information, education and assistance to individual workers and their advocates nationwide and promotes public policies that advance employee rights. 

Our goals are that workers and their advocates are educated about workplace 

rights and options for resolving workplace problems and those policymakers, members of the business community and the public at large view the fair treatment of 

workers as both good business practice and sound public policy. 

Workplace Fairness works toward these goals by: 

• Making comprehensive information about workers’ rights—free of legal jargon— 

readily available to workers and to advocates and organizations that assist workers; 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

50 

1 Read the non-prosecution deal Acosta made with Epstein. 

• Providing resources to support the work of legal services organizations, community-based organizations, law schools and private attorneys that provide free legal 

information and services to low-income workers; and • Presenting the employee perspective in publications, policy debates & public 

discussion. 

The award-winning workplace fairness website, www.workplacefairness.org, has 

newly updated information throughout the site, as part of the web’s most comprehensive resource educating workers about their legal rights in the workplace. 

[The Washington Post, March 21, 2017] 

LABOR NOMINEE ACOSTA CUT DEAL WITH BILLIONAIRE GUILTY IN SEX ABUSE CASE

(By Marc Fisher) 

There was once a time—before the investigations, before the sexual abuse conviction—when rich and famous men loved to hang around with Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire money manager who loved to party. 

They visited his mansion in Palm Beach, FL. They flew on his jet to join him at 

his private estate on the Caribbean island of Little Saint James. They even joked 

about his taste in younger women. 

President Trump called Epstein a ‘‘terrific guy’’ back in 2002, saying that, ‘‘He’s 

a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as 

I do, and many of them are on the younger side.’’ 

Now, Trump is on the witness list in a Florida court battle over how Federal prosecutors handled allegations that Epstein, 64, sexually abused more than 40 minor 

girls, most of them between the ages of 13 and 17. The lawsuit questions why 

Trump’s nominee for labor secretary, former Miami U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta, 

whose confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin Wednesday, cut a non-prosecution 

deal with Epstein a decade ago rather than pursuing a Federal indictment that 

Acosta’s staff had advocated.1

Although Epstein’s friends and visitors once included past and future presidents, 

rock stars, and some of the country’s richest men, he is no longer a social magnet. 

Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida State charge of felony solicitation of underage 

girls in 2008 and served a 13-month jail sentence. Politicians who had accepted his 

donations, including former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former New 

York Governor Eliot Spitzer, have scurried to give them back. (Harvard University 

kept a $6.5 million gift, saying it was ‘‘funding important research’’ in mathematics.) 

But Epstein’s unusually light punishment—he was facing up to a life sentence 

had he been convicted on Federal charges—has raised questions about how Acosta 

handled the case. 

Former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter, whose department conducted the 

initial investigation into Epstein’s behavior, said in a civil lawsuit deposition that 

Epstein got off easy. 

‘‘That wasn’t an appropriate resolution of this matter,’’ Reiter said, arguing that 

the charges leveled against Epstein were ‘‘very minor,’’ compared with what the 

facts called for. In a letter to parents of Epstein’s victims, Reiter said justice had 

not been served. 

Prosecutors in Acosta’s Miami office who had joined the FBI in the investigation 

concluded, according to documents produced by the U.S. attorney’s office, that Epstein, working through several female assistants, 

‘‘would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. . . . Some went there as much 

as 100 times or more. Some of the women’s conduct was limited to performing 

a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other 

women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse.’’ 

Epstein has a near-legendary reputation in New York financial circles as a money 

manager who made many millions for his clients. Although he never graduated from 

college, he taught advanced math at the Dalton School, one of the city’s top private 

schools, and went on to be a successful trader at Bear Stearns before starting his 

own firm, J. Epstein & Co., which managed the finances of clients who had a minimum of $1 billion in assets. 

Federal prosecutors detailed their findings in an 82-page prosecution memo and 

a 53-page indictment, but Epstein was never indicted. In 2007, Acosta signed a nonprosecution deal in which he agreed not to pursue Federal charges against Epstein 

or four women who the government said procured girls for him. In exchange, EpHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

51 

stein agreed to plead guilty to a solicitation charge in State court, accept a 13-month 

sentence, register as a sex offender and pay restitution to the victims identified in 

the Federal investigation. 

‘‘This agreement will not be made part of any public record,’’ the deal between 

Epstein and Acosta says. The document was unsealed by a Federal judge in a civil 

lawsuit in 2015. 

Reiter said in the 2009 deposition that Federal prosecutors in Miami told him, 

‘‘that typically these kinds of cases with one victim would end up in a 10-year sentence.’’ Reiter said he was surprised not only by the decision to pull back from prosecuting the case, but also by the light sentence and liberal privileges granted to Epstein during his jail term. 

Acosta did not return a call seeking comment. He explained his decision in a ‘‘To 

whom it may concern’’ letter that he released to news organizations 3 years after 

the decision: 

‘‘The bottom line is this: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire, served time in jail 

and is now a registered sex offender. He has been required to pay his victims 

restitution, though restitution clearly cannot compensate for the crime.’’ 

Acosta wrote that the case against Epstein grew stronger over the years because 

more victims spoke out after Epstein was convicted. 

Acosta is Trump’s second nominee to be Secretary of Labor; the first, Andrew 

Puzder, withdrew last month after Senate Republicans questioned his past employment of an undocumented housekeeper. Support for Acosta seems strong, as some 

Democrats and union leaders have joined with Senate Republicans in praising the 

nominee, who has been confirmed for Federal positions three times in the past. 

In the 2011 letter explaining his decision in the Epstein case, Acosta said he 

backed off from pressing charges after ‘‘a year-long assault on the prosecution and 

the prosecutors’’ by ‘‘an army of legal superstars’’ who represented Epstein, including Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz; Kenneth Starr, who as independent 

counsel led the investigation that brought about President Bill Clinton’s impeachment; and some of the Nation’s most prominent defense attorneys, such as Roy 

Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Jay Lefkowitz. 

‘‘The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues,’’ Acosta wrote, ‘‘Defense 

counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal 

peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification.’’ 

Dershowitz said in an interview that no such effort to rattle the prosecutors ever 

took place. ‘‘That’s just dead wrong,’’ he said. ‘‘I would never participate in anything 

of that kind. Of course we investigated the witnesses but not Acosta’s deputies. 

That’s absurd.’’ 

Acosta’s ‘‘intention was to indict, and he fought hard and tried to get the best deal 

he could,’’ Dershowitz said. ’‘‘We out-lawyered him.’’ Epstein did not return a call 

seeking comment. 

Conchita Sarnoff, the author of ‘‘TrafficKing,’’ a book on the Epstein case, said in 

an interview that Acosta told her a few years after his decision not to prosecute that 

‘‘he felt incapable of going up against those eight powerful attorneys. He felt his career was at stake.’’ 

In his letter about the decision, Acosta, who has been dean of the law school at 

Florida International University since 2009, acknowledged that, ‘‘some prosecutors 

felt that we should just go to trial, and at times I felt that frustration myself.’’ He 

also complained that Epstein ‘‘received highly unusual treatment while in jail,’’ including being allowed to serve much of his sentence in the county jail rather than 

a State prison, and being permitted to leave the jail 6 days a week to work at home 

before returning to jail to sleep. 

‘‘The treatment that he received while in State custody undermined the purpose 

of a jail sentence,’’ Acosta said. 

Dershowitz said Acosta ‘‘was very anxious to prosecute’’ Epstein, but ‘‘we persuaded them that they didn’t have enough evidence of interstate transportation’’ of 

the underage girls to warrant Federal charges. 

But Reiter, the former police chief, said the FBI had evidence ‘‘from flight logs 

or something’’ that an underage victim ‘‘was transported on an aircraft of Mr. Epstein.’’ 

‘‘Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher,’’ Acosta wrote. 

‘‘Evidence that has come to light since 2007 may encourage that view.’’ But the prosecutor argued that his office’s investigation allowed State prosecutors to strengthen 

their charges against Epstein. And Acosta said that those who disagree with his decision ‘‘are not the ones who at the time reviewed the evidence available for trial 

and assessed the likelihood of success.’’ 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

52 

The deal Acosta made with Epstein precluded any new Federal prosecution based 

on offenses he may have committed between 2001 and 2007, but in Florida, Trump 

is on the witness list in a civil case in which two attorneys accuse Federal prosecutors of having deceived Epstein’s victims by failing to inform them that they would 

not charge Epstein. 

Lawyers for the women argue that they had a right under the Federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act to know about Acosta’s deal with Epstein. They say Acosta sought 

to keep the deal under wraps to avoid ‘‘the intense public criticism that would have 

resulted from allowing a politically connected billionaire’’ to escape from Federal 

prosecution. 

Although Trump and Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane and visited his homes, 

neither President has been accused of taking part in the sexual misdeeds. But lawyers for Epstein’s victims say Trump nonetheless may have useful information. 

Trump banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach ‘‘because Epstein 

sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,’’ Bradley Edwards, an attorney who 

represents three of the young women, said in court documents. 

Lawyers involved with the various Epstein cases said there is virtually no chance 

that the President will be required to testify in a matter in which both sides agree 

his involvement was tangential. 

Trump and Clinton are both among the dozens of names that appeared in a ‘‘black 

book’’ of Epstein’s phone contacts that his houseman, Alfredo Rodriguez, obtained. 

Rodriguez, who died in 2015, was convicted of obstruction of justice in 2010 after 

he tried to sell the book for $50,000 to lawyers representing Epstein’s victims. In 

the book, Rodriguez circled the names of contacts he said were involved in sexual 

misbehavior at Epstein’s properties. There were no circles around the names of 

Trump, Clinton or other boldfaced names such as former Israeli prime minister 

Ehud Barak, former British prime minister Tony Blair, and celebrities Mick Jagger, 

Michael Jackson, David Frost and Jimmy Buffett. 

Rodriguez spent 18 months in prison, 5 months longer than Epstein served in jail. 

Epstein has continued to move among his homes in New York City, where he 

owns one of the largest private residences in Manhattan, Palm Beach and the Caribbean. 

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

CORRY & ASSOCIATES, 

DENVER, CO 80204, 

March 3, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS: This letter is to express strong 

support for R. Alexander Acosta as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor. I 

know Mr. Acosta on both a professional and personal level. 

Mr. Acosta is first-rate nominee to lead the Department. I have been a practicing 

litigator for over 20 years, politically active, served as Counsel to the U.S. House 

Judiciary Committee, and graduated from Stanford Law School. In these capacities 

over decades, I have been acquainted with thousands of bright and accomplished 

people. Mr. Acosta rises above even the most qualified people for his exceptional 

brain, combined with a large heart, and unparalleled creativity. There is no person 

better than Mr. Acosta for this job, and respectfully, he should have a swift hearing 

and confirmation. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. My office phone is (303) 634-2244 

and my e-mail is Rob@RobCorry.com if you have further questions or need additional 

information. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT J. CORRY, JR., ESQ. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

53 

DELTA INDUSTRIES, INC., 

JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39215–1292, 

March 15, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: My name is Dave Robison and I work for Delta Industries 

located in Jackson, MS. We manufacture and deliver the ready mixed concrete that 

builds our Nation’s heavy highway system and residential and commercial construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud President Donald 

Trump’s selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. Department of Labor. 

I support the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. Acosta 

knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a 

member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will garner bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor so that 

he can immediately begin helping the American economy get to work. 

Sincerely, 

DAVE ROBISON, 

President, Delta Industries, Inc. 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS®, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20006–5395, 

February 24, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington DC 20510. 

Re: IAFF Support of the Nomination for R. Alexander Acosta 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: I am writing to express the strong support of International Association of Fire Fighters, which represents over 304,000 members, for the nomination of Alexander Acosta as the Nation’s 27th Secretary of Labor. 

On a personal level, I have worked with every Secretary of Labor since John Dunlop in the Ford administration. I believe that Mr. Acosta possesses the appropriate 

qualifications, experience and temperament to fulfill the obligations and responsibility of the office. 

Mr. Acosta is truly an American success story. The son of Cuban immigrants, he 

has achieved success in multiple governmental positions, the private sector and in 

academia. While the majority of IAFF members are not covered under the National 

Labor Relations Act, we are familiar and appreciative of his history of issuing balHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

54 

anced rulings during his service as a commissioner of the National Labor Relations 

Board. 

I first became acquainted with Mr. Acosta when he was the Assistant Attorney 

General of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. We had several 

sensitive issues regarding promotions and hiring issues. Mr. Acosta approached the 

issues in fair and dispassionate fashion. I was very impressed with his acumen and 

professionalism. 

Subsequently, he built a stellar reputation as the U.S. attorney for southern Florida successfully prosecuting high several profile cases on political corruption, terrorism, drug trafficking and financial crimes. Mr. Acosta had the longest tenure in 

that capacity since anyone since the early 1970s. 

In closing, the IAFF urges your committee to act favorably of the nomination of 

this eminently qualified nominee and work to ensure the rapid confirmation of R. 

Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor. 

Respectfully, 

HAROLD A. SCHAITBERGER, 

General President. 

MILES SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY, 

PUYALLUP, WA 98372–2516, 

March 15, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: My name is Jerry Trudeau and I work for Miles Sand 

and Gravel Company located in Puyallup, WA. We manufacture and deliver the 

ready mixed concrete that builds our Nation’s heavy highway system and residential 

and commercial construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud President Donald Trump’s selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

I support the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. Acosta 

knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a 

member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will garner bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor so that 

he can immediately begin helping the American economy get to work. 

Sincerely, 

JERRY TRUDEAU, 

Vice President and General Manager. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

55 

MMC MATERIALS, INC., 

RIDGELAND, MS, 

March 15, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: My name is Stanley Mangum and I work for MMC Materials, Inc. based in Ridgeland, MS, with locations throughout Mississippi. We manufacture and deliver the ready mixed concrete that builds our Nation’s heavy highway system and residential and commercial construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud President Donald Trump’s selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. Department of Labor. 

I support the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. Acosta 

knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a 

member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will gamer bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor so that 

he can immediately begin helping the American economy get to work. 

Sincerely, 

STANLEY MANGUM, 

Vice President. 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHAIN RESTAURANTS (NCCR), 

WASHINGTON, DC 20005, 

March 20, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: On behalf of the 

National Council of Chain Restaurants, I am writing in support of President Donald 

Trump’s nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. 

Mr. Acosta has served with distinction in important policy and leadership roles 

over the course of his career, including his current service as Dean of the Florida 

International University College of Law. In addition to his strong professional and 

academic credentials, Mr. Acosta has also consistently demonstrated a commitment 

to public service as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, as an AssistHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

56 

ant Attorney General in the Department of Justice and as U.S. attorney for the 

southern district of Florida. 

As you know, the U.S. Department of Labor has an important mission and broad 

policy portfolio which affects a wide array of stakeholders, including chain restaurant businesses and their highly valued employees. Mr. Acosta understands the 

challenges faced by small businesses around the country in navigating an oftentimes 

complex web of statutory and regulatory requirements imposed by the Federal Government. 

Once confirmed, Mr. Acosta will be an advocate for Federal policy at the U.S. 

Labor Department which benefits all stakeholders—including chain restaurants, 

small businesses, and most importantly, their millions of team members in local 

communities around the United States. 

We look forward to the March 22 HELP Committee hearing which will review Mr. 

Acosta’s qualifications and then to prompt Senate consideration of this important 

nomination. Thank you for your consideration of these views. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT J. GREEN, 

Executive Director. 

NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE ASSOCIATION (NRMCA), 

SILVER SPRING, MD 20910, 

March 15, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 

(NRMCA) applauds President Donald Trump’s selection of R. Alexander Acosta, 

Dean of the Florida International University College of Law, to serve as Secretary 

of the U.S. Department of Labor. 

NRMCA represents an industry with more than 2,250 companies and subsidiaries 

that employ more than 125,000 American workers who manufacture and deliver 

ready mixed concrete. The Association represents both national and multinational 

companies that operate in every congressional district in the United States. The industry includes approximately 70,000 ready mixed concrete trucks and 5,000 ready 

mixed concrete plants. 

NRMCA supports the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. 

Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation 

and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served 

as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 

opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor 

Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably we are confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will garner bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

57 

NRMCA respectfully supports Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor so that 

he can immediately begin helping the American economy get to work. 

Sincerely, 

KERRI LEININGER, 

Executive Vice President of Government 

and Political Affairs. 

NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION (NRF), 

WASHINGTON, DC 20005, 

March 21, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: On behalf of the 

Nation’s retail industry, I write to share the National Retail Federation’s strong 

support for the nomination of Alexander Acosta to be the next Secretary of Labor. 

NRF is the world’s largest retail trade association, representing discount and department stores, home goods and specialty stores, Main Street merchants, grocers, 

wholesalers, chain restaurants and Internet retailers from the United States and 

more than 45 countries. Retail is the Nation’s largest private sector employer, supporting one in four U.S. jobs—42 million working Americans. Contributing $2.6 trillion to annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for the Nation’s economy. 

Over the past 8 years, the retail industry and employers across the country have 

faced a crushing regulatory burden driven by ideological whims rather than economic realities. The previous Department of Labor’s sweeping actions on Federal 

overtime rules, joint employer relationships, and many other issues have created immense uncertainty for employers and stifled economic growth. Both job creators and 

employees will benefit from a more balanced approach to workforce policies and a 

Secretary of Labor who puts the needs of American businesses and workers before 

partisan politics. 

Mr. Acosta’s diverse experiences in both public service and the private sector position him well to be an effective and pragmatic leader at the Department of Labor. 

The new Labor Secretary will play a critical role in implementing the President’s 

regulatory reform Executive orders, and NRF looks forward to working with Mr. 

Acosta once confirmed on a pro-growth agenda that supports innovation, investments in the workforce, and American competitiveness. 

Given Mr. Acosta previously has been confirmed by the Senate on three occasions 

with bipartisan support, NRF urges members of this committee and the Senate to 

support the nominee and move toward confirmation without delay. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID FRENCH, 

Senior Vice President, 

Government Relations. 

NATIONAL STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION (NSSGA), 

ALEXANDRIA, VA, 

March 21,, 2017. 

Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

648 Hart Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER: As the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions prepares to vote on the nomination of Alex Acosta to serve as 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

58 

Secretary of Labor, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA) 

would like to express its strong support for his nomination. 

NSSGA represents stone, sand and gravel producers who are responsible for the 

essential raw materials found in every building, road, bridge and public works 

project. The emphasis on the regulatory reform at the Department of Labor is one 

of our highest priorities. 

Mr. Acosta’s accomplishments are numerous and impressive. He served as a Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Board, was the first Hispanic to hold the 

rank of Assistant U.S. Attorney General, and was named assistant U.S. attorney for 

the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s record of pioneering leadership can be 

put to great use as Secretary of Labor in looking out for American workers, so many 

of whom have been forgotten and left behind. 

Furthermore, Mr. Acosta’s appreciation for appropriate government action ensures 

that someone with the knowledge of the issues impacting our industry including the 

negative impacts and untended consequences of government regulations is at the 

helm of the department. This is particularly important to us given the central role 

played by the Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). 

It is critical that MSHA significantly improve its approach to achieving its mission 

so that the agency can regulate and enforce for genuine safety, versus sometimes 

undercutting workplace safety. 

NSSGA appreciates your consideration of these views. Please contact me if you 

have any questions or would like any additional information. I can be reached at 

(703) 526-1060/mjohnson@nssga.org. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL W. JOHNSON, 

President & CEO. 

NORTH AMERICA’S BUILDING TRADE UNIONS, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20006, 

February 27, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR SENATORS ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: North America’s Building Trades 

Unions believe that Alexander Acosta is a qualified candidate to serve as the next 

U.S. Secretary of Labor. 

He has served in three presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed positions, and 

was a respected member of the National Labor Relations Board. Combined with his 

experience as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the 

U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Acosta holds the necessary knowledge and experience to further the Department of Labor’s stated mission, 

‘‘To foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, 

and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.’’ 

Our unions look forward to working with Mr. Acosta to preserve strong and existing community wage and benefit standards, apprenticeship programs, and rigorous 

safety standards in the construction industry that have historically brought immediate, and widespread, benefits to American workers and the American economy. 

North America’s Building Trades Unions believe Alexander Acosta is someone 

who deserves serious consideration for the position of Secretary of Labor. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter, 

Sincerely, 

SEAN MCGARVEY, 

President. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

59 

NORTH AMERICAN CONCRETE ALLIANCE, 

MARCH 15, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: The North American Concrete Alliance (NACA) applauds 

President Donald Trump’s selection of R. Alexander Acosta, Dean of the Florida 

International University College of Law, to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor. 

NACA is a coalition of concrete-related associations dedicated to addressing industrywide priorities in the areas of research, education and government affairs. NACA 

places an emphasis on advocating for increased and efficient Federal investment in 

surface transportation and infrastructure funding and the impact it has on job creation. 

NACA supports the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. 

Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation 

and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served 

as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 

opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor 

Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably we are confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will garner bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

NACA respectfully asks you to support President Trump’s nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to serve as Labor Secretary. 

Sincerely, 

American Concrete Pavement Association, American Concrete Pipe Association, 

American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American Concrete Pumping Association, Concrete Foundations Association, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, 

National Concrete Masonry Association, National Precast Concrete Association, 

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, and Portland Cement Association. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

60 

PORT AGGREGATES, INC., 

LAKE CHARLES, LA 70601, 

March 15, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: My name is Andrew Guinn and I work for Port Aggregates, Inc. located in Lake Charles, LA. We manufacture and deliver the ready 

mixed concrete that builds our Nation’s heavy highway system and residential and 

commercial construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud 

President Donald Trump’s selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. Department of Labor. 

I support the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. Acosta 

knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a 

member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will garner bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

I respectfully, ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor so 

that he can immediately begin helping the American economy get to work. 

Sincerely, 

ANDREW GUINN, 

Chairman, CEO. 

SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, 

SAN JOSE, CA 95112, 

February 16, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN AND SENATOR MURRAY: I am writing on behalf of the San 

Jose Police Officers’ Association in support of the nomination of R. Alexander Acosta 

as Secretary of Labor. He is a committed public servant who has served with distinction in several positions. He has always served with ability and integrity, demonstrating care and concern for people of all walks of life. He is a strong supporter 

of law enforcement and of promoting positive relations between police and the communities they serve. We are confident that he will bring the same qualities and 

skills to the position of Secretary of Labor. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

61 

Alex’s parents fled Communist Cuba for a better life in the United States and 

pursued the American dream by working hard at menial jobs. They did this in order 

to provide greater opportunities for their son. This example of work ethic and determination inspired and enabled him to earn both his undergraduate and law degrees 

from Harvard. 

Mr. Acosta has a history of distinguished public service. He was a member of the 

National Labor Relations Board, where he participated in or authored more than 

125 opinions. Following the NLRB, he was Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 

Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice and was the first Hispanic to hold 

the rank of Assistant Attorney General. 

Mr. Acosta’s government service was primarily spent serving as the U.S. attorney 

for the southern district of Florida. He was the longest serving U.S. attorney in the 

district since the 1970s and this district has one of the three heaviest criminal dockets of any U.S. attorneys’ office. It consists of five offices across south Florida and 

requires considerable managerial skills. As U.S. attorney, Mr. Acosta dealt with 

prosecutions of the Cali Drug Cartel, FARC rebels, and the Jose ́ Padilla for terrorism case. Under his leadership, his office also targeted white collar crime, prosecuting several bank-related cases, including a landmark case against Swiss bank 

UBS. This legally complex case resulted in UBS paying $780 million in fines, and 

for the first time in history, the Swiss banking giant provided the United States 

with the names of individuals who were using secret Swiss bank accounts to avoid 

U.S. taxes. Mr. Acosta also had excellent relations with State and local law enforcement throughout his time as a U.S. attorney. 

Again, I sincerely support the nomination of Alex Acosta as Secretary of Labor 

and I firmly believe he will serve with the integrity and skill the position requires. 

I respectfully urge your consideration of our recommendation. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL KELLY, 

President. 

SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (SIU) 

OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL–CIO, 

CAMP SPRINGS, MD 20746, 

February 17, 2017. 

Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman, 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: On behalf of the 

Seafarers International Union (AFL–CIO), I am writing to you today to express the 

SIU’s support for Alexander Acosta to serve as the Nation’s 27th Secretary of Labor. 

Having worked closely with eight Labor Secretaries over the last five presidential 

administrations, I have come to respect the unique challenges and responsibilities 

that come with being at the helm of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). It is a 

job that calls for experiences, hard work, dedication, and the willingness to make 

tough decisions that aren’t always popular. 

Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Acosta has demonstrated all these traits 

and more. He is, like many of his predecessors in this position, an American success 

story, and his success demonstrates to all Americans the value of hard work and 

the opportunities that American provides its citizens—opportunities you can find nowhere else in the world. 

Like me, Mr. Acosta is a son of immigrants, and he has built a distinguished career in government service. He served on the National Labor Relations Board under 

President George W. Bush, a role that gave him ample insight into the relationship 

between employers and labor representatives that will serve him well at DOL. He 

also served as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. 

Department of Justice, and as a U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida, 

where he prosecuted a variety of crimes from drug trafficking and terrorism to public corruption. Given the critical role DOL plays in the enforcement of labor laws, 

his experience at NLRB and as a prosecutor make him uniquely qualified to lead 

the Labor Department. 

President Trump should be applauded for this nomination, as he has found in Mr. 

Acosta a dedicated, qualified public servant who has served with distinction in a variety of challenging roles. His record is one of defending the rights of people from 

all walks of life. The SIU is confident Mr. Acosta will serve with integrity and disHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

62 

tinction as Secretary of Labor, as he has whenever he’s been called upon for public 

service. 

I look forward to working with him in the future, and I thank you for your consideration of the views of the SIU on this matter. As always, if I can be of service to 

you, please do not hesitate to call upon me. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL SACCO, 

President. 

SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION (SBA), 

NEW YORK, NY 10013, 

February 16, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN AND SENATOR MURRAY: I am writing to inform you of my 

union’s support for the nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. 

Mr. Acosta has distinguished himself in several prior government positions and is 

an inspiring American success story. His parents fled Communist Cuba for a better 

life in the United States. His parents pursued the American dream by working hard 

at menial jobs in order to provide greater opportunities for their son. Their hard 

work paid off as Alex inherited their work ethic and determination, which enabled 

him to earn both his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. 

Mr. Acosta has a history of distinguished public service. He was a member of the 

National Labor Relations Board, where he participated in or authored more than 

125 opinions. Following the NLRB, he was Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 

Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice and was the first Hispanic to hold 

the rank of Assistant Attorney General. 

Most of Mr. Acosta’s government service was spent serving as the U.S. attorney 

for the southern district of Florida. He was the longest serving U.S. attorney in the 

District since the 1970s. This district that has one of the three heaviest criminal 

dockets of any U.S. attorneys’ office. It consists of five offices across south Florida 

and requires considerable managerial skills. As U.S. attorney, Mr. Acosta dealt with 

prosecutions of the Cali Drug Cartel, PARC rebels, and the Jose ́ Padilla for terrorism case. Under his leadership, his office also targeted white collar crime, prosecuting several bank-related cases, including a landmark case against Swiss bank 

UBS. This legally complex case resulted in UBS paying $780 million in fines, and 

for the first time in history, the Swiss banking giant provided the United States 

with the names of individuals who were using secret Swiss bank accounts to avoid 

U.S. taxes. Mr. Acosta also had excellent relations with State and local law enforcement throughout his time as a U.S. attorney. Since leaving this position. he has remained a strong supporter of law enforcement and promoting positive relations between police and the communities they serve. 

Alex Acosta is a committed public servant who has served with distinction in several positions. He has always served with ability and integrity and demonstrated 

care and concern for people of all walks of life. We are confident that he will bring 

the same qualities and skills to the position of Secretary of Labor. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. 

Very Respectfully, 

ED MULLINS, 

President. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

63 

SIOUX CORPORATION, 

BERESFORD, SD 57004–1500, 

March 15, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: My name is Jack Finger and I work for Sioux Corporation, located in Beresford, SD. We manufacture and deliver industrial equipment 

used to produce ready mixed concrete that builds our Nation’s heavy highway system and residential and commercial construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud President Donald Trump’s selection of R. Alexander Acosta 

to head the U.S. Department of Labor. 

I support the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. Acosta 

knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a 

member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will garner bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor so that 

he can immediately begin helping the American economy get to work. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN W. FINGER (JACK), 

President and CEO. 

SPURLINO, 

MIDDLETOWN, OH 45044, 

March 17, 2017. 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Democratic Leader, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER AND SENATORS

ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: My name is Jim Spurlino and I own Spurlino Materials 

located in Middletown, OH with operations in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. We 

manufacture and deliver the ready mixed concrete that builds our Nation’s heavy 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

64 

highway system and residential and commercial construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud President Donald Trump’s selection of R. 

Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. Department of Labor. 

I support the President’s nomination for Labor Secretary because Mr. Acosta 

knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a 

member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta’s background lead the Labor Department—the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation’s labor and safety laws 

are properly balanced to benefit our Nation’s most valuable asset, the American 

workforce. 

Most notably, I am confident that Mr. Acosta’s nomination will garner bipartisan 

support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the NLRB, as Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr. Acosta’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should garner the same bipartisan support. 

I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor so that 

he can immediately begin helping the American economy get to work. 

Sincerely, 

JIM SPURLINO, 

President. 

WORKFORCE FAIRNESS INSTITUTE, 

MARCH 9, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER AND MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS: The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), an organization devoted to educating workers, their employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace, writes today in strong 

support of the nomination of Alexander Acosta as U.S. Secretary of Labor. We urge 

the committee to give him swift consideration and coordination for this important 

role, so that he can get to work rolling back years of Obama-era overregulation and 

red tape. 

Mr. Acosta is a man with an extremely accomplished legal record. A former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, a U.S. attorney for 

the southern district of Florida, as well as a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice 

Samuel Alito, his reputation for pragmatism and fairness precedes him. That, coupled with his previous service as a member of the National Labor Relations Board 

(NLRB), make him an excellent choice to take the helm of the Department of Labor 

and unravel many of the misguided policies of the previous administration. 

Mr. Acosta understands firsthand the balance between promoting free-market, 

pro-growth policies that create jobs and grow our economy while protecting workers’ 

rights and enforcing strong labor laws and protections. There’s no question he has 

the background and expertise to serve the American people well. WFI respectfully 

requests that the committee weigh in and consider these facts, and vote to confirm 

Mr. Acosta at the earliest possible opportunity. 

Sincerely, 

HEATHER GREENAWAY, 

Workforce Fairness Institute. 

MARCH 20, 2017. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER, RANKING MEMBER MURRAY AND MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express our 

strong support for R. Alexander Acosta, Dean of the Florida International University College of Law, who is nominated to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of Labor (DOL). 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

65 

Businesses continue to face a great deal of uncertainty due to regulatory overreach by the previous administration. President Trump has issued numerous, vitally 

important Executive orders aimed at quickly addressing the regulatory challenges 

facing the business community and to ensure employers can focus on creating jobs 

and growing the economy. 

Mr. Acosta is a dedicated public servant who has spent years wrestling with complex legal issues, and he has proven management and Federal agency experience. 

He is well-qualified to lead this important agency as it protects American workers, 

implements the President’s Executive orders, and strives to meet the President’s 

goals of eliminating job-crushing regulations, keeping government agencies accountable, and getting Americans back to work. 

Given Mr. Acosta has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times with bipartisan support—for the National Labor Relations Board, as an Assistant Attorney 

General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida—we are confident 

there will be bipartisan support for his nomination to be the Secretary of Labor. 

For these reasons, America’s job creators urge the committee to support Mr. 

Acosta’s nomination, and we urge swift consideration and approval. 

Sincerely, 

Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, 

American Apparel & Footwear Association, American Bakers Association, American Beverage Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American Fire Sprinkler Association, American Foundry Society, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Home Furnishings Alliance, American 

Hotel & Lodging Association, American Moving & Storage Association American 

Staffing Association, American Supply Association, Americans for Tax Reform, 

American Trucking Associations, AmericanHort, Argentum, Asian American Hotel 

Owners Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Equipment 

Distributors, Associated General Contractors, Auto Care Association, Center for 

Worker Freedom, Coalition of Franchisee Associations, Colorado Association of 

Commerce and Industry, Franchise Business Services, Heating, Air-conditioning 

& Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), HR Policy Association, Independent Electrical Contractors Insured Retirement Institute, International 

Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise Association, International Warehouse Logistics Association, Leading Builders of America, Manufacturer & Business Association, Metals Service Center Institute, Montana Retail Association, MSPA Americas, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Professional Employer Organizations, National Automobile Dealers Association, National Christmas Tree Association, National Club Association, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National 

Federation of Independent Business, National Franchisee Association, National 

Grocers Association, National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, 

National Precast Concrete Association, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, National Restaurant Association National Retail Federation, National Roofing Contractors Association, Plastics Industry Association, Private Care Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship 

Council, SNAC International, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association, 

The Fertilizer Institute, The Vinyl Institute, Tile Roofing Institute, Tree Care Industry Association, Truck Renting and Leasing Association, United Motorcoach 

Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Water & Sewer Distributors of America, 

and Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America. 

LETTERS OF OPPOSITION

AFR AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM (AFR), 

MARCH 20, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chair, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIR ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: On behalf of Americans 

for Financial Reform and 50 faith, consumer advocate and labor organizations, we 

write to reiterate our strong view that the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

66 

* https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/06/fact-sheet-middle-classeconomics-strengthening-retirement-security. 1The American Federation of Teachers is a union of professionals that champions fairness, democracy, economic opportunity, and high-quality public education, healthcare and public 

services for our students, their families and our communities. We are committed to advancing 

these principles through community engagement, organizing, collective bargaining and political 

activism, and especially through the work our members do. 

which requires those who give retirement savings advice to put their clients best 

interest first must be allowed to go into effect as planned in April; and to urge you 

to ask the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, to affirm his commitment to the rule being implemented on time. 

For far too long, brokers have been able to put their own financial interests ahead 

of their clients, steering retirement savers into investments that serve the broker’s 

bottom line rather than the clients. This conflicted advice costs working families 

more than $17 billion in retirement savings annually.* The DOL fiduciary rule is 

a responsible solution to this problem and will mean workers and families get actual 

advice, not misleading sales pitches when investing their hard-earned retirement 

savings. 

As you know, the DOL promulgated the final fiduciary rule after conducting a 

thorough, thoughtful, and transparent multiyear process. The final fiduciary rule is 

the product of more than 6 years of research, consideration of more than 300,000 

comments, 4 days of hearings, and hundreds of meetings. Now, at the behest of Wall 

Street, the Trump administration has suddenly proposed to delay the rule—a move 

that would cost retirees tens of millions of dollars a day. 

Due diligence requires this committee to ask the nominee what he will do with 

regard to the fiduciary rule: will he follow the evidence and protect the interests 

of investors by allowing it to go into effect as planned, or will he support the delay 

and then the demise of this fundamentally important investor protection? 

Sincerely, 

Americans for Financial Reform; American Association of University Women 

(AAUW); Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); American Federation of Teachers Colorado; ACTION reUnion 2017, TN; Allied Progress; Aquinas Institute of 

Theology; Bread & Roses Missouri; Catholic Charities of St. Louis, MO; Coalition 

on Human Needs; Committee for the Fiduciary Standard; Communication Workers of America; Consumers Union; Economic Policy Institute Policy Center; Eliot 

Unitarian Chapel; Empower Missouri; Denver Area Labor Federation, AFL–CIO; 

Gethsemane Lutheran Church, MO; Interfaith Alliance of Colorado; Institute for 

Science and Human Values; John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics, 

MO; LiUNA 110; Metropolitan Congregations United, MO; Missouri Alliance for 

Retired Americans, Education Fund; Missouri Jobs with Justice; NAACP; National Consumers League; National Employment Lawyers Association; National 

Employment Law Project; Presbytery of Giddings, MO; St. Louis Episcopal Service 

Corps, MO; St. Louis Metropolitan Clergy Coalition, MO; State Representative 

Tracy McCreey, MO; UNICOM-ARC, MO; UNITE HERE LOCAL 74; United 

Church of Christ, MO; Westminster Presbyterian Church, MO; Woodstock Institute; and Workplace Fairness, MO. 

AMERICANS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS (AFT),1

MARCH 16, 2017. 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the American Federation 

of Teachers, I write to urge the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) 

Committee to thoroughly question and examine the record of Alexander Acosta as 

the nominee for secretary of labor. President Trump may well have nominated 

Acosta because his history in government appears to make him easily confirmable, 

but regardless of Acosta’s previous confirmations by the U.S. Senate, the American 

people deserve a full airing of his record and his views on matters of importance 

to working Americans. 

The mission of the Department of Labor is: 

‘‘to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United 

States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities 

for profitable employment.’’ 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

67 

The American people deserve to know how Alexander Acosta plans to carry out 

this mission, and specifically, how he will ensure all workers have jobs that are safe, 

secure and fair, and provide dignified wages. 

Working Americans deserve to know Acosta’s views on employer-provided health 

benefits, retirement security, the minimum wage, and the gender and racial wage 

gaps. 

AFT members, in particular, are interested in hearing Acosta’s views on ensuring 

workers’ health and safety; protecting workers’ retirement savings; upholding the 

Obama administration’s overtime rule; paid family leave initiatives; trade; career 

and technical education and programs to build prospective employees’ skills; and collective bargaining. 

The AFT is committed to supporting the interests of the workers we represent. 

We believe it is incumbent upon the HELP Committee to ask tough questions and 

critically examine Acosta’s record to determine whether he can uphold the Nation’s 

commitment to the rights of all workers. 

Thank you for considering the AFT’s views on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

RANDI WEINGARTEN, 

President. 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515–6100, 

March 21, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chaimian, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Senate Dirksen Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

648 Senate Dirksen Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: We write regarding 

President Trump’s nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to serve as the Secretary of 

the Department of Labor (DOL). As you know, the DOL’s mission is ‘‘to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners[.]’’ As Democratic Members of the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, we have a strong interest in ensuring 

that the next Secretary of Labor will carry out this critical mission. During Mr. 

Acosta’s upcoming confirmation hearing, we urge you to question Mr. Acosta about 

how he plans to accomplish the DOL’s core functions. In particular, we urge you to 

ask Mr. Acosta about his views on key issues affecting workers and their families 

across the country, including enforcement of wage and hour, safety and health, and 

workplace nondiscrimination laws, the promotion of workforce training, and the administration of benefit programs over which the DOL has jurisdiction. Finally, we 

urge you to ask Mr. Acosta to explain the steps he will take to ensure that politicized hiring of career employees does not occur on his watch. 

SUPPORTING ROBUST ENFORCEMENT

As Secretary of Labor, Mr. Acosta will oversee the agencies and offices that protect workers’ wages, help ensure workers and miners return home safely each day 

from their jobs, safeguard hard-earned retirement benefits, and ensure that injured 

longshore workers and coal miners receive timely workers’ compensation benefits. 

We urge you to ask Mr. Acosta how he will accomplish the goals of achieving safe 

and healthy working conditions, stopping wage theft, ending discrimination, and ensuring employers meet their responsibilities in the administration of employee benefits, including group health plans. Furthermore, we urge you to ask Mr. Acosta what 

he will do to ensure that companies doing business with the Federal Government 

are educated about their obligations to their employees under our Nation’s workplace laws. 

STRENGTHENING WORKFORCE TRAINING PROGRAMS

We also urge you to thoroughly investigate Mr. Acosta’s plan to build and develop 

a highly skilled workforce. A recent study from the Georgetown University Center 

on Education and the Workforce found that by 2020 the United States will not have 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

68 

1 Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements through 2020. Georgetown University 

Center on Education and the Workforce. June 26, 2013. https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.ESl.Webl.pdf. 2 AP, Factory CEOs Tell Trump: Jobs Exist, Skilled Applicants Don’t. LA Times. Feb. 23, 2017, 

available at http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-manufacturing-trump-20170223-story.html. 3Lawrence Mishel, Elise Gould, and Josh Bivens. Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts. Economic 

Policy Institute. January 6, 2015. http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/. 4 Id. 

5 An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions 

in the Civil Rights Division. U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and the 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility. July 2, 2008. https:// 

oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf. 6 Id. 

7Madeline Conway, Spicer Claims That Jobs Numbers ‘‘May Have Been Phony’’ Before, But 

Now They’re Very Real, Politico. Mar. 1, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trumpmonthly-jobs-numbers-sean-spicer-235936. 

enough skilled workers to meet the demands of our economy.1 The study estimates 

that 65 percent of all jobs in the economy will require post-secondary education and 

training beyond high school, and that there will be a shortage of 5 million workers 

to fill these jobs. In addition, last month, two dozen chief executives from the manufacturing industry met with the administration to express their concern about the 

lack of highly skilled workers to fill manufacturing jobs. According to one of the 

CEOs who attended that meeting, The jobs are there, but the skills are not.’’2

Equipping workers with the skills and training necessary to compete for good jobs 

is critical to achieving broadly shared economic prosperity. In the 113th Congress, 

Members worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). This law, along with strategic investment in our Nation’s opportunity youth and registered apprenticeship programs, can help build a highly 

skilled workforce and close the so-called skills gap. We urge you to question Mr. 

Acosta about how he will promote national skills building and successful, evidencebased training models at both the State and national level. 

RAISING WAGES

While worker productivity has increased by more than 70 percent over the past 

40 years, wages have not kept pace.3 In fact, wages for the bottom 90 percent of 

income earners have only grown by 15 percent.4 Working people deserve a Secretary 

of Labor who is committed to ensuring that hardworking people are paid fairly. We 

urge you to question Mr. Acosta about his support for the Department of Labor’s 

overtime rule and raising the Federal minimum wage. 

AVOIDING POLITICIZED HIRING OF CAREER EMPLOYEES AND INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL

INTERFERENCE WITH CORE AGENCY FUNCTIONS

Many have raised concerns about politicized hiring practices in the hiring of career employees during Mr. Acosta’s tenure at the Department of Justice. A Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General (01G) report from 2008 found that 

while Mr. Acosta led the Civil Rights Division, personnel decisions in the agency 

were marked by stark politicization.5 The OIG found that actions taken during Mr. 

Acosta’s tenure violated Department of Justice policy and Federal law.6 We urge a 

thorough investigation of these issues, as well as an exploration of Mr. Acosta’s 

record of service at both the DOJ and NLRB. 

Furthermore, we urge you to question Mr. Acosta about the steps he will take to 

prevent political interference with the career DOL staff ’s ability to enforce our 

workplace protection laws, as well as supply accurate, non-biased information about 

the state of jobs and the economy. We note that under the new Administration, the 

DOL has issued almost no press releases on its enforcement activity under our safety and health or wage and hour laws. Failing to publicize enforcement efforts greatly diminishes their potential to deter future violations. In addition, White House 

Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the jobs data produced by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) under the Obama administration ‘‘may have been phony in the 

past, but it’s very real now.’’7

Criticizing the integrity of BLS data without supplying any basis for that criticism 

is cause for grave concern, given that key actors rely on that data to make economic 

decisions. We urge you to question Mr. Acosta about his positions on making enforcement actions public and the integrity of BLS data. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

69 

Thank you for your commitment to ensuring our next Secretary of Labor will fulfill the Department’s critical mission of protecting, supporting, and defending working people. 

Sincerely, 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking Member; Susan A. Davis, Member of Congress; 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Member of Congress; Joe Courtney, Member of Congress; Marcia 

L. Fudge, Member of Congress; Jared Polis, Member of Congress; Gregorio Kilili 

Camacho Sablan, Member of Congress; Frederica S. Wilson, Member of Congress; 

Suzanne Bonamici, Member of Congress; Mark Takano, Member of Congress; Alma 

S. Adams, Member of Congress; Mark DeSaulnier, Member of Congress; Donald 

Norcross, Member of Congress; Lisa Blunt Rochester, Member of Congress; Raja 

Krushnamoorthi, Member of Congress; Carol Shea-Porter, Member of Congress; 

and Adriano Espaillat, Member of Congress. 

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20001, 

March 15, 2017. 

DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of the 700,000 members and officers of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I am writing to express deep concern about the 

nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to serve as Secretary of the Department of 

Labor. Given Mr. Acosta’s troubling history regarding civil rights and equal protection under the law, I urge you to oppose his nomination. 

CWA has long advocated for the protection of equal rights for all Americans in 

the workplace, in the electoral process, and a wide range of other areas. Unfortunately, Mr. Acosta’s record of service at the Department of Justice raises serious 

concerns about his ability to protect the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution 

and Federal law to all Americans. The Department of Labor is one of the most important entities in protecting all workers’ fundamental rights, so it is deeply troubling that a nominee for Secretary of Labor would have such a poor record on these 

issues. 

Two concerns in particular stand out regarding Mr. Acosta’s commitment to enforcing guarantees of equal protection. First, Mr. Acosta wrote an unsolicited letter 

to an Ohio judge in 2004 justifying the practice of voter caging, in which Ohio Republicans engaged in dubious practices as part of an attempt to disenfranchise voters who were predominately African American or Latino. The practice ‘‘was widely 

seen as a Republican strategy to disenfranchise minorities,’’ according to news reports. 

Second, Mr. Acosta’s record overseeing the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights 

Division during a time of deep politicization and dysfunction is very worrisome. 

Under his leadership, the Division replaced myriad career staff with clearly unqualified replacements on the basis of their political leanings, despite the fact that many 

of these hires did not have a demonstrated interest in the mission of DOJ’s Civil 

Rights Division. A 2008 DOJ Inspector General report found that Mr. Acosta ‘‘had 

sufficient information . . . to have raised red flags warranting closer supervision,’’ 

but ‘‘took no action to investigate’’ or bring problems to the attention of supervisors. 

This pattern of problematic hires dramatically undermined the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement ability to the point that literally years of hard work were required to reinvigorate the Division. 

As millions of working men and women strive to make ends meet, it is imperative 

that the Department of Labor be on their side, working to protect their rights and 

help them live out their dreams. It does not appear that Mr. Acosta would, if confirmed, fight for workers’ rights and help expand the middle class. Therefore, I ask 

you to oppose his nomination. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

CHRIS SHELTON, 

President. 

SHANE LARSON, 

Legislative Director. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

70 

1Liz Kennedy, et al., ‘‘Bullies At The Ballot Box: Protecting The Freedom To Vote Against 

Wrongful Challenges and Intimidation,’’ De ̄mos, 2012. http://www.demos.org/publication/bullies-ballot-box-protecting-freedom-vote-against-wrongful-challenges-and-intimidation. 2 ‘‘An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions 

in the Civil Rights Division,’’ Office of the Inspector General & Office of Professional Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice, 2008. https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf. 

DE ̄MOS, 

MARCH 10, 2017. 

U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Senate Dirksen Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER, RANKING MEMBER MURRAY, AND MEMBERS OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS: DE ̄MOS expresses concern about the appointment of R. Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor 

and urges the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions to vote against his confirmation. Mr. Acosta’s record of undermining voting 

rights and overseeing politicized hiring at the Department of Justice as well as and 

his lack of experience and expertise on the Department of Labor’s core mission make 

the nominee a poor choice to lead the U.S. Department of Labor. 

De ̄mos is a public policy organization working for an America where we all have 

an equal say in our democracy and an equal chance in our economy. Mr. Acosta 

raises concerns on both sides. The work of the Department of Labor is critical to 

the ability of all Americans to benefit from equitable economic opportunity, yet Mr. 

Acosta has little history of defending the rights of working people. At the same time, 

Mr. Acosta’s efforts on voting rights have undermined Americans’ ability to exercise 

an equal voice in our democracy. 

In his capacity as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s civil 

rights division, Mr. Acosta intervened to oppose a lawsuit against an anti-democratic law allowing unwarranted challenges to Americans’ right to cast ballots in 

Ohio. Writing to the judge in the case, Mr. Acosta promoted a weakened interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, asserting that civil rights concerns did not apply despite blatant efforts to disenfranchise African American voters with a challenge list 

that: 

‘‘targeted predominantly minority, urban, and Democratic districts. It was estimated that ‘in Ohio, all of the precincts in about a dozen counties that contain 

91 percent of the State’s black population—including urban areas like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, and Akron’ were targeted by Republican challengers.’’1

This troubling voting rights record raises further questions about Mr. Acosta’s 

judgment when combined with the politicized hiring process that occurred on 

Acosta’s watch at the Department of Justice. As detailed by the Office of Inspector 

General’s 2008 report, the Civil Rights Division headed by Mr. Acosta violated Justice Department policy and Federal law, improperly using political affiliations to assess job candidates and career attorneys.2

Finally, Mr. Acosta’s lack of experience and expertise on the Department of Labor’s core mission is cause for concern. The Labor Department’s mission is 

‘‘to foster . . . the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve 

their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.’’ 

One hundred and twenty million working Americans depend on the Department 

of Labor to enforce the Nation’s most basic laws on the minimum wage, child labor, 

and workplace safety. Yet Mr. Acosta has little or no experience in this area. 

Today a quarter of the Nation’s working households depend on the pay of lowwage workers including Americans working in the retail, home health care, and food 

service industries. On its current path, the economy is set to generate still more 

low-paying jobs: analysis of U.S. Department of Labor statistics reveals that 28 percent of the new jobs being created over the next decade will be in occupations paying 

median hourly wages below $12 an hour. Only proactive employment policies and 

strong enforcement by the Department of Labor can change the trend toward an 

economy based on low paying jobs. 

The next Secretary of Labor will also be responsible for rules critical to the wellbeing of working people which have been delayed by the current administration including: 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

71 

3 Robert Hiltonsmith, ‘‘Why the Fiduciary Rule Matters,’’ De ̄mos, 2015. http://www.demos 

.org/publication/why-fiduciary-rule-matters. 

• The expansion of access to overtime pay, which would raise incomes for 12.5 

million salaried workers across the country; 

• The fiduciary rule, which requires financial advisors and brokers to act in the 

best interest of people saving for retirement. De ̄mos estimates that Americans savers would pay nearly $25 billion less every year as a result of lower fees if the fiduciary rule goes into effect as written.3

Given these pending rules, and the reality that the Department of Labor is likely 

to face substantial cuts to its enforcement budget in the coming fiscal year, it is critical that the Secretary of Labor stand up for the rights of working Americans. Nothing in Alexander Acosta’s record suggests that he will. 

We urge you to vote against confirming Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor. 

Sincerely, 

TAMARA DRAUT, 

Vice President, Policy and Research. 

MAKE IT WORK ACTION! 

MARCH 10, 2017. 

Senate HELP Committee, 

428 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR SENATORS: We write to express our concerns about the choice of Alexander 

Acosta for Secretary of Labor. Our vision for a Labor Secretary is one who will carry 

out the Department of Labor’s (DOLs) mission to, 

‘‘foster, promote and develop the welfare of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for 

profitable employment and assure work-related benefits and rights.’’ 

The DoL has a particular opportunity to continue to be a leader in advancing 

women in the workforce. We have not seen evidence in Mr. Acosta’s record that he 

will be such a leader. 

The Make it Work Campaign works to advance economic security for women, men 

and families across the country. Working families, and especially women, are increasingly experiencing deep economic instability between women and men being 

paid differently for their work, the increasing costs of child and elder care, the lack 

of paid family leave and low wages. America is ready for common sense workplace 

policies and ambitious solutions that will help people across the country ‘‘make it 

work.’’ 

We need a Labor Secretary who understands the daunting challenges working 

families face and who supports raising the minimum wage (two-thirds of minimum 

wage earners are women), guaranteeing paid family and medical leave to all workers, the right to earn paid sick days, fair scheduling practices and equal pay for 

equal work. These issues are at the crux of working families’ economic security, and 

especially women’s economic security. President Trump’s Cabinet nominees have not 

demonstrated this type of commitment to date. We need to know more about whether Mr. Acosta will work to boost the financial stability of women and working families and protect our rights. Please contact Make it Work Action’s policy director 

Julie Kashen at Julie@makeitworkcampaign.org with any followup questions. Thank 

you. 

Sincerely, 

VIVIEN LABATON, 

Co-Executive Director/Co-Founder. 

TRACY STURDIVANT, 

Co-Executive Director/Co-Founder. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

72 

1 ‘‘Beyond Stereotypes: Poverty in the LGBT Community’’, The Williams Institute-UCLA 

School of Law (2012), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/headlines/beyond-stereotypes-poverty-in-the-lgbt-community/. 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS (NCLR) AND PRIDE @WORK, 

MARCH 10, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chair, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIR ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: We write today on behalf of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Pride at Work and all those we 

serve to express our concerns about the nomination of Alexander Acosta as U.S. Secretary of Labor. NCLR is an organization committed to advancing the civil and 

human rights of LGBTQ persons and their families through litigation, legislation, 

policy, and public education. Pride at Work is a nonprofit organization that represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) union members and 

their allies. 

Like many working people, we know many LGBTQ people are struggling to make 

ends meet. In fact, LGBTQ people face a higher rate of poverty than non-LGBTQ 

people,1 LGBTQ working people need a labor secretary who not only supports strong 

nondiscrimination protections but also the right to unionize, fair and equal pay, and 

worker safety. Workers should not have to decide between taking care of their 

health or that of a loved one and getting paid, and our Nation’s Secretary of Labor 

should fight day and night for that principle. 

With the recent attempts to roll back protections for LGBTQ individuals, it is essential to have a labor secretary who will defend the rights of LGBTQ working people. Unfortunately, we do not know Mr. Acosta’s views on LGBTQ issues. Therefore, 

it is critical that the Senate HELP committee does its due diligence in vetting Mr. 

Acosta thoroughly on LGBTQ employment discrimination and all other issues affecting LGBTQ workers. Workers deserve a labor secretary who will stand up for all 

of them and their families. 

Sincerely, 

National Center for Lesbian Rights, 

and Pride at Work. 

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (NEA), 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 

March 21, 2017. 

U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of the 3 million members of the National Education Association and the 50 million students they serve, we urge you to ensure that Alexander Acosta, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, is committed to 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s mission: to foster, promote, and develop the welfare 

of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working 

conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. 

It is critical for the Secretary of Labor to be committed to fairness and civil rights 

for all workers. Every day across the country, men and women go to work hoping 

to do an honest day’s work and provide for their families. Their contributions have 

made the U.S. economy one of the strongest in the world and, over time, created 

a stable middle class. 

A strong labor force is the foundation of a strong middle class. Unfortunately, the 

worker voice in the workplace has eroded over the past few decades and so has the 

stability of the middle class. Now more than ever, America needs to invest in policies that shore up and help rebuild the middle class. 

The Department of Labor is charged with addressing a range of issues related to 

those goals, including workplace safety, retirement security, and civil rights. We 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

73 

1 U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Office 

of Professional Responsibility. (2008, July 2). An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring 

and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division. Retrieved 3 March 2017, 

from https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf. 

urge the committee to vet Mr. Acosta thoroughly in these areas, especially with regard to his tenure at the U.S. Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General 

for Civil Rights and his commitment to the U.S. Department of Labor’s mission. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

MARC EGAN, 

Director of Government Relations, 

National Education Association. 

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20009, 

MARCH 14, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chair, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIR ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: On behalf of the National Partnership for Women & Families and the activists and supporters with 

whom we stand, I write today to encourage rigorous questioning and a thorough review of the record of R. Alexander Acosta, the nominee to be U.S. Secretary of 

Labor. The Secretary of Labor should be a dedicated and powerful champion for 

workers and committed to the enforcement and advancement of policies that promote the best interests of working people. This includes fighting for fair wages, safe 

workplaces, equal pay, paid sick days, paid family and medical leave and equal employment opportunities. We will listen carefully to Mr. Acosta’s responses at his upcoming confirmation hearing to evaluate whether he can be trusted to defend and 

protect the interests of working people, and especially workers in low-wage occupations and in dangerous industries, women workers and workers of color. We urge 

you to do the same, and if you are not satisfied that he will stand up for working 

people’s best interests, to reject his nomination. 

The National Partnership for Women & Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, reproductive health and 

rights, access to quality health care, and policies that help women and men meet 

the dual demands of job and family. For more than 45 years, we have worked to 

advance policies that create opportunities for women in the workforce and greater 

economic security for women and their families. The National Partnership has 

worked tirelessly to secure updated wage and hour protections for millions of America’s workers, new equal employment opportunity protections for Federal contract 

employees, and vigorous enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act—all of which are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Department of Labor. 

We have three primary areas of concern that we urge the committee to probe during Mr. Acosta’s hearing. 

First, we are concerned about Mr. Acosta’s failure to exercise oversight over a subordinate who engaged in highly politicized and ideological hiring of civil service employees during Mr. Acosta’s tenure as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil 

Rights at the Department of Justice. An investigation and subsequent report by the 

Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General found that Mr. Acosta was 

aware of, and did too little to stop, his subordinate’s efforts only to consider or hire 

attorneys with conservative credentials, and reject candidates and attorneys with 

liberal credentials.1

During Mr. Acosta’s confirmation hearing, we urge you to question Mr. Acosta vigorously about the safeguards and protocols he will institute and maintain at the Department of Labor to ensure that the department’s policy, research, regulatory and 

enforcement work is not compromised or undermined by partisan or ideological litmus tests for civil servants. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

74 

2 National Women’s Law Center. (2004, April). Slip-Sliding Away: The Erosion of Hard-Won 

Gains for Women Under the Bush Administration and an Agenda for Moving Forward. Retrieved 

13 March 2017, from http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/AdminRecordOnWomen 

2004.pdf. 3 Ibid. 

4Perez, T. E. (2017, January). Department of Labor. Memorandum to the American People. 

U.S. Department of Labor Publication. Retrieved 13 March 2017, from https://www.dol.gov/ 

sites/default/files/dol-exit-memo.pdf. 

Second, the committee must rigorously probe Mr. Acosta’s views on the role of the 

Department of Labor in investigating and enforcing laws that disproportionately impact women, people of color and vulnerable workers. We are concerned by reports 

that during Mr. Acosta’s tenure at the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division brought significantly fewer employment discrimination cases than in prior administrations.2 The division also reportedly moved away from filing high-impact 

cases challenging discriminatory policies affecting large numbers of people.3

During Mr. Acosta’s confirmation hearing, we urge you to identify what Mr. 

Acosta’s approach will be to investigating allegations of violations of wage and hour 

laws, workplace safety laws and other fundamental workplace protections, including 

those enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). We 

ask you to hold Mr. Acosta accountable for explaining what his strategic enforcement priorities will be. And we urge you to ask Mr. Acosta to pledge that he will 

advocate for current or increased funding levels for the Department of Labor, including for wage and hour investigation and enforcement activities, which since 2009 

have successfully recovered nearly $1.6 billion back wages for more than 1.7 million 

workers across the country.4

Third, we urge you to probe Mr. Acosta’s views on the need for new or expanded 

protections and supports that recognize workers’ dual obligations to their jobs and 

to their families. In recent years, the Department of Labor has provided funding and 

technical assistance to States interested in exploring the creation of paid family and 

medical leave programs. The department commissioned important research that revealed the gaps in employer compliance and employees’ barriers to using the Family 

and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The department updated Fair Labor Standards Act 

regulations to guarantee more salaried workers access to overtime pay. The department created new common-sense protections requiring that Federal contractors’ employees be paid a higher minimum wage and have access to earned paid sick days; 

it also adopted new nondiscrimination provisions for LGBT workers and protections 

against retaliation for workers who discuss their compensation with coworkers. 

Each of these policies helps to advance the interests of workers and their families 

and promotes their economic security. 

In order to assess Mr. Acosta’s commitment to these policies and to improving the 

lives of millions of working people, the committee should discern what types of investments Mr. Acosta will pledge to make as labor secretary and obtain his commitment to defend against rollbacks. For example, will he commit to vigorous enforcement of the FMLA? Will he support FMLA expansions? Will he invest in strong, 

comprehensive and sustainable solutions to America’s paid family and medical leave 

crisis, including support for a national law that guarantees women and men access 

to paid family and medical leave for all FMLA reasons and continued Department 

of Labor funding for State paid leave analyses? Will he pledge to maintain and enforce department rules governing overtime pay, paid sick days, LGBT nondiscrimination and fair pay? The answers to these questions will help the committee—and the Nation—assess whether Mr. Acosta’s views reflect those of the vast 

majority of voters who support these policies or whether his views are outside the 

mainstream and out of step with the workers whose interests he must serve. 

We hope you agree that the next Secretary of Labor must strongly support the 

mission of the department, which is, 

‘‘No foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, 

and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.’’ 

We urge you to ask probing questions and to demand clear answers to determine 

whether Mr. Acosta will faithfully execute this mission. If he will not, we ask you 

to reject his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

DEBRA L. NESS, 

President. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

75 

1 National Skills Coalition. Accessed at http://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/federal-policy/ 

federal-funding. 

NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE, 

NEW YORK, NY 10005, 

March 10, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: As President and 

CEO of the National Urban League, and on behalf of its 88 affiliates in 36 States 

and the District of Columbia, I am writing to seek assurance that Alexander Acosta, 

nominee for Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), will make full and 

effective implementation of the bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA), enacted into law in 2014, a top priority for our Nation’s workforce. 

Given the lack of information on Mr. Acosta’s views and record on workforce development policy, we urge that you conduct a thorough assessment of how he plans 

to assure that adults and youth having the greatest barriers to employment in today’s economy have access to the services of WIOA. 

The National Urban League is the Nation’s largest historic civil rights and urban 

advocacy organization dedicated to economic empowerment in African American and 

other underserved communities. Every day, we strive to meet our 2025 Goal of insuring that ‘‘Every American has access to jobs with a living wage and good benefits.’’ With the Black unemployment rate remaining at about twice the white rate 

across time at every level of education and the income gap remaining unchanged— 

now at 60 percent, the work of the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) is of critical importance to our urban communities. As you are 

fully aware, it took more than a decade to reach a bipartisan reauthorization of our 

Nation’s only Federal workforce development system. This landmark law increases 

focus on vulnerable workers, expands education and training programs, helps disadvantaged adults and youth earn while they learn, and aligns planning and accountability. However, after years of eroded funding, the new law remains sorely 

underfunded to fulfill its promise to meet the needs of both our labor force and the 

business community. For example, since 2010, Congress has cut funding to employment and job training programs by over $1 billion.1

During his nomination hearing, the National Urban League will be looking forward to learning whether Mr. Acosta is fully committed to effectively implementing 

the WIOA law. Specifically, we urge that the committee probe his views on the following: 

• What are Mr. Acosta’s views on WIOA and is he committed to its full implementation? 

• As we move into the budget and appropriations process, will he commit to aggressively seeking the funding that is needed to effectively implement WIOA so that 

every unemployed and under-employed adult and youth have access to the training, 

education and skills necessary for employment in jobs with a living wage and good 

benefits? 

• Given that today’s youth will become tomorrow’s adults, summer jobs programs 

give young people an introduction to the labor market by exposing them to practical 

experiences and skills that are a critical foundation for future jobs in this challenging and competitive labor market. For many Black teenagers, it is an opportunity to gain valuable experiences and tap into a network that they may have little 

access to otherwise. In light of this important program for youth, will Mr. Acosta 

commit to expanding the summer jobs program for youth beyond WIOA so that 

every youth in need of a summer job will be able to obtain one? 

The National Urban League will be assessing how Mr. Acosta responds to our concerns about his views and plans for fulfilling the promise of WIOA and we urge the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

76 

1 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division 50, 52 (July 2, 2008), https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/ 

final.pdf. 

committee to fully commit to the same on behalf of the millions of adults and youth 

that rely on this law to survive and thrive in a 21st century labor market. 

Sincerely, 

MARC H. MORIAL, 

President and Chief Executive Officer. 

NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, 

MARCH 15, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Senate Dirksen Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

154 Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR SENATORS ALEXANDER AND MURRAY: The National Women’s Law Center 

(the Center), an organization that has advocated on behalf of women and girls for 

45 years, writes to express its concern regarding the nomination of R. Alexander 

Acosta as Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor is the Nation’s most senior 

official tasked with ensuring the well-being and rights of working people and advancing their employment opportunities, and is therefore of great importance to 

women and their families. The Secretary of Labor directs the Department of Labor’s 

interpretation and enforcement of a number of laws vital to women’s economic security and right to be free from workplace discrimination, such as the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Family and Medical 

Leave Act, the Affordable Care Act, and Executive orders prohibiting employment 

discrimination by Federal contractors and setting labor standards for Federal contractors’ employees, including protection of the right to earn paid sick days. These 

policies are essential to closing the gender wage gap: they remove barriers to women’s employment opportunity, including sex discrimination; raise women’s wages; 

allow women to meet caregiving responsibilities without sacrificing their employment; and ensure women’s health and safety so they can continue to support their 

families. 

Mr. Acosta’s record, particularly during his tenure as Assistant Attorney General 

for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice from 2003–05, raises serious questions 

about his commitment to implementing and enforcing labor, employment and civil 

rights protections of critical importance to working people, and particularly to 

women, free from improper political influence. We urge the committee to use the 

opportunity presented by Mr. Acosta’s confirmation hearing to conduct a rigorous 

examination of Mr. Acosta’s record and thoroughly vet this nominee. 

Mr. Acosta oversaw the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division at a time 

when it engaged in highly politicized and ideological hiring and case assignments. 

An investigation and 2008 report by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility found that while Acosta 

served as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, a senior official directly under 

his supervision, Bradley Schlozman, violated the Civil Service Reform Act by considering and, indeed, prioritizing political and ideological affiliations in hiring and 

transferring attorneys and assigning cases in the Civil Rights Division. Acosta had 

delegated hiring authority to Schlozman, who sought to punish attorneys with affiliations with progressive organizations or connections to the Democratic party and 

elevate attorneys with conservative views or Republican party credentials. The report concluded that Acosta and others in the division ‘‘had sufficient information 

about Schlozman’s conduct to have raised red flags warranting closer supervision of 

him,’’ and that they instead took no action and failed to sufficiently supervise 

Schlozman.1

As the agency responsible for enforcing many of the laws that ensure safe and 

fair employment practices, the Department of Labor has a heightened responsibility 

to ensure its own labor and employment practices are unimpeachable. We urge the 

committee to question Mr. Acosta about this issue at his hearing, and obtain his 

commitment to ensuring that these politicized screenings, hirings, transfers, and 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

77 

2 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Information on Employment 

Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation Sections’ Enforcement 

Efforts from fiscal years 2001 Through 2007 (Oct. 2009), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ 

d1075.pdf: Nat’l Women’s Law Ctr., Slip-Sliding Away: The Erosion of Hard-Won Gains for 

Women Under the Bush Administration and an Agenda for Moving Forward 13–14 (Apr. 2004), 

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/AdminRecordOnWomen2004.pdf. 3 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Wage And Hour Division’s Complaint Intake and Investigative Processes Leave Low Wage Workers Vulnerable to Wage Theft (Mar. 25, 2009), http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/130/122107.pdf. 

workplace practices are not repeated at the Department of Labor, and that employees at the Department of Labor comply with all labor and employment laws, including the Civil Service Reform Act. Furthermore, Mr. Acosta should be asked to provide details about the specific oversight processes he would implement to ensure 

that Labor Department officials are complying with all relevant labor and employment laws. 

Mr. Acosta’s tenure at the Civil Rights Division was also marked by a troubling 

stepping back of Federal civil rights enforcement efforts. For example, significantly 

fewer employment discrimination cases, and fewer employment discrimination pattern and practice cases, were brought during the George W. Bush administration 

than in prior Administrations.2 Given this record, the committee must call upon Mr. 

Acosta to affirm that as Secretary of Labor, he will not scale back or undermine 

Department of Labor enforcement efforts and that he will ensure that decisionmaking about case selection and litigation strategy to enforce labor and employment 

protections is free from improper political influence. This is of particular importance 

to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the Wage and 

Hour Division’s efforts to protect vulnerable workers, including women, immigrants, 

people of color, LGBT individuals, and workers in low-wage jobs. 

OFCCP implements and enforces an array of executive actions governing Federal 

contractor workplaces, including protections for employees of Federal contractors 

who discuss their pay, and the non-discrimination requirements in Executive Order 

11246 and its recently updated sex discrimination regulations, which provide crucial 

protections against pay discrimination, sexual harassment, discrimination on the 

basis of gender identity, and pregnancy discrimination. OFCCP also oversees the 

collection of pay data from Federal contractors to root out pay discrimination. Mr. 

Acosta must commit to ensuring OFCCP’s robust implementation and enforcement 

of such anti-discrimination protections and initiatives. The committee should also 

obtain a pledge from Mr. Acosta to increase the number of enforcement actions 

brought by the Department of Labor challenging employment discrimination, especially systemic discrimination that affects large numbers of workers, particularly 

women and people of color. 

The Wage and Hour Division enforces a variety of laws critical to women’s economic security and health, including wage and hour protections in the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, and leave provisions in the Family and Medical Leave Act and the 

current Department of Labor rule ensuring that employees of Federal contractors 

can earn paid sick days. The overrepresentation of women in low-wage jobs, including minimum wage and sub-minimum wage positions, as well as the fact that 

women—and in particular women of color—continue to bear the burden of 

caregiving, are important drivers of the gender wage gap. Because women, and in 

particular women of color and immigrant women, are overrepresented in low-wage 

jobs, they have a particular stake in raising the minimum wage and in robust overtime protections; are especially vulnerable to wage theft and retaliation; and are 

less likely to have access to important supports like paid family and medical leave 

and paid sick leave. It is essential that the Wage and Hour Division receives the 

resources it needs to protect low-wage workers, and that it uses those resources to 

enforce workers’ rights affirmatively, rather than relying on complaint-driven enforcement as in the George W. Bush administration, which left workers vulnerable 

to exploitation.3 The committee must call upon Mr. Acosta to affirm that he will 

commit the Division to this affirmative enforcement and defend the Division against 

any attempts to undermine its ability to conduct vigorous implementation and enforcement activities. 

Additionally, we urge you to probe Mr. Acosta’s understanding of the importance 

of various labor and employment policies for reducing barriers to women’s workplace 

opportunity and promoting their economic security. For instance, the committee 

should explore whether Mr. Acosta appreciates the implications of increasing the 

Federal minimum wage, ensuring tipped workers are entitled to the same cash minimum wage as other workers, and expanding eligibility for overtime pay for closing 

the gender wage gap. Likewise, the committee should determine whether Mr. Acosta 

recognizes the critical role that access to paid family, medical and sick leave proHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

78 

1https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf. 

grams play in helping women maintain employment while ensuring their own 

health and fulfilling caregiving responsibilities. We urge you to thoroughly explore 

Mr. Acosta’s views on these matters during his confirmation hearing. 

In conclusion, the Center urges the committee to review thoroughly these troubling aspects of Mr. Acosta’s record during his hearing, to identify how he will ensure that personnel and enforcement decisions at the Department of Labor will be 

free from the political interference that characterized his leadership at the Civil 

Rights Division, to seek to ensure that he commits to vigorous enforcement of the 

labor and employment protections that the Department of Labor oversees, with a 

focus on the needs of the most vulnerable workers, and to establish his understanding of labor and employment policies critical to the economic security of women 

and families. 

Sincerely, 

MARCIA D. GREENBERGER, 

Co-President. 

PUBLIC CITIZEN, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20003, 

March 10, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Senate Dirksen Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Senate Dirksen Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: Public Citizen is a 

national, nonprofit public interest organization with more than 400,000 members 

and supporters nationwide that advocates for public health and safety interests before legislative bodies, executive branch agencies, and the courts. On behalf of Public Citizen, I am writing to urge you to thoroughly examine R. Alexander Acosta as 

President Trump’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor. 

In November, American voters made it clear that they want the government to 

uplift the working class, and in many ways this idea was a central theme of the 

election. However, a 2008 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) report calls into question Mr. Acosta’s ability to be an effective advocate for working people. The report 

revealed the politicization of hiring practices within DOJ’s Civil Rights Division during Mr. Acosta’s tenure.1 Public Citizen has serious concerns about the findings of 

this report. 

Mr. Acosta must address his record in DOJ leadership in addition to his stance 

on critical issues affecting working families. Among other issues, the committee 

should question the nominee on the following matters: 

• Is Mr. Acosta committed to enforcing U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rules, 

such as the recently issued silica, beryllium, and electronic recordkeeping rules? • Will Mr. Acosta advocate for appropriate funding and staffing levels for the U.S. 

Occupational Health and Safety Administration? • As head of the DOL, will Mr. Acosta actively pursue new public protections to 

make worksites safer nationwide? 

American workers deserve a U.S. Secretary of Labor who fights for their rights 

in the workplace and believes in the American working public. We ask the committee to press Mr. Acosta on his commitment to advocating for workers across the 

country and vigorously enforcing DOL regulations. Leading DOL is a serious responsibility that requires a commitment to advocating for our Nation’s workers. The 

committee must use its role in the confirmation process to determine whether Mr. 

Acosta is the correct candidate to take on this important task. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

LISA GILBERT, 

Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

79 

1 ‘‘An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions 

in the Civil Rights Division.’’ U.S. Department of Justice. January 13, 2009. https//oig.justice 

.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf. 2 Ibid. Pg. 50. 

3 Ibid. Pg. 52. 

4Spencer v. Blackwell, Case No. 04CV738. Filed October 27, 2004. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/ 

electionlaw/litigation/spencer.php. 5 Acosta, R. Alexander. ‘‘RE: Spencer v. Blackwell, Case No. 04CV738.’’ U.S. Department of 

Justice, Civil Rights Division. October 29, 2004. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/ 

files/analysis/10-29-04%200hic%20Challenge%20Letter%20-%20Acosta.pdf. 

THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND

HUMAN RIGHTS, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 

March 10, 2017. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chair, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIR ALEXANDER AND RANKING MEMBER MURRAY: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 210 national 

organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of 

all persons in the United States and the 68 undersigned organizations, we are writing to urge that you conduct a thorough review of the prior record of Alex Acosta 

as you consider his nomination for U.S. Secretary of Labor. 

As organizations that are committed to advancing the civil and human rights of 

all workers in America, we believe it is essential for this committee to scrutinize 

Mr. Acosta’s tenure as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. During that period from 2003–05, there is no question that hiring was politicized and that Department rules were broken. This is well-documented 

in the 2008 report of the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice.1 Their report finds clear evidence 

of violations of Federal civil service law and department policy prohibiting discrimination in Federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations by a top 

Civil Rights Division official, Bradley Schlozman. 

The report also includes the following with regard to the specific actions and inactions by Mr. Acosta: 

‘‘We believe that AAGs Acosta {and others} had indications of potential problems in Schlozman’s actions and judgment, and that each had sufficient information about Schlozman’s conduct to have raised red flags warranting closer supervision of him.’’2

In conclusion, the report notes that, 

‘‘Acosta and Kim did not sufficiently supervise Schlozman. In light of indications they had about Schlozman’s conduct and judgment, they failed to ensure 

that Schlozman’s hiring and personnel decisions were based on proper considerations.’’3

Concerns about the politicization of the work of the Civil Rights Division is further exemplified by Spencer v. Blackwell, a case relating to voter suppression of African American voters in Ohio just before the 2004 election.4 Although the Justice 

Department was not a party in the case, and despite the fact that there was substantial evidence that the proposed ‘‘voter caging’’ scheme to challenge voters disproportionately affected African American voters, Acosta took the unusual step of 

writing a letter to the court taking the position that the practice was not prohibited 

by the Voting Rights Act.5 Fortunately, the Justice Department position was rejected, but Mr. Acosta should be asked to explain his rationale for taking this unusual step in a controversial case just before an election—contrary to general Department policy. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

80 

6 ‘‘United States Department of Labor [DOL].’’ Leadership Directories. https://lo.bvdep.com/ 

OrgDocument.asp?OrgId=-l&LDIBookId=19&&LDIOrgId=153606&LDISecld=180&FromRecent 

=0&Save=1&Position=1#O153606. 

Mr. Acosta, if confirmed, will preside over a very large department with 17,000 

employees.6 The American public, and Department of Labor workers, must be reassured that the civil service will not be politicized under Mr. Acosta’s watch and that 

the laws the Department is mandated to implement and enforce will be carried out 

effectively. Due diligence requires that this committee probe the nominee about 

what steps he will commit to take to ensure that this type of politicization of the 

hiring process does not happen at the Department of Labor. For example: 

• How will he ensure that there is no political interference with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) career staff in their work to vigorously enforce 

Executive Order 11246 and its non-discrimination requirements for Federal contractors and subcontractors? • How will he ensure that there is no political interference with the Wage and 

Hour Division career staff in their work to vigorously enforce the law against wage 

theft and other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act? • How will he ensure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its professional staff 

continue to report the employment and related numbers free of any political interference? 

At a minimum, we expect the nominee for Secretary of Labor to answer these 

questions. It is also important to probe his views on labor issues of great importance 

to American workers, particularly to low-wage African American, Asian, and Hispanic workers, women, and workers with disabilities who are struggling to make 

ends meet and to sustain their families. 

Fundamental to the Labor Department’s mission is protecting the welfare, health, 

and safety of workers and insuring compliance with labor standards and ensuring 

that those most vulnerable, particularly migrant workers, are treated fairly. We 

urge that you seek Mr. Acosta’s views on the record on these and the other critical 

economic issues listed below: 

• Raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour; • Litigation position on the overtime rules that were supposed to take effect on 

December 1, 2016, but were enjoined by a Federal court in Texas in November and 

which the Department of Labor appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but 

recently received an extension of time to reconsider its position; • Implementing and enforcing the requirement of earned paid sick days for employees of Federal contractors; • Continuing to support State and national efforts to develop paid family leave 

programs and promote pay equity; and • Implementing the fiduciary rule, which requires those who give retirement savings advice to avoid conflicts of interest, utilizing the standard of the best financial 

interests of the client. 

In sum, we urge the HELP Committee to explore these issues vigorously in its 

confirmation hearing on the nomination of Alex Acosta to be Secretary of Labor and 

to secure specific commitments on the record about how, if confirmed, he will ensure 

that neither the hiring practices nor the policy and enforcement work of the Department of Labor will be politicized. The Leadership Conference and the undersigned 

organizations will be monitoring his actions and, if confirmed, hold him accountable 

for these commitments. We urge the committee to do the same. If you have any 

questions, please contact June Zeitlin, Director of Human Rights Policy at The 

Leadership Conference, at zeitlin@civilrights.org or at 202-263-2852. 

Sincerely, 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 9to5, National Association 

of Working Women; AFL–CIO; American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity; American Association of University Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of Government Employees; The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Asian Pacific American 

Labor Alliance, AFL–CIO (APALA); Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Center for Law 

and Social Policy (CLASP); Communications Workers of America; CREDO; Daily 

Kos; De ̄mos; Domestic Worker Legacy Fund; Economic Policy Institute Policy Center; Equal Justice Center (Texas); Equal Justice Society; Equal Pay Today!; Equal 

Rights Advocates; Family Equality Council; Family Values @ Work; Farmworker 

Justice; Fight for $15; Food & Water Watch; GLSEN; Interfaith Worker Justice; 

Jobs With Justice; Labor Project for Working Families in partnership with Family 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

81 

Values @ Work; Lambda Legal; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; 

Legal Aid at Work; Main Street Alliance; MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund); Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; NAACP; 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; National Association of Human Rights Workers; National 

Bar Association; National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for 

Transgender Equality; National Council of Churches; National Council of Jewish 

Women; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Education Association; National Employment Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association; National Hispanic Media Coalition; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women’s Law Center; Oxfam 

America; Policy Matters Ohio; PolicyLink; Pride at Work; Public Citizen; Santa 

Clara County Wage Theft Coalition; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty 

Law; SEIU; UltraViolet; United Steelworkers; The Voter Participation Center; 

Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund; Workplace Fairness; and YWCA USA. 

WORKPLACE FAIRNESS, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

RESPONSE BY ALEXANDER ACOSTA TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ALEXANDER, SENATOR

ROBERTS, SENATOR COLLINS, SENATOR MURKOWSKI, SENATOR YOUNG, SENATOR

CASSIDY, AND SENATOR PAUL

SENATOR ALEXANDER

Question 1. The Davis-Bacon Act requires Federal contractors and subcontractors 

to pay employees a prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor from 

a voluntary local area wage survey. The law has already been extended to more 

than 60 Federal statutes that provide construction funding, despite numerous government watchdog reports that uncovered errors, fraud and bias in Davis-Bacon 

wage survey data and questioned the statistical integrity and methodology of the 

wage determination process. There is a growing body of evidence and an increasing 

public awareness that Davis-Bacon artificially inflates the costs of Federal and federally assisted construction projects, and creates barriers to participation for small 

and minority-owned businesses. These costs result in American taxpayers receiving 

far less than they would in a true, market-based system. This waste of Federal dollars means fewer projects, and in turn, fewer workers employed than would have 

been otherwise. 

Will you commit to review the accuracy of Davis-Bacon wage rate calculations 

and, if you find it lacking, to taking steps to improve their accuracy? 

Answer 1. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the Davis-Bacon Act 

and these concerns as we develop the Department’s policies and priorities. I also understand the Office of Inspector General testified they are looking into the DavisBacon wage survey program and want to ensure the program operates efficiently 

and effectively, so that taxpayers get the best value and workers are paid the proper 

wages. 

Question 2. Disability insurance provides Americans with crucial income protection from unexpected disability due to illness or injury. Access to disability insurance depends on affordability, which is directly affected by regulatory, administrative, and litigation costs. In December, the Department of Labor issued a final regulation regarding disability insurance claims administration. I have heard concerns 

that this regulation will significantly increase the cost of disability insurance by encouraging litigation and will inappropriately apply Affordable Care Act claims procedures to disability plans. 

Will you commit to reviewing this regulation and working with the disability insurance community to ensure that Americans will continue to have access to affordable, high quality disability insurance? 

Answer 2. I certainly support making high-quality disability insurance as affordable as possible while also ensuring that claims are processed timely and fairly. If 

confirmed, I expect to be briefed on this regulation and I look forward to working 

with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities. As 

I noted in my hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all 

rules and to make determinations if any rules should be revised. 

SENATOR ROBERTS

Question 1. Mr. Acosta, as you are aware, contract negotiations which lapse can 

result in a slow down at our ports, which in turn effects our agriculture community. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

82 

The importance of resolving these conflicts expeditiously is not only important for 

the direct parties involved, but for our agriculture industry and so many others who 

rely on exporting and importing goods. A shutdown or even a slowdown to our port 

system can cost the economy billions of dollars by halting or delaying the export of 

agriculture products to other countries or the import of goods to stores across our 

country. 

Should a situation arise, putting our economy at risk, will you—if asked—lend 

your assistance to finding a quick and effective solution? 

Answer 1. Yes. If confirmed, I would lend my assistance to help resolve a port 

slow down or strike. The stakes for our economy are too high not to resolve any conflicts expeditiously. 

Question 2. Mr. Acosta, there is significant bipartisan support on the committee 

for encouraging employee ownership of businesses through Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). The data shows that ESOPs create jobs, generate economic activity, and promote retirement savings. However, the important benefits of ESOPs 

are being undermined by the Department of Labor, which, under the prior administration, unfairly targeted the ESOP community with overly aggressive enforcement 

tactics. In particular, the Department has engaged in abusive subpoena practices for 

document production and testimony, often without previously contacting any representative of the sponsoring company of the subject ESOP, and almost always seeking duplicative information from the professionals who provide services to ESOPs. 

These abusive subpoena tactics have caused needless and very significant expense 

to produce multiple copies of the same documents, and it is not clear that there is 

any cause for the subpoenas being issued. 

Can you commit to reviewing the Department’s ESOP enforcement practices and 

working with the ESOP community to encourage employee ownership? 

Answer 2. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based retirement plans, can 

provide valuable benefits to participating workers, and I believe that Congress and 

the Department have a shared responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs 

fulfill their important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look forward to working 

with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to 

expand opportunity. 

Question 3. Mr. Acosta, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) leads 

the Department of Labor’s efforts to ensure workers across the globe are treated 

fairly. Their mission is to improve global working conditions, raise living standards, 

protect workers’ rights, address workplace exploitation and ensure a fair playing 

field for American workers. 

Should you be confirmed, how do you see ILAB playing into your overall agenda 

at DOL? 

Answer 3. If confirmed, I will consult with the Bureau staff and seek input from 

Congress and other agencies on these important issues to ensure that ILAB continues its mission. A fair playing field for American workers is certainly a priority 

for me, and I strongly support promoting human rights and free markets for the 

benefit of workers generally. 

SENATOR COLLINS

TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT VISAS

Question 1. H–2B visas, which certify foreign nationals to work temporarily in the 

United States, are heavily relied upon by Maine’s tourism and hospitality businesses that are in need of seasonal, temporary workers—beyond the number that 

they can hire in our State and region. 

The H–2B program is especially important to Maine’s tourism sector, which is 

Maine’s second biggest industry. For a State with just 1.3 million people, hosting 

25 times that number over the course of a year is a challenge. Most of these visitors 

come in the summer, which makes it all the more important for restaurants and 

hotels in Maine to have their H–2B visa applications processed in a timely fashion. 

Unfortunately, for too many businesses in Maine, DOL’s processing of these visas 

is taking too long, even for workers who receive a visa every year. Combined with 

the low unemployment rate in our State, the effect of DOL’s processing delays could 

be catastrophic for Maine’s businesses—many of which have contacted me to express 

concern that the 66,000 numerical cap for H–2B visas for this year was reached last 

week. 

If confirmed, how would you try to reduce the processing times for these visas? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

83 

Answer 1. I recognize the difficulty that many employers face in this area and 

the potential repercussions for vital industries across the country. As I noted in the 

hearing, I understand how important this is for Maine and other States and look 

forward to working together to fix this issue if confirmed. 

JOB TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIPS

Question 2. As we’ve discussed, I’m a big supporter of job training and apprenticeship programs that match workers’ training with the skillsets in demand. I have 

met with numerous business owners in Maine who have jobs available but cannot 

find qualified and trained workers to fill them. 

Apprenticeships allow companies to retain expertise while developing the skills of 

younger workers, and make possible the seamless transfer of skills from one generation to the next, which is essential to Maine’s trade-related industries. 

In 2015, I introduced a bill with Sen. Cantwell that would have given employers a $5,000 tax credit to provide apprenticeship programs to train workers in high-demand mechanical, technical, health care, or technology fields. We are planning to 

reintroduce this bill very soon. 

If confirmed, how would you help American workers acquire the skills that employers need? 

Answer 2. I share your belief that quality apprenticeship programs are a valuable 

and effective job training tool and expanding access to effective apprenticeship programs is a major facet of positioning our workforce to meet the needs of a changing 

economy. Apprenticeship and other work-based learning models that share strong 

public-private partnerships, active employer engagement training, and offer workers 

the opportunity to earn while you learn are critical to ensure employers get technically capable workers. Furthermore, the concept of providing employers with incentives to invest in such programs is a concept of great interest to me, and one 

in which I would like to work with you and other members of the committee. There 

are numerous examples throughout the Nation of industry, local academic and 

training institutions and government partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this model 

can be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to 

transition to new and growing industries. 

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. In Alaska, we are seeing increasing coordination and leverage of private sector workforce development funds. For example, Alaska Native Corporations, 

labor unions, health care employers, and other diverse private sector entities are 

working together to expand training funding that augments public sector investments. 

What would you do as Secretary to maximize and encourage private sector funding? 

Answer 1. The private sector and local non-profit leaders and labor unions are 

often much more in touch with the markets in their communities and can be much 

more agile in allocating resources than we can in Washington, DC. I believe that 

public-private partnerships like the ones that you describe can be a major part of 

the future of workforce development. There are numerous examples throughout the 

Nation of industry, local academic and training institutions and government 

partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If confirmed, I 

believe my role will be to make sure this model can be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition to new and growing industries. 

Question 2. The President’s ‘‘skinny budget’’ request proposes to close Job Corps 

centers that do a ‘‘poor job’’ of educating and preparing students for jobs. The request does not detail how centers would be evaluated to determine if they do a ‘‘poor 

job’’ or not. When we spoke one-on-one, you suggested evaluating Job Corps centers 

not by their percentage of graduates but by the percentage of students who get jobs 

for which they are trained. 

Given the President’s proposal, do you have an estimate of how many Job Corps 

centers might be closed under this rubric? 

Answer 2. As a nominee, I did not participate in the budget process so I am unfamiliar with any specific proposals that are assumed in that proposal. If confirmed, 

I expect to be briefed on the Job Corps program and the performance of each of the 

more than 100 Job Corps centers. I look forward to learning more about the center 

in your State that you had mentioned as well as others, and our focus will be on 

helping Job Corps centers best provide to students the vital services and training 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

84 

central to their core mission. Finally, to be clear, performance must also include an 

assessment of the challenges faced in a particular region. 

Question 3. The President’s ‘‘skinny’’ budget request also proposes to decrease 

Federal support for job training and employment service formula grants and shift 

the responsibility to States, localities, and employers. In addition, it proposes to reduce funding for unspecified ‘‘ineffective, duplicative, and peripheral job training 

grants’’. 

What are your thoughts about how these proposals would impact the Administration’s plan to increase American job training in States like Alaska that have serious 

budget deficits, and States where Job Corps centers are closed due to poor performance? 

Answer 3. As a nominee, I was not able to participate in the budget process so 

I am unfamiliar with any specific proposals that are assumed in that proposal. The 

President proposes the budget and it is ultimately Congress that determines funding. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as these in order 

to help the President develop budget proposals that will accomplish the Department’s mission and goals and deliver the greatest value to the American people. If 

confirmed, I also expect to be briefed on the Job Corps program and the performance 

of each of the more than 100 Job Corps centers. I look forward to learning more 

about the center in your State as well as others, and our focus will be on helping 

Job Corps centers to best provide to students the vital services and training central 

to their core mission. 

Question 4. You may have read about international trends in which companies in 

the United States and abroad are turning to apprenticeship for training their employees in health care, advanced manufacturing, IT, aviation, maritime, and other 

occupations. On a bipartisan basis, both Congress and the USDOL have supported 

expansion of apprenticeship, and Alaska has worked very closely with USDOL in 

this regard. Major employers expanding apprenticeship in our State include nearly 

all of our largest hospitals, our largest provider of health care to Alaska Natives, 

the Alaska Air Carriers Association, multiple maritime shipping companies, many 

construction employers, and others. 

Can you commit to continuing the Department of Labor’s critical support for Registered Apprenticeship? 

Answer 4. As I stated at the confirmation hearing, I feel strongly that apprenticeship programs can deliver great value, both for workers and industry. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation of industry, local academic and training institutions and government partnering effectively to train and place workers in 

growth sectors. If confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this model can 

be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition to new and growing industries. 

Question 5. Alaska has the lowest income inequality in America and some of the 

country’s highest median wages. That is partly a result of strong labor laws, including the Federal Davis-Bacon Act and the State’s Little Davis-Bacon Act. 

Will you fully support enforcing Federal prevailing wage laws, since they are essential to sustaining our middle class? 

Answer 5. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of 

Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the Federal Davis-Bacon Act. 

Question 6. As we discussed in our previous meeting, Job Centers are important 

not only for employers seeking American workers, but also as a source of industryrequired job training for job seekers through Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA) funds. In Alaska, we supplement Federal training dollars with State 

training funds through the State Training and Employment Program (STEP). These 

training funds are particularly important for an increasingly dynamic economy in 

which workers can expect to change jobs and even industries multiple times in the 

course of a career. 

Will you work to sustain the Wagner-Peyser and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funding that is essential for these job training efforts? 

Answer 6. As I noted at the confirmation hearing, I feel strongly that well-managed and targeted job training programs, and particularly quality apprenticeship 

programs, can deliver great value, both for workers and industry. It is also important to ensure States and local business have input into those programs because 

needs are different across the country. There are numerous examples throughout 

the Nation of industry, local academic and training institutions and government 

partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If confirmed, I 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

85 

believe my role will be to make sure this model can be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition to new and growing industries, and I will work to sustain funding for these types of efforts. 

Question 7. Concerns have been raised about your oversight of the Civil Rights 

Division of the Department of Justice, specifically regarding your oversight of personnel practices impacting career attorneys. The joint report of the Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility stated that you, ‘‘[and other 

senior officials] had indications of potential problems in Schlozman’s actions and 

judgment’’ and ‘‘had sufficient information about Schlozman’s conduct to have raised 

red flags warranting closer supervision of him.’’ The report also noted that you, ‘‘did 

not take sufficient action in response to the information’’ that DAAG Scholzman had 

forwarded an ‘‘inappropriate, racially insensitive e-mail to other Department officials’’. 

How can I be confident that the actions leading to criticisms about your oversight 

and management of the Division will not be repeated at the Department of Labor 

if you are confirmed as Secretary? 

Answer 7. As I indicated at my hearing before the committee, the conduct described in the Inspector General’s report was wrong and should not have taken 

place. The IG concluded that I was not aware of the misconduct. Nonetheless, it occurred on my watch as Assistant Attorney General. I am now well aware of what 

happened, and committed to ensure it is not repeated. Indeed, if confirmed, I will 

make it abundantly clear that such conduct will not be tolerated. Since that time, 

I am a more hands-on manager. I have also learned to better oversee and monitor 

subordinates while not micromanaging their performance. As U.S. Attorney, for example, I regularly walked around the office to learn what the Assistant U.S. Attorneys were doing. This day-to-day contact was important, and helped me better understand and monitor day-to-day activity. 

Question 8. Nationwide, Job Corps centers are operating at 80 percent of their 

contracted capacity in part because of an inefficient procurement system and costly 

and unnecessary regulations and policies. 

Will you commit to expediting the reduction of unnecessary regulations and improving procurement and other policies to increase Job Corps’ efficiency and effectiveness? 

Answer 8. Thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention. As presented, the answer to this question is yes. The efficiency and effectiveness of Job 

Corps centers is crucial. I expect to be briefed on Job Corps centers’ operating capacity and evaluation metrics in order to better understand how they are currently performing, and how we can create the conditions for them to be more effective and 

efficient. 

Question 9. Does the Department of Labor have a role in addressing wage stagnation, especially among entry-level and low-wage employment? If so, what is that 

role? 

Answer 9. A growing economy combined with improved job training for in demand 

skills that drive productivity enhancements is the best way to improve real wages 

for entry and low wage workers generally. Advancing technologies will change the 

types of jobs that are available in our economy. As I discussed at the hearing, we 

need to make better efforts to align job training with the skills the market demands 

today and in the future. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you further 

on this issue. 

Question 10. Linking to Employment Activities Pre-Release (LEAP) is an example 

of a positive U.S. DOL prison-to-workforce program to help returning citizens gain 

employment after incarceration. 

What are your plans to strengthen prison-to-workforce programs given that having a job is the most important factor in determining whether a returning citizen 

will commit more crimes? 

Answer 10. Programs that help reintegrate citizens into the economy post-incarceration are very important and of interest to me. I am informed that the Department has several programs that focus in this area, and I look forward to being 

briefed on all of them. Thank you for making me aware of your appreciation of this 

program and this issue. I look forward to working with you and other members of 

the committee on continuing and possibly improving efforts to help citizens reintegrate into the workforce post-incarceration. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

86 

SENATOR YOUNG

Question 1. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) have traditionally enjoyed 

bipartisan support in both Democratic and Republican administrations. More than 

50 ESOPs are headquartered in my home State of Indiana, with many more employing residents. ESOPs allow members of both rural and urban communities to build 

retirement wealth as employee owners. These members would not be afforded the 

same opportunities without the presence of ESOPs. 

If you are confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, will you continue the tradition of 

support of ESOPs and work with me on issues surrounding ESOPs? 

Answer 1. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based retirement plans, can 

provide valuable benefits to participating workers, and I believe that Congress and 

the Department have a shared responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs 

fulfill their important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look forward to working 

with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to 

expand opportunity. 

Question 2. In most recent years under the previous Administration, ESOPs have 

been plagued with lawsuits. In fact, the number of lawsuits against ESOPs quadrupled. This is due to many inaccurate valuations of privately held companies that 

did not take into account the unique ownership of ESOPs. Furthermore, I have 

heard from ESOPs in my State that many field audits conducted by the Employee 

Benefit Security Administration were inefficient, time consuming and hostile. I certainly believe that appropriate enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance 

with the law, but I do not believe that ESOPs should be unfairly scrutinized. 

If you are confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, will you work with me to examine 

the enforcement process and explore ways to increase efficiency and predictability? 

Answer 2. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based retirement plans, can 

provide valuable benefits to participating workers, and I believe that Congress and 

the Department have a shared responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs 

fulfill their important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look forward to working 

with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to 

expand opportunity and address your concerns. 

SENATOR CASSIDY

Question 1. In Louisiana, our unemployment rate is stagnant at around 6.0 percent. Well above the national average of 4.8 percent. There is much talk about creating jobs and growing the economy. As you may know, there are approximately 47 

Federal employment and training programs administered by the Department of 

Labor, and other departments and Federal agencies. Federal taxpayers spend billions of dollars on these programs (some of which are mandatory spending), yet unemployment remains high and there is a constant struggle to find qualified workers. 

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) consolidated many of the 

Federal programs administered by the Department of Labor and set performance accountability measures to access their effectiveness at the State and local level. However, we won’t have the first set of data until this summer. As Secretary, will you 

commit to analyzing such data quickly to ensure these programs are effective and 

held accountable for preparing people for jobs? What immediate steps will you take 

if inefficiencies are found? 

Answer 1. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the data and performance 

metrics you mention in order to understand how effective these programs are at all 

levels. I commit to analyzing the data as quickly as possible. If there are instances 

where programs are failing to meet performance accountability measures, I expect 

to work both internally at the Department and with you and other members of the 

committee to hold those in charge accountable and to pursue policies and reforms 

that will increase performance and deliver more value to workers and the economy. 

Question 2. As Secretary, will you commit to working with this committee and the 

other departments and agencies to review how best to coordinate all education, employment and job training programs? Particularly, will you review how we can best 

bring career and technical education (CTE) and the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) employment services in line with the department’s job training 

programs? Please explain your thoughts and recommendations for coordinating 

these programs? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

87 

Answer 2. Yes. As I mentioned at the hearing, I expect to work closely and coordinate with the Department of Education whenever possible. The missions of the two 

Departments are so closely aligned, and I believe closer and more effective coordination will allow us to provide better services and outcomes for those served by both 

Departments. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on how Department of Labor programs interact with Department of Education programs, as well as other Departments like Health and Human Services in order to ensure that optimal coordination 

is taking place. 

Question 3. Do you agree that all programs (across all agencies and departments) 

should share similar performance accountability measures? To allow us to compare 

apples to apples on what is working? What are your recommendations on how best 

to make this happen? 

Answer 3. I certainly support evaluating programs for their results in an objective 

manner, but it may be difficult to have the same performance measures across all 

agencies. Each enforcement agency, for example, at DOL may have different metrics 

because of the nature of their responsibilities and legal authorities. Increased compliance with the law arguably is a great metric to consider but can be hard to measure, particularly in the case of discrimination prevention. Similarly, consumerdriven job training may be more difficult to measure as opposed to job placement 

of Job Corps graduates. If confirmed, I will consult with staff and review the performance metrics DOL agencies have been using to see if there might need to be 

changes and also coordinate with other departments to develop better measures 

where possible. 

Question 4. While the department does make data on these programs publicly 

available on their website, the most current information is not always available in 

a timely manner. Also, people in need of job training services are not looking at the 

data on the outcomes, only that the services are available. Will you commit to reviewing the department’s data systems to ensure they are working effectively with 

information available in a timely manner? Also, will you commit to having this information publicly available through an online searchable database for all programs 

that is accessible to Congress, stakeholders, and taxpayers? 

Answer 4. If confirmed, I will look into these matters and discuss with DOL staff 

how to make such information more readily available. 

Question 5. We really must do a better job of coordinating all Federal programs 

across the board to ensure they are effective and a good use of taxpayer dollars. 

Many of these programs have been around for decades and we must ensure they 

are working to meet today’s workforce needs. 

Answer 5. I strongly agree. 

SENATOR PAUL

Question 1. Under the Obama administration, DOL exempted or significantly decreased labor union reporting requirements regarding conflicts of interest and financial disclosures. The forms eliminated or decreased are T–1 (Trust Annual Reporting), LM–2 (labor organization annual report), and LM–30 (conflict of interest disclosure reports). Would you work to ensure that there is appropriate transparency and 

disclosure conducted on the part of labor organizations as required by law? 

Answer 1. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing these issues with the staff 

of the Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards to determine whether 

the level of disclosure that currently exists is fulfilling the mandate Congress set 

in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. 

Question 2. If confirmed, would you consider revoking the June 20, 1995, letter 

of the Wage & Hour Administrator which declined to use the Agency’s resources to 

enforce Davis-Bacon Act violations for union job targeting programs? 

Answer 2. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the Davis-Bacon Act 

and the use of job targeting programs under it as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities, and I will enforce the laws under the Department of 

Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. 

Question 3. Do you agree with the Department of Labor’s Wage Appeals Board 

rulings in 1991 that the practice of deducting union dues from employee wages and 

returning them to an employer through union job targeting programs on DavisBacon Act prevailing wage jobs, is unlawful conduct under the anti-kickback provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

88 

Do you intend to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act provisions that bar the ‘‘kickback’’ 

of any portion of a worker’s Davis-Bacon wages to an employer from a union-sponsored job target fund? 

Do you agree that union job target funds undermine competition as the Department of Labor’s Wage Appeals Board indicated? 

Answer 3. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the Davis-Bacon Act 

and the use of job targeting programs under it as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities and will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. 

Question 4. President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 encourages Federal agencies to require project labor agreements (PLAs) on Federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost. PLAs have been shown to increase cost of Federal 

construction projects by 12–18 percent (Beacon Hill, 2009), and give unionized contractors an unfair advantage. 

If confirmed, will you work with the President to ensure the best qualified applicants have a fair opportunity to win these contracts? 

Answer 4. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend, or rescind Executive 

orders belongs to the President, but I will certainly provide advice if asked by the 

President. I support the right of construction contractors to use PLAs where appropriate. 

Question 5. In 2012, paid Official Time (OT) taken by Federal employees to represent unions cost the American taxpayer $157.2 million in salary and 3.4 million 

hours. 

Would you commit to taking a serious look at the use of OT and its impact on 

the Federal workforce and stewardship of taxpayer dollars? If appropriate, would 

you support elimination of ‘‘official time’’ off for Federal union and member activity 

paid at government expense? 

Answer 5. I believe Congress with the President would need to act to make substantial changes to the availability of official time, but I certainly understand your 

concerns and will look into them at the Department of Labor if confirmed. 

Question 6. Do you believe that Regulations under the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and 

the Service Contract Act (SCA) could be streamlined so employer prevailing wage 

responsibilities are the same under both statutes? For example, DOL regulation 

state that fringe benefits cannot be included in wages paid under the SCA unless 

the employer expressly states a single amount includes fringes. 29 C.F.R. § 4.170(a), 

4.177(a), while DBA regulations state the opposite. 29 C.F.R. 5.2(p). 

Answer 6. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the Davis-Bacon Act 

and Service Contract Act as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and 

priorities. 

Question 7. A September 2016 Enterprise-wide Enforcement memorandum from 

the Solicitor of Labor for contractor covered workplaces expands OFCCP coverage 

to all business owned by a corporation doing business with the Federal Government. 

Do you believe this memorandum to be appropriate? 

Answer 7. I have not reviewed that particular memorandum, but, if confirmed, 

I look forward to being briefed on the matter and investigating the legal basis. I 

am aware that there were concerns with attempts in the prior administration to enforce responsibilities under a number of statutes that went beyond the scope of the 

historical norms. 

RESPONSE BY ALEXANDER ACOSTA TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY, SENATOR

SANDERS, SENATOR CASEY, SENATOR FRANKEN, SENATOR BENNET, SENATOR

WHITEHOUSE, SENATOR BALDWIN, SENATOR MURPHY, SENATOR WARREN, SENATOR

KAINE AND SENATOR HASSAN

SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. Will you continue the work the Department of Labor has instituted 

to expand registered apprenticeship and other successful training programs for 

American workers looking to succeed in the 21st century economy? How exactly will 

you do that? And can you commit to sustaining or expanding funding for these programs? 

Answer 1. Apprenticeship programs are a valuable and effective job training tool 

and expanding access to effective apprenticeship programs is a major facet of positioning our workforce to meet the needs of a changing economy. There are numerous 

examples throughout the Nation of industry, local academic and training instituHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

89 

tions and government partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth 

sectors. If confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure apprenticeships can be 

accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition 

to new and growing industries, and I commit to working to sustain these types of 

programs. 

Question 2. What policies would you pursue around worker automation? Around 

health and safety? Predictable and regular schedules? Providing workers a path to 

the middle class? 

Answer 2. A growing economy combined with improved job training for in demand 

skills is among the best ways to grow the middle class. Advancing technologies, including automation, will change the types of jobs that are available in our economy. 

As I discussed at the hearing, we need to make better efforts to align job training 

with the skills the market demands today and in the future. In this way, workers 

can acquire skills that empower them to hold high quality jobs that are not automated. Encouraging economic growth and adoption of new technologies along with 

flexibility and creativity in the workplace will help improve health and safety and 

scheduling for workers. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing policies under the 

Department of Labor’s jurisdiction that can affect these areas and hope to benefit 

from an ongoing dialog with Congress as to how we can make improvements. 

Question 3. The World Economic Forum forecasted a net loss of 5.1 million jobs 

by 2020 in the 15 leading economies, much of which will be due to automation and 

robotics. Do you think the government should help workers who have lost jobs to 

automation? What should that role be? 

Answer 3. I believe the Department plays a key role in providing training and 

career pathways to workers who are likely to be displaced by automation and robotics in the years to come. This may be the most profound challenge before the Department in the next decade. We need to better align job training with the skills 

the market demands of its workers, especially as advancing technology changes the 

types of jobs available in our economy. The Department of Labor, along with State 

and local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to have 

substantial positive impact on American workers. If confirmed as Secretary of 

Labor, I look forward to working with you and Members of the committee to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar Congress directs toward job training programs. 

Question 4. According to the National Safety Council, agriculture is the second 

most dangerous occupation in the United States. Yet under lax labor laws, hundreds 

of thousands of children work long hours in U.S. agriculture, risking pesticide poisoning, heat illness, injuries from knives and heavy equipment, and life-long disabilities. Children working in tobacco farming also risk acute nicotine poisoning. The 

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine have reported that children 

working in agriculture in the United States make up only 8 percent of the population of working minors overall, yet account for 40 percent of work-related fatalities 

among minors. Exemptions for agriculture under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA) allow child farmworkers to work at younger ages, for longer hours, and 

under more hazardous conditions than other working youths. Teens have to be at 

least 14 to work in an office or fast-food restaurant, and can only work for 3 hours 

on a school day. But in agriculture, children can work at age 12 with no limit on 

the number of hours that they work, as long as they do not work during school 

hours. While other employment sectors prohibit hazardous work before age 18, child 

farmworkers can perform hazardous duties at age 16. In 2014, the Unites States’ 

largest tobacco companies recognized the dangers of nicotine exposure and other 

hazards in tobacco farming by adopting policies prohibiting children under age 16 

from working on farms in their supply chains. Yet Federal law and regulations provide no special protections for children working in tobacco farming. Agriculture is 

the second most dangerous occupation in the United States. What action will you 

take to address the double standards in the Fair Labor Standards Act that allow 

children working in agriculture to work at younger ages, for longer hours, and 

under more hazardous conditions than other working youth? 

Answer 4. I appreciate and share your concerns regarding the safety and health 

of children and young workers. If confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce child labors laws designed to ensure children are protected from illegal employment in hazardous occupations and that those children who are eligible to work have safe and 

appropriate work experiences. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on matters pertaining to children in the workplace, including agricultural work and tobacco farming, and hope to benefit from an ongoing dialog with Congress as to how we can 

advance the goal of child safety in the workplace. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

90 

Question 5. Do you believe that children should be protected from nicotine exposure? If so, what action will you take to address the fact that under existing law 

and regulations, 12-year-olds can work legally on tobacco farms for 40 or 50 hours 

per week? 

Answer 5. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on matters pertaining to children 

in agricultural work, including tobacco farming. I would need to consult with the 

Department of Labor staff to get more information to address your question specifically. 

Question 6. Women of color are far more likely than white women to be a victim 

of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual assault, and to need to take time 

off from work to seek assistance. Do you support Federal legislative proposals to create job-protected safe leave for survivors of gender-based violence? Do you think the 

Department of Labor has a role to play in providing protection and support to assist 

women with remaining in the workforce when they experience gender-based violence? What will you do to ensure that survivors of domestic or sexual violence have 

access to job-protected safe leave to seek services related to gender-based violence? 

Answer 6. Violence of all forms, including gender-based violence, is wrong. Further, gender-based violence can cause psychological issues that impact employment. 

I believe expanding job-protected leave would require congressional action and, if 

confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and Congress as discussions 

regarding leave occur. 

Question 7. In 2004 you wrote a letter 4 days before the election telling a Federal 

judge that it would ‘‘undermine’’ election law enforcement to not let citizens contest 

the credentials of other voters, and denied that this had racial motivations despite 

being a part of a larger plan to place poll monitors in predominantly African American neighborhoods. Additionally, in 2008 you came under scrutiny for allegedly improperly factoring ideological positions in hiring practices. Are you committed to enforcing anti-discrimination laws? Building off of this, do you believe it’s time for the 

Nation to pass an anti-discrimination law to protect individuals from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity? 

Answer 7. I am committed to enforcing the anti-discrimination laws that Congress 

has passed, and any that you and your colleagues in Congress pass in the future. 

I believe discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender 

identity is wrong, although I support religious entities’ freedom to hire consistent 

with their faith. 

Question 8. Do you believe that workers should have the right and opportunity 

to bargain collectively for higher wages and better working conditions through organizing with their coworkers? 

Answer 8. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established in law, as is the 

right of workers to decide whether to join a union or to refrain from joining a union. 

The decision of whether to join a union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation then 

they should do so. 

Question 9. Will you, as Secretary of Labor, advocate for, support, and defend 

workers’ right to advocate for workplace improvements and bargain collectively? 

Answer 9. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established in law, as is the 

right of workers to decide whether to join a union or to refrain from joining a union. 

The decision of whether to join a union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation then 

they should do so, and I would support that choice. 

Question 10. Do you think collective bargaining is an appropriate means of increasing the share of the Nation’s wealth that goes to middle-class Americans? 

Answer 10. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established in law, as is 

the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or to refrain from joining a 

union. The decision of whether to join a union should be left to the individual. If 

they believe that joining together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation 

then they should do so. If they believe collective bargaining would improve their 

share of the Nation’s wealth, they should pursue their right to do so. 

Question 11. Do you think the Federal Government should take action to foster 

collective bargaining? 

Answer 11. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established in law, as is 

the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or to refrain from joining a 

union. The decision of whether to join a union should be left to the individual. If 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

91 

they believe that joining together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation 

then they should do so. 

Question 12. If members are not required to pay dues, do you think the Federal 

Government should pay the cost of union representation? 

Answer 12. The Federal Government should not pay for the cost of union representation. 

Question 13. Do you agree that labor unions are important to achieving and maintaining fairness and balance in our economy? 

Answer 13. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established in law, as is 

the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or to refrain from joining a 

union. This reflects a congressional judgment that providing this right can help 

maintain balance in our economy. 

Question 14. Given the overwhelming business opposition to the Fair Pay and 

Safe Workplaces EO, and your public stance on regulations, how will you address 

the issue of making sure that only responsible entities that comply with labor laws 

get government contracts? 

Answer 14. I understand that government agencies have suspension and debarment authorities and that the Department of Labor possesses a similar authority 

in the context of some of its statutes, including the Service Contract Act. If confirmed, in cases of willful and repeat violators, I would not hesitate to exercise that 

authority as Secretary. 

Question 15. Do you think that contractors receiving Federal tax dollars should 

be required to pay middle-class wages? 

Answer 15. I am informed that the Department sets certain wage rates on Federal 

contracts based on congressional mandate and statistical formulas by sector that 

flow from those mandates. Congress has the authority to make a decision to increase those rates across the board, and I will enforce the statutes Congress passes. 

Question 16. The Department you have been selected to lead is responsible for setting health, safety, and fairness standards for many construction projects and construction apprenticeships. It is well-documented that women working in construction face extreme rates of sexual harassment and denigration. Indeed, a study by 

the Department of Labor itself reported that 88 percent of women construction 

workers experience sexual harassment at work. Construction has often been referred to as ‘‘the industry that time forgot’’ due to the overt discrimination faced by 

women who try to get hired into this field and the overwhelming hostility and harassment they face on the job if they are hired. As a result, the percentage of constructions jobs held by women has been stuck at less than 3 percent for more than 

a generation. Many Federal contracts are for construction work and the Labor Department has played an important role in addressing harassment and discrimination by Federal construction contractors and opening opportunities for women and 

people of color. Given President Trump’s expressed commitment to infrastructure, 

Federal construction contracts could increase—which means the Labor Department’s 

role in enforcing these protections against harassment and discrimination will be 

more important than ever. Can we expect you to implement and enforce critical 

anti-harassment protections for construction projects and apprenticeship programs, 

and continue the efforts begun in the present administration to ensure that mega 

construction projects funded by Federal dollars provide real opportunities to women? 

Answer 16. Sexual harassment and overt discrimination are illegal. As I noted in 

my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws Congress has written fully and 

fairly, including for apprenticeship and contracting programs, and for large scale 

construction projects. 

Question 17. OFCCP updated its sex discrimination rules last year to implement 

Executive Order 11246 for the first time in more than a generation. The rules now 

explicitly address sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination for the first 

time. If you are confirmed, will you commit that the Department will uphold these 

regulations? Will you commit that OFCCP will implement and enforce these protections for employees of Federal contractors? 

Answer 17. I strongly support equal employment opportunity and preventing sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including the aspects of Executive 

orders and their implementing rules. 

Question 18. After President Obama’s Executive order allowing employees of Federal contractors to accrue up to seven paid sick days per year, the Department of 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

92 

Labor issued a final rule implementing these policies. If confirmed, will you urge 

President Trump to maintain this Executive order and commit to enforce and implement these protections to ensure employees of Federal contractors can access these 

benefits? 

Answer 18. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind Executive 

orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that apply to the Labor 

Department or give the Department additional enforcement responsibilities. 

Question 19. According to the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, working sick costs the national economy $160 billion annually in lost productivity. Currently there is an Executive order granting paid sick days to Federal contract workers to help avoid the spread of disease. Under your DOL, will you pursue 

efforts to expand this pro-business, pro-public health and pro-worker standard to all 

workers? 

Answer 19. I believe any attempt to expand paid sick leave would require congressional action, and if confirmed I look forward to participating in any discussion that 

occurs on paid sick leave. 

Question 20. Unemployment rates are higher for people with disabilities than 

other groups. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2015 the unemployment rate for people with disabilities was approximately 11 percent, which is 

nearly double the unemployment rate for people without disabilities. Overseeing 

policies and priorities that impact our Nation’s workforce development system is 

among the many responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor. One of the target areas 

of Public Law 113–128 (the bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

or WIOA) was to expand opportunities for people with disabilities to enter the workforce by creating a more accessible workforce system and expanding opportunities 

for training or apprenticeships. How will you as Secretary build on the opportunities 

created by WIOA to empower more people with disabilities to enter the workforce? 

Answer 20. I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. Such 

efforts contribute to our economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. If 

confirmed, I expect to be briefed on programs at the Department that serve the disabled in order to understand how they are succeeding in accomplishing their mission. 

Question 21. The Office of Disability Employment Policy sponsors and disseminates valuable research and studies into effective practices for employment of people 

with disabilities as well as serves as an important coordinating office for cross-Federal agency collaborations on disability employment. Will you commit to preserving 

and strengthening this vital tool for economic self-sufficiency for Americans with 

disabilities? Will you work with Congress to ensure that the Office of Disability Employment Policy, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and the Civil 

Rights Center has the funding and resources necessary to meet their objectives? 

What, if any, reforms would you make to these offices? 

Answer 21. I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and the Civil Rights Center also have 

important roles in promoting and protecting equal opportunity. As a nominee, I 

have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I commit to 

working with Congress to ensure those offices can meet their objectives. 

Question 22. Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the Federal sector. President Trump has 

stated that it is important that the final regulations under section 501 are enforced, 

and that the Administration ‘‘will work with Congress to set an example of the importance and value of hiring people with disabilities.’’ What will you do to support 

the President on this issue and ensure that people with disabilities have increased 

opportunities for employment in the Federal Government? What would you propose 

to President Trump to fulfill this campaign promise? 

Answer 22. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws 

under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping these 

individuals lead successful and self-sustaining lives. Such efforts contribute to our 

economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

93 

Question 23. The Department of Labor plays a crucial role in the implementation, 

enforcement, and public education of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As 

stated in the text of the Act, the purpose of the ADA is to 

‘‘provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities in addition to defining a central 

role for the Federal Government in enforcing the standards of the ADA on behalf of individuals with disabilities.’’ 

In an effort to undercut the 26-year old law, some in Congress have proposed legislation to impose a 180-day waiting period before a person with a disability can 

take action to enforce their rights to gain access to a business, public building, educational institution, or other covered entity. Do you support the intent of this legislation to remove incentives for businesses and other places of public accommodation 

to comply with the ADA’s accessibility requirements? 

Answer 23. I strongly support the ADA. I have not reviewed that particular piece 

of legislation, but I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Congress 

on protecting opportunities for the disabled. 

Question 24. Section 14(c) provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in 

1937, authorizes employers to pay sub-minimum wages to workers who have disabilities. In his campaign’s response to a questionnaire from the American Association 

of People with Disabilities, the National Council on Independent Living and the 

REV UP Campaign, President-elect Trump stated, 

‘‘People with disabilities have the right to be paid on parity with all others 

in the workforce so they may earn a fair days wage for a fair day’s work. My 

administration will work with Congress to ensure that labor laws treat people 

with disabilities fairly.’’ 

Do you plan to phaseout the nearly 80 year-old Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act? If not, what are your plans for subminimum wage employment for 

people with disabilities? What will you do to address the underemployment and 

wage gaps experienced by people with disabilities, especially people with the most 

significant disabilities? Will you commit to increasing the number of people with disabilities in competitive integrated employment? 

Answer 24. I understand the Fair Labor Standards Act 14(c) exemption is statutory and is an area of concern and interest for many Members of Congress. If confirmed, I want to ensure that individuals with disabilities, who might not otherwise 

have a job, have access to a good job and are trained for these jobs. While I would 

need to thoroughly review any particular program or statutory exemption before I 

committed to supporting or opposing it, I certainly support increasing the labor force 

participation rate of disabled individuals and helping these individuals lead successful and self-sustaining lives. Such efforts contribute to our economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. 

Question 25. Accurate data is crucial to measuring the health of the economy, including unemployment rates, as well as shedding light on pay practices and discrimination, yet President Trump has criticized the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

What would you do to ensure that the government continues to collect and distribute accurate, timely, actionable data from businesses? 

Answer 25. Accurate data are crucial. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a long 

history of transparent methodology, and the process for modifying that methodology 

occurs openly and with ample opportunity for robust public input, including from 

Congress. I am committed to such transparency, and to the integrity of BLS’s mission. 

Question 26. What steps will you take and what concrete mechanisms will you put 

in place to hold your own appointees and senior staff accountable for ensuring that 

there is no political interference in the work of the Department? 

Answer 26. I believe all incoming political and senior career appointees receive 

mandatory ethics training and annual ethics training thereafter. As I noted at the 

hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly without regard to political pressure. I will expect that same commitment from all my subordinates. 

Question 27. Do you agree that the process for screening and hiring employees at 

the Department of Labor should be free from improper political influence? 

Answer 27. As I noted at the hearing, the use of political views in the hiring of 

career attorneys or staff should not be used. The Federal Government has merit selection processes that should be followed in civil service hiring. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

94 

Question 28. For almost a century, the Women’s Bureau of the Department of 

Labor has sought to advance the interests of women in the workplace, through research, public education, policy development, and advocacy. For example, today the 

Women’s Bureau provides informational resources to aid women seeking to enter 

high-paying, traditionally male-dominated jobs in construction, transportation, and 

protective services; offers one stop know-your-rights guides on issues ranging from 

equal pay to pregnancy discrimination; and funds research on best practices for establishing State and local paid family and medical leave insurance programs, among 

many other initiatives. Despite the important work the Women’s Bureau does to ensure equal opportunity for women on the job, the Bush administration sought to dismantle it. The outcry from the public saved the Women’s Bureau, which has continued to provide valuable tools for women seeking to enforce their workplace rights 

and expand their workplace opportunities. Do you commit that under your leadership the Women’s Bureau will receive the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate 

of safeguarding and advocating for the interests of working women, and that you 

will defend against any attempts to reduce its budgets, or staffing, or otherwise undermine its ability to do its work? In addition, since 2014, the U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Women’s Bureau has made $3.15 million in grants available for the development and implementation of State and local paid family and medical leave programs. Under your leadership, would the Department of Labor continue to fund 

such grants, such as supporting progress on paid leave in the United States, a policy 

area President Trump has expressed support for? 

Answer 28. The mission of the Women’s Bureau is important. If confirmed, I commit to work with Congress on this matter. 

Question 29. Will you keep in place the Wage and Hour Division’s Administrator’s 

Interpretation No. 2016–1 (‘‘Joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act’’), which clarified the 

standards for finding joint employment status between multiple employers under 

the FLSA and MSPA? If not, why? 

Answer 29. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on Wage and Hour Division matters as we develop the Department’s policies and priorities. 

Question 30. How do you plan to enforce existing employment laws, such as FLSA 

minimum wage and overtime protections, in today’s workforce given the large numbers of workers who are hired through a staffing agency but report to work at another company’s premises every day? 

Answer 30. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws 

under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue, as this is a growing trend in our economy. 

Question 31. The President has said that the current minimum wage is too low, 

suggesting that it should be raised to $10 an hour. Do you agree with your future 

boss that the current minimum wage is too low? 

Answer 31. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States 

and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and 

other economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that many States 

and localities have increased the minimum wage above the Federal floor. I would 

evaluate a proposed Federal minimum wage increase carefully to see whether the 

economic benefits outweighed the costs. Ultimately it is Congress’ decision whether 

to raise the Federal rate; the Department of Labor has no authority to act unilaterally. I will faithfully enforce whatever rate Congress enacts. 

Question 32. A majority of all employees being paid minimum wage are women. 

Kellyanne Conway’s polling company found in a 2014 poll that Americans believe 

that companies should raise wages and improve working conditions for workers by 

nearly a 10–1 margin. Do you think that we should raise the Federal minimum 

wage? If so, to what? If not, what is your reasoning for not advocating for a widely 

popular policy? How do you respond to working families who are long overdue for 

a pay raise? Should it be tacked to cost-of-living increases in the future? Should 

there continue to be a separate tipped minimum wage? Should it be increased as 

well? 

Answer 32. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States 

and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and 

other economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that many States 

and localities have increased the minimum wage above the Federal floor. I would 

evaluate a proposed Federal minimum wage increase carefully to see whether the 

economic benefits outweighed the costs. Ultimately it is Congress’ decision whether 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

95 

to raise the Federal rate; the Department of Labor has no authority to act unilaterally. I will faithfully enforce whatever rate Congress enacts. 

Question 33. Do you believe that employers should pay a wage sufficient for its 

workers to live on without needing to rely on government benefits? Is it fair for employers to pay wages so low that their workers are eligible for government benefits 

like food stamps? 

Answer 33. As I said at the hearing, I know every member of the HELP Committee wants Americans to find jobs, good jobs, safe jobs, even if there is a difference 

of opinion as to how to achieve that goal. If confirmed, I hope to benefit from an 

ongoing dialog with the committee as to how we can advance that goal. 

Question 34. Some States like California and New York have already enacted a minimum wage of $15 per hour. Under Federal law, workers in these States are 

generally entitled to 11⁄2 times the $15 minimum wage for overtime. Will you carry 

out strong enforcement of workers’ overtime rights in those States? 

Answer 34. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. 

Question 35. The Federal minimum wage for tipped workers is only $2.13 per 

hour and it’s been frozen at that level since 1991. Tipped workers are twice as likely 

to live in poverty and three times as likely to need food stamps when they make 

the Federal minimum wage of only $2.13, yet in States where tipped workers get 

higher base wages, tipped workers are not nearly so disadvantaged. Do you support 

phasing out the subminimum wage for tipped workers? 

Answer 35. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States 

and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and 

other economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that many States 

and localities have increased the minimum wage, including the minimum wage for 

tipped employees and the allowance for a tip credit, above the Federal floor. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and Congress as discussions 

regarding the Federal minimum wage and tipped minimum wage occur. 

Question 36. There are a number of States that have recently raised their minimum wages through ballot initiative. All won by overwhelming margins in the popular vote. Governor Paul LePage is vowing to fight the raise in Maine, and has stated that the Maine Department of Labor will not enforce parts of it. This could become precedent for other Republican Governors to try to nullify the will of the voters 

when it comes to the minimum wage. Please describe your understanding of the concept of the rule of law, and your respect and deference to the clear will of the voters 

on this issue. 

Answer 36. I am not familiar with the specific circumstances of the enactment of 

Maine’s minimum wage law or of Governor LePage’s position on it. I certainly believe in the rule of law. More specifically, no individual or constituency is above the 

law, and if confirmed as Secretary of Labor I will enforce Federal laws including 

the Federal minimum wage. 

Question 37. There has been a lot of discussion about worker classification as 

‘‘independent contractors’’ in the so-called ‘‘gig’’ or ‘‘on-demand’’ economy, with some 

arguing that these workers are independent businesspeople, even though their work 

is (1) in large part dictated by the companies, (2) wages are often set by the companies, and (3) they can be disciplined for poor performance or for refusing jobs. How 

do you view these workers and these jobs, in the context of the broad definitions 

of ‘‘employee’’ found in the laws you will be expected to enforce, especially the Fair 

Labor Standards Act? 

Answer 37. An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear compliance guidance from the Department. The use of independent contractors is a legal and valuable business practice. However, in some circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a worker 

as an independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not be abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to the requirements 

of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as independent contractors may be denied access to critical benefits and protections they are entitled to by law. This incorrect classification may also generate losses to the Federal Government and State 

governments in the form of lower tax revenues, as well as to State unemployment 

insurance and workers’ compensation funds. Employers who deliberately misclassify 

workers undercut law-abiding employers who are making contributions to these systems and paying their workers properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed 

on matters pertaining to the classification of employees and will work to enforce the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

96 

laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction, including these employment 

laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of workers. If businesses are found 

to be incorrectly classifying workers, I will fully and fairly enforce the relevant laws. 

Question 38. A 2012 GAO report found that on average it takes OSHA nearly 8 

years to develop and finalize needed safety and health standards. The most recent 

standards issued took much longer. The final standard to protect workers against 

deadly silica dust took nearly 19 years from start to finish, and the rulemaking to 

protect workers in general industry from fall and slip hazards—leading causes of 

injury and death—took nearly 40 years. Do you agree that taking 10–20 or even 40 

years to develop and issue safety and health rules on major hazards is way too long? 

As Secretary of Labor, will you commit to seeing that the standards setting process 

can be made more timely and effective to protect workers against deadly workplace 

hazards? 

Answer 38. I agree that taking 10, 20, or 40 years to develop standards is too 

long. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many other issues with the 

Department’s OSHA staff, to help ensure the safety of all workers. I understand 

that OSHA regulations are difficult to promulgate and that many take a number 

of years as you noted. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that necessary regulations 

in this area are promulgated as quickly as possible while also complying with the 

requirements in law for such regulations. 

Question 39. Do you think it should be illegal for an employer to retaliate against 

a worker for exercising her rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, or other labor and employment laws? Will you commit to maintaining a vigorous enforcement program to protect workers against illegal retaliation? 

Answer 39. Illegal retaliation should not be tolerated. If confirmed, I will work 

with the Department’s staff to ensure that employers follow the law in this area and 

will work to maintain a vigorous enforcement program to protect workers from adverse employment actions based upon exercising a right they possess under these 

laws. 

Question 40. OSHA’s existing safety standard for the containerized storage of 

flammable and combustible liquids—29 C.F.R. § 1910.106(d)—incorporates the 1969 

version of a fire code (NFPA 30—Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code) that 

has been updated 15 times since then based on advancements in research and technology, such as improvements in containers and sprinkler systems used in warehouses. Last year, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the bipartisan leadership of the congressional Fire Services 

Caucus wrote to Labor Secretary Tom Perez urging OSHA to update this existing 

safety standard in order to better protect the lives of firefighters and workers. Last 

fall, the Industrial Packaging Safety Alliance (‘‘PackSafe’’) filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that OSHA’s existing safety standard for the containerized storage of flammable and combustible liquids—29 C.F.R. § 1910.106(d)—be updated to 

include the most recent version of NFPA 30. If you are confirmed, will OSHA give 

full consideration to the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Industrial Packaging 

Safety Alliance (‘‘PackSafe’’) on October 31, 2016 through an open and transparent 

rulemaking process that allows all stakeholders to weigh-in? 

Answer 40. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the safety standards to help 

ensure the safety of all workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

requires OSHA to ensure safe and healthful working conditions and I am committed 

to carrying out this mission. Where necessary, OSHA will promulgate appropriate 

and feasible rules to address workplace hazards. OSHA has many other tools at its 

disposal to carry out the obligations of the Act and to address new workplace hazards as they emerge, including conducting training and education, and providing 

compliance assistance to employers and employees. If confirmed, I will direct the 

Department staff to give full consideration to any petitions for rulemaking that are 

received and will work to ensure that all rulemaking processes are transparent and 

allow full stakeholder input. 

Question 41. Would you recommend that the President sign Joint Res. 83, which 

is a ‘‘congressional Review Act’’ resolution to block OSHA’s Volks Rule, a regulation 

that enables OSHA to hold employers accountable for failing to keep accurate 

records of workplace injuries and illnesses that harm workers? If OSHA cannot hold 

employers accountable for failing to keep accurate records, how can OSHA help protect workers from the risk of serious injury or death on the job? 

Answer 41. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this issue with the Department’s OSHA staff as we look for ways to ensure that employers are fully complying 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

97 

with their responsibilities to record injuries and illnesses that occur in the workplace. 

Question 42. Workers often do not report injuries to their bosses due to fear of 

retaliation. OSHA’s final electronic recordkeeping rule includes a provision prohibiting employers from establishing programs that discourage workers from reporting 

their injuries. Do you support laws protecting whistleblowers from retaliation in the 

workplace? 

Answer 42. No employee should be subjected to illegal retaliation in the workplace 

for exercising a legal right they possess. The rights of whistleblowers must be protected. 

Question 43. In March 2016, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released a final rule to reduce workers’ exposure to respirable crystalline silica. The rule is expected to save over 600 lives, prevent more than 900 

new cases of silicosis each year, and generate net benefits of $7.7 billion each year. 

As Secretary of Labor, will you be committed to implementing this life-saving rule? 

Answer 43. The President, through an executive action, has directed all Cabinet 

secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency. If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me. As part of that responsibility I look forward to discussing 

this and many other issues with the staff of the Department’s Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. 

Question 44. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration developed special inspection programs to further direct scarce agency inspection resources 

to target the worst violators—those employers who demonstrate indifference to the 

OSH Act by committing willful, repeated, or failure to abate violations. These programs for severe violators include inspection activities such as mandatory followup 

inspections and increased company awareness of OSHA enforcement. Do you support special enforcement initiatives for the worst violators with followup inspections 

and company-wide enforcement for similar hazards? 

Answer 44. If confirmed, I will work with the staff of the Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ensure that all workers are protected. 

I agree that the worst offenders of health and safety standards should be targeted 

for increased scrutiny. 

Question 45. The Fair Labor Standards Act has been the law since 1938. It is 

needed to prevent child labor abuse and to guarantee basic wage and hour standards like minimum wage and overtime pay for American workers. Do you believe 

that any existing FLSA rules should be repealed? If so, what are they? 

Answer 45. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has been the law of the land 

for nearly 80 years and provides important overtime and minimum wage protections 

to workers, protections for children who are in the workforce, and recordkeeping requirements. As I noted in the hearing, the FLSA does require updating from timeto-time, especially when it involves dollar values. If confirmed, I look forward to 

being briefed by Department staff on the FLSA and the history of the Department’s 

updates to the FLSA as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities. 

Question 46. Would you use your statutory authority to interpret section 213 of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, exempting various employees from the provisions of 

section 206 (minimum wage, and overtime) broadly, exempting more employees from 

protection of the minimum wage and overtime provisions, or narrowly, requiring 

employers to pay the minimum wage and overtime to more employees? 

Answer 46. There are many exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and minimum wage requirements. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws 

under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the Fair 

Labor Standards Act and any exemptions thereunder. I look forward to being 

briefed by Department staff on the Fair Labor Standards Act, its exemptions, and 

the Department’s precedent of interpreting and enforcing the statute as we develop 

the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities. 

Question 47. At your confirmation hearing, you stated that it was unclear whether 

the Secretary of Labor has the authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA) to set a salary threshold in defining and delimiting the so-called ‘‘white collar’’ exemption from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. A salary threshold has 

been used as part of the test for exemption by every Secretary of Labor since the 

FLSA was first enacted in 1938. Every Secretary of Labor to date has been quite 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

98 

clear on the fact that the Secretary of Labor does, indeed, have the authority to set 

and enforce a salary threshold. 

Do you believe that the Secretary of Labor has the authority under the FLSA to 

set a salary threshold in defining and delimiting the ‘‘white collar’’ exemption? 

If confirmed, will you defend the authority of the Secretary of Labor to set a salary threshold in court, if that authority is questioned or challenged? 

If you answered ‘‘No’’ to either of these questions, please explain in detail (i) the 

legal basis for your conclusion and (ii) what you would base the ‘‘white collar’’ exemption on if you believe you would be unable to set a salary threshold as Secretary 

of Labor. 

Answer 47. The district court decision enjoining the rule specifically stated that, 

‘‘[t]he Department exceeds its delegated authority and ignores Congress’ intent by raising the minimum salary level such that it supplants the duties test.’’ 

Texas v. DOL, 4:16-cv–00731 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2016), at p. 13. Thus, there is 

a question as to whether a salary threshold change without a coextensive duties test 

is viable, and if it is, at what point does it ‘‘supplants’’ the duties test. I think the 

authority of the secretary to address this is a separate issue from what the correct 

amount is. The litigation needs to be considered carefully, both with respect to what 

would be the appropriate amount if the rule were to be changed or revised, but also 

what is within the authority of the secretary to do. 

Question 48. You stated at your confirmation hearing, 

‘‘I think it’s unfortunate that rules that involve dollar values can sometimes 

go more than a decade—sometimes 15 years—without updating, because life 

does become more expensive over time.’’ 

The final overtime rule addressed this issue through an automatic updating mechanism, increasing the salary threshold every 3 years to keep pace with inflation. 

Will you commit to requiring regular, automatic updates to the overtime salary 

threshold every 3 years, as is required by the updated overtime rule? 

Answer 48. The Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime salary threshold has not 

been updated since 2004. When a rule involves dollar values, I believe waiting more 

than a decade to update that rule is unfortunate. I do not know if every 3 years, 

specifically, is the best solution, but I look forward to being briefed by Department 

staff on the Fair Labor Standards Act and the history of the Department’s updates 

to the law as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities. 

Question 49. DOL’s own research and that of other academics shows that somewhere between 15 and 30 percent of employers’ policies violate the FMLA, will you 

commit to addressing these violations? 

Answer 49. If confirmed, I commit that I will work to enforce the laws under the 

Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the Family and Medical Leave Act. 

Question 50. Paid leave policies that only apply to birth mothers are inadequate 

for today’s workforce, where more women are working, fathers are providing more 

care for children and the population is aging rapidly. Creating a policy solution that 

applies only to women who give birth would create barriers to women’s employment, 

promote stereotypes and undermine the progress that the United States has made 

in terms of gender fairness. Would you oppose a maternity-leave only policy and instead encourage the President to consider addressing paid leave for both women and 

men? For both parental as well as family and personal medical needs? 

Answer 50. I recognize that many States, localities, and private sector employers 

on a voluntary basis, have implemented paid leave laws and policies. I believe attempts to expand paid leave federally would require congressional action. As I mentioned in the hearing in the context of the gig economy, promoting workplace flexibility is something I support, particularly for working parents with young children. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and Congress to work 

through the issues raised in your question. 

Question 51. Will you support an update to the FMLA law to allow parents to attend meetings at their children’s schools? 

Answer 51. As I mentioned in the hearing in the context of the gig economy, promoting workplace flexibility is something I support, particularly for working parents 

with young children. Amending the Family and Medical Leave Act would require 

congressional action. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and 

Congress as these discussions occur. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

99 

Question 52. There are well-documented health disparities in the LGBTQ community, due to a range of factors, including a higher likelihood of being uninsured, discrimination and lack of cultural competency among health care providers, and the 

negative health impact of social stigma and discrimination. Due to such disparities, 

LGBTQ people likely have a higher need for inclusive paid leave policies. Fortunately, States are passing paid leave laws to meet this need. California, New Jersey, 

and Rhode Island have paid family and medical leave programs in place, while New 

York and Washington, DC approved such programs in 2016. The State of California 

has had a statewide paid family leave program in place for more than a decade. Research has found that the program has substantial economic and health benefits for 

working families without burdening businesses. Even the California Society for 

Human Resource Management found the law ‘‘does not pose as many burdens as 

employers feared it would’’ and ‘‘is less onerous than expected.’’ During this period, 

California’s economic growth has outpaced the national average and its economy is 

now the sixth largest in the world. In recent years, the Department of Labor has 

provided small grants to States and localities that have allowed them to analyze 

and conduct feasibility studies on paid family and medical leave policies. As Secretary, will you direct the agency to continue to invest in State-paid family and 

medical leave analysis grants? Will you ensure that reports resulting from these 

grants are released to the public? Will you pledge to support States considering and 

adopting paid family leave measures? 

Answer 52. I would need to review any particular grant program before I committed to supporting it. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the program. I do believe research is important and that results of such research should 

be made public. Further, I support an individual State’s right to adopt leave measures. 

Question 53. In addition to these paid family and medical leave laws, paid sick 

days laws are now in effect—or soon will be—in 7 States and 32 localities. Research 

from the longest standing laws shows that they are working well and are not burdensome for employers. For example, both Seattle and San Francisco saw positive 

job growth after their paid sick days laws took effect. In San Francisco, the first 

city with a paid sick days standard, the local Chamber of Commerce’s vice president 

stated that its impact on businesses was ‘‘minimal’’ and that ‘‘[b]y and large, [paid 

sick days] has not been an employer issue.’’ Evidence from other localities has similarly found low costs to businesses and positive benefits for workers. As Secretary 

of Labor, in light of the research on the economic and health benefits of paid sick 

days, will you encourage or discourage other States and localities from adopting 

paid sick days laws? Would you support or oppose a national standard like the 

Healthy Families Act? Federal laws do not mandate paid annual leave, paid time 

off for illness or family care, or paid parental leave. The absence of such policies 

makes it difficult for employees to balance work and family, which can negatively 

impact productivity, inhibit the healthy development of children, and make recovery 

from major illnesses or injuries difficult. Would you propose any policies guaranteeing earned sick days or paid parental leave? What alternatives would you propose to support workers who need time off to care for themselves or their loved 

ones? What specifics would you like to see enshrined in law to help protect all workers, regardless of income? How do we guarantee that these policies will help all 

workers, not just wealthier ones who can take advantage of tax breaks? How do we 

incentivize all companies to provide these benefits, not just provide tax breaks for 

companies that are already doing the right thing? 

Answer 53. I would need to review any legislation or policies before I committed 

to supporting them. As I mentioned in the hearing, promoting workplace flexibility 

is something I support, particularly for working parents with young children. I recognize that many States and localities have implemented paid leave laws. I believe 

attempts to expand paid leave would require congressional action. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working with the President and Congress as discussions regarding 

paid leave occur. 

Question 54. Community-based organizations, advocacy groups for the working 

poor, and individual working people rely on the Department of Labor’s Wage and 

Hour Division and their regional outreach specialists (CORPS specialists) as vital 

points of contact for reporting and recovering stolen wages. Will you commit to expanding the number of regional outreach specialists to ensure working people legal 

recourse to be paid for each and every hour they work? 

Answer 54. I would need to review any particular program before I committed to 

expanding it. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the program. That 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

100 

said, I certainly support using taxpayer resources effectively in pursuit of Wage and 

Hour’s mission. 

Question 55. Fewer than 3 in 10 unemployed workers now receive unemployment 

benefits, which is a record low (in 13 States, including Florida, North Carolina, and 

Georgia, where lawmakers slashed the maximum duration of benefits by as much 

as half, fewer than one in five unemployed workers receives unemployment benefits). This has devastating consequences for the millions of workers currently locked 

out of the program and for those who will face major layoffs when the next recessions hits. Do you believe that a social insurance program designed to help the unemployed, and their families, maintain basic living standards while they search for 

another suitable job and to mitigate the immediate and long-term impacts of global 

financial crises on State and local economies is meeting its objectives if fewer than 

15 percent—or even 10 percent—of the unemployed in several States are receiving 

benefits? 

Answer 55. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the Department’s programs and 

benefits for the unemployed so that I can understand which services and benefits 

are the most effective, and best assist workers in finding new careers and mitigating 

the challenges that come with job loss. 

Question 56. It has now been 7 years since the last recession officially ended, but 

as of early this year, only 18 States had enough reserves in their Unemployment 

Insurance trust funds to pay adequate benefits when the next recession hits. Given 

the critical role that the UI program plays in alleviating economic hardship, and 

boosting the economy, do you support Federal efforts to restore the solvency of the 

Federal and State UI trust funds, which are regulated by Federal law. 

Answer 56. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the UI trust funds, their solvency and how the Department and its resources can best position them to help the 

most Americans and best accomplish the Department’s mission. 

Question 57. In 2012, Congress enacted the Layoff Prevention Act (sponsored by 

Senator Jack Reed), which provided financial incentives to States with work-sharing 

programs. To date, 28 States have enacted federally conforming work-sharing laws. 

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that work-sharing saved over 160,000 jobs 

in 2009 alone and over half a million jobs since 2008. Do you believe that programs 

like work-sharing will be important to helping employers, especially manufacturers, 

withstand business downturns and any future recessions? Do you believe that worksharing should be an option for employers in all 50 States? 

Answer 57. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I will look forward to reviewing 

the work-sharing program—which I understand is called the ‘‘short-time compensation (STC) program’’—with the States currently operating the STC program, with 

employers, and also, with Department staff. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on 

issues such as work sharing and other innovations in the workplace to understand 

how they impact employment and economic growth. I support allowing as much 

flexibility to States, employers and employees as possible under the law. 

Question 58. In recent years, ideologically diverse legislative and executive 

branches of both Federal and State governments have placed an increased emphasis 

on bipartisan criminal justice reform. The Labor Department’s key initiative that 

supports criminal justice reform efforts is the Reentry Employment Opportunities 

(REO) program, which helps connect returning citizens to job training and employment. What is your position on REO? Would you work with Congress to ensure this 

important program receives the necessary funding and remains a priority for the 

Trump administration? 

Answer 58. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about REO. Programs 

that help reintegrate citizens into the economy post-incarceration are very important and of interest to me. I understand that the Department has several programs 

that focus in this area, and I look forward to being briefed on all of them. Thank 

you for making me aware of your appreciation of this program and this issue. I look 

forward to working with you and other members of the committee on efforts to help 

citizens reintegrate into the workforce post-incarceration. 

Question 59. Over 30 million adult Americans lack even a high school degree or 

a GED—double the population of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles combined. These Americans include veterans and others with significant barriers to better employment. The challenge is multi-generational: half of their children will also 

fail to complete high school. As a result, our economy is hurt, our Nation is not as 

competitive as it should be, and people cannot advance in careers and life. As Secretary, how would you address this critical issue? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

101 

Answer 59. Our workforce training system must be positioned to provide training 

and skills to the millions of workers who lack a post-secondary education if they are 

to prosper in our modern and constantly changing economy. The worker training 

and apprenticeship programs under the Department’s purview must position these 

workers with skills that meet the needs of growth industries and sectors. 

Question 60. The U.S. Department of Labor is required under the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA) to submit an annual report to Congress on the efforts 

by countries that receive trade preference under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to combat the worst forms of child labor. The Department currently 

assesses countries on their progress, identifies positive efforts and remaining challenges, and issues recommendations to address the identified challenges. This is a 

critical tool the Department uses to raise awareness about the problem of child 

labor and engage with other governments to address the issue. What will you do 

to ensure that the report is a useful tool for countries to combat the problem of child 

labor? 

Answer 60. Child labor is a truly troubling problem. I believe that the Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned the duty described in your 

question, and if confirmed, I will work with that office to make certain that any reports in this area contain the information needed to help countries eliminate this 

problem. 

Question 61. The U.S. Department of Labor, in coordination with the Office of the 

U.S. Trade Representative, is responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of 

labor provisions of free trade agreements. A recent Government Accountability Office report concluded that there is an overall lack of effective monitoring and enforcement of the labor provisions in our trade agreements. How will you strengthen 

the efforts of the Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) to effectively monitor and enforce labor provisions of free trade agreements—especially 

given the drastic cuts to ILAB proposed in the President’s skinny budget? 

Answer 61. If confirmed, I look forward to working with ILAB, the Trade Representative and Congress on this important issue. While I have not been involved 

in the budget process as a nominee, it is worth noting that the President’s budget 

‘‘[fo]cuses the Bureau of International Labor Affairs on ensuring that U.S. trade 

agreements are fair for American workers.’’ 

Question 62. Do you believe that enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act and preventing wage theft improves the U.S. economy? Why or why not? 

Answer 62. If confirmed, I would be responsible for enforcing the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and will work to enforce this and other laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. The protections provided by wage and hour 

laws provide a level of economic security to our Nation’s workforce and help Americans to purchase goods and service to support their families, thereby also supporting 

America’s businesses and improving the economy. 

Question 63. Do you believe government should regulate issues regarding wages? 

Answer 63. Yes, the government does in fact regulate wages and has for over 70 

years. 

Question 64. For many decades, the Wage and Hour Division has focused its limited enforcement resources on the industries where wage theft and child labor are 

rampant. Do you support this type of strategic enforcement, in addition to responding to individual worker complaints? 

Answer 64. I support strategic enforcement alongside individual complaints. If 

confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. 

Question 65. Because women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs, they are especially vulnerable to wage theft and exploitation, and are often reluctant to report 

violations for fear of retaliation. Do you commit that under your leadership the 

Wage and Hour Division will not scale back or limit its implementation and enforcement efforts, and that you will defend against any attempts to undermine the Division’s ability to conduct robust investigation and enforcement activities, including 

defending against any budget cuts to the Division? 

Answer 65. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully 

and fairly, including Wage and Hour Division responsibilities. Enforcement of these 

laws will be priority irrespective of the budget Congress ultimately enacts. 

Question 66. In addition to responding to individual complaints, recent enforcement strategy at the Wage and Hour Division has emphasized targeted investigaHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

102 

tions of industries with high numbers of wage and hour violations—including the 

fast food, restaurant, hotel, and garment manufacturing industries—which also employ significant numbers of low-wage workers and women. Under your leadership, 

will the Department of Labor continue to pursue proactive, targeted enforcement 

strategies to protect the workplace rights of large numbers of vulnerable workers 

in high-violation industries, and not rely primarily or solely on a complaint-driven 

enforcement strategy? 

Answer 66. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. Strategic enforcement in high violation areas, 

alongside individual complaints, is a balanced enforcement strategy I support. 

Question 67. The Bush DOL had an enforcement philosophy that directed more 

significant resources than usual toward helping employers comply with the laws 

that DOL administers. While compliance assistance must be part of any DOL enforcement agenda, a 2009 GAO investigation and report revealed the flaws in a 

strategy that put so much emphasis on compliance assistance, to the utter detriment of enforcement. The GAO report documents how phone complaints were routinely ignored and how investigations were often pro forma at best. Without targeted enforcement in high violation industries, where workers are justifiably afraid 

to complain for fear of retaliation, there is very little chance that these employers 

will get caught. What is your plan for ensuring that the enforcement agencies at 

DOL vigorously enforce the laws they are charged with overseeing? 

Answer 67. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully 

and fairly. Certainly, compliance assistance for small business particularly is a good 

way to help explain the laws to good employers who may not understand their responsibilities. Compliance assistance should not, however, be conducted at the expense of overall enforcement. 

Question 68. Congress and the Administration have taken several steps in the last 

8 years to expand access to, and improve the quality of, training and employment 

programs that prepare workers for high-skill, high-wage employment in jobs and occupations that exist right now. That progress includes bipartisan passage of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which authorizes the Nation’s 

public workforce system, and new investments in job-driven training programs, including training programs designed to aid workers affected by global trade. These 

investments help workers build their skills and raise their wages, and help employers—particularly small- and mid-sized employers that lack large H.R. and training 

budgets—find skilled workers. As Labor Secretary, will you continue to invest in 

worker training, and maintain or expand upon the current level of service and investment that the public workforce system provides to States and local workforce 

development areas? In your view, what is government’s role in worker training? 

Answer 68. The Department of Labor, along with State and local governments, 

industry, and educational institutions, can partner to have substantial positive impact on America’s workers. I believe it is important to view job training programs 

in terms of return on investment, to borrow a metric form the business world. For 

a modest investment in training, we can prepare a worker to land a good, safe job, 

to keep that job, to pay taxes—resulting in an overall net return on investment. If 

confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I will work to shift more responsibility for funding 

job training and employment services to those States, localities and employers that 

can demonstrate their effectiveness in addressing the needs of both employers and 

workers. I strongly believe it is important to invest in worker training. I look forward to working with you and Members of the committee to realize these stated 

goals. 

Question 69. In 2009, Senator Jeff Sessions, now the Attorney General, opposed 

the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Congress passed to help women bring 

claims of pay disparity based on gender discrimination. He opposed the Paycheck 

Fairness Act, which has not passed yet, but would punish employers for retaliating 

against employees who share wage information and allow employees to sue for damages resulting from wage discrimination. Are you concerned that the Department 

of Justice may provide less assistance in combating violations of equal pay laws 

given Senator Sessions’ record of opposing such laws? Will you continue to make enforcement of equal pay laws a priority, to the same extent as the previous administration? 

Answer 69. At his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Sessions pledged himself to equal justice under the law and I have no reason to question the Attorney 

General’s commitments. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I am committed to enforcing all laws committed to the Department of Labor’s care, including those relating to equal pay. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

103 

Question 70. In order to crack down on violations of equal pay laws, the National 

Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force made several recommendations, including that 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘‘EEOC’’), the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’), the Department of Labor (‘‘DOL’’), and the Office of Personnel Management (‘‘OPM’’) coordinate the responsibilities of enforcing the laws prohibiting pay 

discrimination. Do you think interagency coordination and enforcement efforts including communication among the agencies, coordinating investigations and litigation, identifying areas in which they can issue joint guidance to employers and employees, and conducting joint training as appropriate have made a positive impact 

on enforcement of equal pay laws? Do you believe these efforts deserve more or less 

support through funding and staffing? Please include specific examples of where 

there should be more or less coordination between these agencies. 

Answer 70. I would need to look into the task force’s accomplishments to make 

a determination on its effectiveness. As I noted at my hearing in the context of job 

training, it is generally important for government agencies to work together to increase efficiency and effectiveness. 

Question 71. An estimated 5.25 million young people ages 16 to 24 are unattached 

to school or work. Known as disconnected youth, they make up nearly one-third of 

unemployed people. Youth disconnection is not a challenge confined to urban, suburban, or rural America. In fact, rates of disconnection are particularly high across 

the south. Given the opportunity to reconnect with the labor market, these young 

people offer a return of hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity and 

savings to taxpayers. For these reasons, dozens of employers including Walmart, 

Starbucks, JP Morgan, CVS, Fed Ex, Hilton and others have committed to creating 

100,000 opportunities to reconnect these young people with productive and self-sustaining work. Would you support setting a broader goal of reconnecting 1 million 

opportunity youth? What role do you see for the Department of Labor in re-engaging 

youth who have left high school without earning a high school diploma? In connecting Opportunity Youth to jobs, workforce and training programs? 

Answer 71. I appreciate you raising this issue, and I agree it is vitally important. 

I share your belief that getting more young people involved in workforce training 

and apprenticeship programs is an important goal. There are numerous examples 

throughout the Nation of industry, local academic and training institutions and government partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. I believe that the Department of Labor, along with State and local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to have a critical positive impact on 

American workers, especially young people who struggle with education and employment. I would be pleased to work with you and other Members of the committee 

to identify new ways to re-engage these youth and help them succeed in the labor 

force. 

Question 72. In August 2016, Time Magazine reported that President Trump contracted with a company that employed undocumented immigrants from Poland to 

work on the site of his flagship Trump Tower in New York City and had them work 

12-hour shifts without paying them overtime. According to Time Magazine, when 

the people building the Trump Tower complained that he was stealing the wages 

they had earned, President Trump had his lawyer threaten to call immigration officials and get the people working on the site deported. While President Trump has 

denied some of these facts, it is indisputable that some corporations exploit undocumented immigrants who work for them and then threaten to call immigration authorities to silence whistleblowers. Not only does this put undocumented immigrants 

in an extremely vulnerable position, it ends any chance to ferret out unscrupulous 

corporations who disregard the law, do not pay overtime, put the people who work 

for them in dangerous working conditions, and even sexually abuse or traffic their 

employees. If whistleblowers are deported, after all, the government cannot investigate charges of exploitation or abuse. Will you ensure that DOL investigators protect whistleblowers from their boss making a retaliatory call to immigration authorities? Will you commit to working with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that DHS does not initiate deportation proceedings against immigrants during 

on-going investigations over workplace labor law violations or for exercising their 

rights as workers in the United States? Will you train Department of Labor investigators to be aware that investigations into labor law violations should take precedence over immigration proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances, such as 

national security? Will you instruct Department of Labor investigators to de-conflict 

Department of Labor investigations with Department of Homeland Security enforcement activity to prevent a raid against a worksite at which a labor investigation 

or action is occurring? Will you work with Department of Homeland Security to enHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

104 

sure Department of Homeland Security officials know whom to call to determine if 

there is an open Department of Labor investigation before initiating a workplace immigration investigation? 

Answer 72. I believe that the Department has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced regardless of workers’ immigration status. I have not reviewed it but I believe there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the two cabinet departments that is designed to avoid interfering 

in each other’s enforcement responsibilities. If confirmed, I will discuss this issue 

with Department of Labor staff and ask them to work with Department of Homeland Security staff to help ensure that both agencies can continue to fulfill their responsibilities. 

Question 73. There are numerous press reports already about immigrant workers 

being afraid to go to DOL to pick up settlement checks for unpaid wages because 

they fear deportation. Similarly, the press is reporting that immigrant workers, 

even some that have documentation, now fear complaining about unsafe conditions 

or wage theft. Advocates report that this is the case as well. As you know well, we 

must vigorously enforce the employment rights of those workers most vulnerable to 

exploitation not only to protect their basic human rights, but also, so we don’t allow 

unscrupulous employers to undercut the documented and citizen workforce by hiring 

and abusing undocumented workers. Indeed, the single best thing we can do to protect all American workers, is to protect all who work in America. These well-founded 

fears threaten to sideline the DOL in these important matters, undercutting the 

rights of the entire low-wage workforce. If you are Secretary, what will you do to 

ensure that the DOL remains open to undocumented workers who are being exploited? Will you engage in targeted investigations in industries that tend to hire 

them and if so, what will you do to protect them from workplace raids? Will you 

vigorously enforce the current Memorandum of Understanding between DOL and 

DHS detailing how DHS must defer to DOL’s investigations and enforcement actions? Will you fight to maintain this MOU if others want to abandon it? 

Answer 73. I believe that the Department has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced regardless of workers’ immigration status. I support that longstanding practice. I have not studied the MOU you 

reference, but I believe it is important that both agencies avoid interfering in each 

other’s responsibilities. 

Question 74. Your statements on immigration and immigrant workers are at odds 

with statements that President Trump has made. What policies would you like to 

see? How will you work with President Trump if you are in opposition to one another? What policies do you propose to welcome immigrants to the United States? 

Answer 74. As I noted at the hearing, I think there is a need to have immigration 

laws that are transparent and clear, and I do think that we have an issue of abuse 

with immigrant workers. I think when workers are not part of the system, the system can abuse them. I also think it’s important that we enforce immigration laws. 

I don’t see enforcement of immigration laws as separate from immigration reform. 

As the child of immigrants, I certainly support and appreciate the benefits of legal 

immigration and the opportunities my family has had. The best way to welcome 

legal immigrants is to have a growing economy that gives them the opportunity to 

contribute. 

Question 75. As reported by The Washington Post, President Trump is the president of a Charlottesville vineyard that has applied for H–2A workers for multiple 

years, including for 2017. The DOL plays a key role in implementing and enforcing 

the H–2A program, both as the regulatory agency that oversees the employer’s application process and as the agency tasked with enforcing worker protections under 

the program. As President, Trump will be overseeing the very agency that will determine whether or not his business’s request for foreign workers will be granted. 

Ethics experts cited in The Washington Post article described President Trump’s interest in the H–2A program as a business owner and as the executive authority in 

charge of the H–2A program as ‘‘a classic conflict of interest’’ which would extend 

to his appointees. Given this clear conflict of interest, how will you be able to carry 

out the DOL’s responsibilities under the H–2A program? 

Answer 75. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws Congress has written fully and fairly and I have done that throughout my career regardless of the individuals involved. 

Question 76. Do you believe that all working people, regardless of their immigration status, should be afforded the same health and safety protections and options 

for recourse if they are injured on the job? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

105 

Answer 76. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws Congress has written fully and fairly, including health and safety protections, which 

apply regardless of immigration status. 

Question 77. Immigration enforcement is often used by exploitative employers as 

a tool to intimidate and retaliate against guest workers and other immigrant workers. This depresses wages and working conditions for all workers, and sometimes 

leads to forced labor and human trafficking on American soil. There have been numerous instances of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents impersonating OSHA officials in order to target immigrant workers, and the recent immigration enforcement surge has included worksite raids and the legal but problematic 

identification of ICE agents as police officers. The best way to prevent this misuse 

of ICE resources is to de-conflict and maintain a separation between immigration 

enforcement and labor enforcement. 

Do you agree with the principle that immigration and labor enforcement activities 

should be kept separate? 

If so, will you maintain or expand the interagency policy established with DHS 

to de-conflict worksite enforcement activities? 

Answer 77. If confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce the law in this area. I believe it is important that ICE and all DOL agencies avoid interfering in each other’s 

responsibilities. 

Question 78. The Labor Department during the Obama administration issued a 

number of rules to strengthen protections for working people—their pay, their safety 

and health, their pensions, and many more. These protections were issued after 

public notice and a full opportunity for the public to submit comments. After reviewing all these comments, the Labor Department made a decision to issue the rules. 

Will you commit to following the law and providing a full opportunity for public notice and comment before modifying any of the Obama administration’s regulations 

that have already been finalized and published? 

Answer 78. I will follow the requirements of the law in making changes to any 

regulations. 

Question 79. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that it takes older 

workers almost a year (about 40 weeks) to return to the workforce after losing their 

job. This is twice as long as it takes younger workers. Congress created and recently 

renewed their commitment to the Senior Community Service Employment Program 

(SCSEP) at the Department of Labor. This program has provided job training to millions of older Americans and has successfully moved them into permanent employment. While President Trump has claimed to be the champion of the American 

worker, his proposed budget calls to eliminate this employment program for low-income older workers. Should older workers who are unemployed but have the need, 

desire, and ability to work have access to temporary earn-and-learn training opportunities in their communities? How do you plan to assist the 67,000 unemployed 

older workers who will lose SCSEP service under the President’s plan—including 

the estimated 8 older workers from my State of Washington? Will you commit to 

work with Congress to ensure older workers who are unemployed have access to onthe-job training opportunities through SCSEP? 

Answer 79. I would need to review any particular program before I committed to 

supporting it. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about SCSEP. As a 

nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I note that the 

President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that will determine the 

funding levels. That said, I fully believe in assisting any worker, young or old, who 

seeks to rejoin the labor market but needs help developing in demand skills. 

Question 80. As you may know, since the enactment of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and subsequent creation 

of the compensation Program, the Department of Labor and the Department of Energy have worked to process the claims of former employees and contractors who 

were exposed to radiation and toxins during their service at nuclear weapons facilities across the country. As a Senator from the State of Washington, this is a really 

important issue to me because we have thousands of workers and their families at 

the Hanford Nuclear Reservation located in the Tri-Cities who helped America win 

WWII and the cold war and continue to support a critical cleanup mission at Hanford. For years, I have been battling the slow and complex process that these heroes 

deal with in trying to secure the compensation and care promised them in a fair 

and timely manner. In addition, in 2005, I along with my colleagues worked to move 

this compensation program to the Department of Labor under the premise that it 

would do much better in processing claims. Yet, I still hear from workers that face 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

106 

a slow claims process, continuous program inefficiencies, endless obstacles to complete their process, and difficulties in receiving the health care and benefits they 

earned through their dedicated service to the United States. What steps will you 

take to improve this critical program? Would you commit to a comprehensive review 

of the operations of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) and the Office of Workers’ Compensation Program? And report 

to this committee its findings within 90 days? 

Answer 80. If confirmed, I will look into your concerns. I will need to consult with 

DOL staff in order to determine the proper scope of any review and the timelines. 

Question 81. As Secretary of Labor, you will serve as the Chairman of the Board 

of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The PBGC’s multiemployer 

program reported in its fiscal year 2015 Annual Report that its deficit widened to 

$52.3 billion and it is likely to become insolvent in 2025. 

What do you think should be done to address the continuing solvency of the 

PBGC’s multiemployer program? 

What do you think should be done to address the solvency issues for plans like 

Central States among other plans that applied to Treasury to cut benefits under the 

Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) and were rejected? 

Answer 81. If confirmed, I will be Chair of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s Board of Directors and expect to be briefed on the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans. As I noted in the hearing, I have not proposed a plan to 

address the issue of underfunded multiemployer plans and I wish there were an 

easy solution. These workers have worked hard for pensions they reasonably expect 

upon retirement, and I understand that. I look forward to working with Congress 

and the President as solutions are proposed. 

Question 82. During your confirmation hearing when questioned about the looming insolvency of Central States and the PBGC, you would not commit to maintaining pension benefits rather than taking the drastic measure of cutting them because 

‘‘if you expand it further to include city and State pension funds, you’re talking 

about approximately a $2 trillion price tag.’’ 

Could you please discuss what you believe your role as Secretary of Labor is in 

overseeing city and State pension funds and the authority for such role? 

Answer 82. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans and the PBGC’s financial condition. I am aware that there 

are also concerns that many State and local government pension funds are substantially underfunded. Promoting retirement security is part of the Department’s mission and good public policy. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress 

and the President as solutions are proposed to resolve pension funding concerns particularly as they relate to the PBGC. 

Question 83. Do you think that the PBGC should set its own premiums for its 

multiemployer and single-employer programs? Please explain why or why not. 

Answer 83. If confirmed, I look forward to a briefing regarding the PBGC’s authority over premiums. I also look forward to working with Congress and the President as solutions are proposed, including proposals regarding PBGC premiums. 

Question 84. Do you think the current premiums for PBGC’s single-employer and 

multiemployer programs are sufficient? Please explain why or why not. Moreover, 

if you do not believe they are sufficient, please discuss what you believe a sufficient 

premium range would be. 

Answer 84. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress and the President as solutions are proposed, including proposals regarding PBGC premiums. The 

premiums charged need to take into account both the need for funding the PBGC’s 

guaranty programs while also keeping pension costs low so that employers continue 

to sponsor retirement plans. 

Question 85. Do you believe that the current structure of the PBGC Board (the 

Secretaries of Commerce, Labor and Treasury) is the most effective management 

structure for the PBGC? 

Answer 85. It is certainly important that the interests of plan participants and 

beneficiaries be represented on the Board. If confirmed, I look forward to briefings 

on these issues, including the role of the Board of Directors in the management of 

PBGC and discussing any proposed reforms to the structure with Congress. 

Question 86. Do you believe that the PBGC should be given greater authority to 

work with distressed multiemployer and single-employer plans? If so, what authority do you think is needed? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

107 

Answer 86. Supporting the ability of retirement plans to honor commitments 

made to working men and women is important. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed 

regarding the PBGC and ways to improve the prospects of distressed multiemployer 

and single employer plans, and I look forward to working with Congress and the 

President as solutions are proposed. 

Question 87. Do you believe every American who seeks professional investment 

advice regarding his or her retirement accounts deserves to receive advice that is 

solely in his or her best interest? 

Answer 87. It is important that the retirement savings of working Americans be 

protected. Working Americans deserve to have access to sound financial advice at 

fair and transparent prices, and the law requires those who are fiduciary advisers 

give advice that is solely in the interest of plans, their participants, and beneficiaries. 

Question 88. You stated in your confirmation hearing that the conflict of interest 

rule ‘‘goes far beyond simply addressing the standard of conduct’’ of investment advisers. If after your presidentially mandated review, you decide to rescind or significantly scale back the rule, what kinds of protections do you think need to be put 

in place to ensure that hardworking individuals and retirees receive advice that is 

solely in their best interest? 

Answer 88. Hardworking individuals and retirees should receive advice that is in 

their best interest. If confirmed, I expect to carefully examine the rule, pursuant to 

the executive memorandum. If repealed or scaled back, the basic protection articulated above would be important to address. 

Question 89. As part of the rulemaking process the Department of Labor undertook in completing the final conflict of interest rule, the Department prepared a 382- 

page regulatory impact analysis examining in great detail the expected economic impacts of the rule. This was the culmination of a roughly 6-year process that incorporated the feedback of thousands of public comments submitted to the Department 

in multiple comment periods. Included in the analysis were discussion of the exact 

issues the Administration seeks to study according to the new presidential memorandum directing the Department to study the rule. While you made it abundantly 

clear during your confirmation hearing that President Trump would be your boss 

and you would follow his direction until you couldn’t, do you think it a good use 

of taxpayer dollars to conduct a study that has already been completed? What do 

you intend to do with the rule if and when the results of this new study are consistent with the previous study? 

Answer 89. The presidential memorandum addresses with specificity the fiduciary 

rule and details the Department of Labor’s obligations to review the rule. If confirmed, I will conduct a review in accordance with the presidential memorandum. 

As Chairman Alexander noted, as a nominee it would be presumptuous to make any 

regulatory determinations at this time. Indeed, given that the comment period is 

still open on the questions raised as part of the evaluation, it would be improper 

for me to prejudge the rulemaking. 

Question 90. The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration devotes substantial resources to protecting the contributions made by employees and the matching contributions promised by their employers to employer-sponsored benefit plans, including 401(k)’s and health plans. Workers have had their 

contributions to their pension or health plans withheld from their paychecks without their employers depositing the money in the plans in a timely manner—or even 

at all in some cases. Instead, these employers kept the workers’ contributions and 

used them for their own purposes or for other unrelated purposes. What should the 

Department do to more effectively protect working people against employers’ misuse 

of their retirement and health money? 

Answer 90. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on matters related to the Employee 

Benefits Security Administration and will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including taking vigorous enforcement action if employers are unlawfully withholding funding for employee pension 

and health benefits. 

Question 91. During your confirmation hearing, you stated that considering ‘‘indirect control or even unexercised potential to control working conditions’’ when analyzing joint employer status was an ‘‘un-traditional approach.’’ The Restatement 

(Second) of Agency refers to a master as someone who ‘‘controls or has the right to 

control’’ another and refers to a servant as one who is ‘‘controlled or is subject to 

the right to control.’’ (emphasis added) Indeed, the Supreme Court’s considerations 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

108 

are consistent with these principles, as the Court has pointed to whether one ‘‘possessed sufficient control over the work of the employees to qualify as a joint employer.’’ Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473 (1964) (emphasis added). 

The common law has long acknowledged that control may be indirect, and the Restatement of Employment Law, Section 1.04(b) (March 2017) states, 

‘‘An individual is an employee of two or more joint employers if (i) the individual renders services to at least one of the employers and (ii) that employer 

and the other joint employers each control or supervise such rendering of services.’’ 

Do you believe that these common law principles are ‘‘un-traditional’’ and should 

be ignored when considering joint employer status under labor and employment 

laws? 

Answer 91. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on these matters as we 

develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities. 

Question 92. While you were Assistant Attorney General of the Department of 

Justice’s Civil Rights Division, you chose to write a letter to an Ohio judge in defense of an Ohio voter challenger law just days before the 2004 general election. It 

is a departure from standard practice of the Justice Department to weigh in on 

cases involving issues of voters rights and access so close to an election. Furthermore, the Department of Justice had no role in the case. 

Why did you choose to write the letter? 

How do you explain your decision, given that the Department of Justice had no 

role in the case? What was the value in the Department weighing in? 

Did you weigh in on cases involving voter challenger laws or other laws relating 

to voter rights and access at the time? Were there controversies in other States in 

which the Department chose to involve itself? 

Answer 92. The Department of Justice has a long history of submitting its views 

of statutes committed to its enforcement. The Department of Justice is charged with 

enforcing both the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (‘‘HAVA’’) and the Voting Rights 

Act (‘‘VRA’’). At the time, HAVA was a relatively new statute. Because of this, there 

was value in bringing to Judge Dlott’s attention key aspects of HAVA, i.e., that 

State and local election officials must permit any individual whose name does not 

appear on the official registration list or whose eligibility to vote is called into question to cast a provisional ballot even if they are unable to answer specific questions 

posed by election judges; that provisional ballots are part of a congressionally established balance between ballot access and ballot integrity; and that as a result, nondiscriminatory challenge statutes are not prohibited on their face (although they can 

be prohibited as applied). Provisional ballots would mitigate the impact of the Ohio 

‘‘challenge statute’’ at issue in that case, which otherwise may have resulted in the 

disqualification of some voters without any recourse to confirm their eligibility and 

to restore their vote. The letter alerting Judge Dlott to HAVA’s requirements was 

consistent with the Civil Rights Division’s many other efforts to raise awareness of 

and to enforce HAVA in several States during 2004. Importantly, the Department 

did not speak to the specific allegations raised by the plaintiffs in that suit, but limited its comments only to the statutes on their face. 

Question 93. In 2003, the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Rights Section was tasked 

with reviewing a plan proposed by the Texas legislature to redraw the State’s congressional districts. Under the Voting Rights Act, States with a history of discriminatory election practices had to receive approval from the Justice Department to 

make changes to their voting systems. This rule was designed to prohibit changes 

that would have harmed minority voters. The career attorneys in the Voting Rights 

Section found that the Texas redistricting plan would have had a discriminatory effect. Yet, senior political officials in the Department overruled the career attorneys 

and the Texas plan went into effect. The Supreme Court later found that the Texas 

redistricting plan had ‘‘failed to protect minority voting rights.’’ You chose to recuse 

yourself from this case and have refused to provide an explanation for your decision. 

In a congressional hearing in 2004, you stated, 

‘‘I do believe that my recusal was appropriate, that it was the right thing for 

me to do. I have very able deputies, good deputies, and I have full confidence 

in their decisionmaking process.’’ 

Why did you choose to recuse yourself from this case? And based on the mistake 

made by political officials to override the correct decision by the section’s career attorneys, do you regret your decision? 

Answer 93. Recusal is appropriate where an official has an actual conflict of interest, or where under the circumstances the official may reasonably appear to have 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

109 

a conflict of interest. As I mentioned at my hearing, I have a longstanding friendship with the then Solicitor General of Texas, Mr. Cruz, who was litigating this 

matter personally. I recused myself out of concern that this contact may be portrayed as a conflict of interest. I take recusal obligations very seriously. It is as important to recuse in cases where recusal is required as it is not to recuse in cases 

where recusal is not required. In this case I believe my decision to recuse from any 

involvement in the Department’s deliberations and decisionmaking was appropriate. 

SENATOR SANDERS

MINIMUM WAGE

Question 1. On July 27, 2016, Donald Trump said at a press conference ‘‘The min- imum wage has to go up. At least $10. It has to go up.’’ I believe we need to increase 

the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Do you believe that the Federal minimum wage 

of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage? Do you believe someone can support a family 

on $7.25 an hour? In your opinion, do you believe that Donald Trump was correct 

when he said that the minimum wage has to go up to at least $10 an hour? 

Answer 1. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States and 

localities by their respective governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and other 

economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that many States and 

localities have increased the minimum wage above the Federal floor. 

PENSIONS

Question 2. A few years ago, the Republican Congress passed a law that allows 

companies to cut the earned pension benefits of millions of workers in multi-employer pension plans by as much as 60 percent. I am about to re-introduce legislation that would repeal this law and prohibit employers from cutting earned pension 

benefits. This legislation would be paid for by closing loopholes that allow millionaires to pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Will you work with me on this 

legislation? What will you do to prevent the earned pension benefits of millions of 

Americans in multi-employer pension plans from being cut? 

Answer 2. If confirmed, I will be Chair of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s Board of Directors and expect to be briefed on the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans. As I noted in the hearing, I have not proposed a plan to 

address the issue of underfunded multiemployer plans and I wish there were an 

easy solution. These Americans have worked hard for pensions they reasonably expect upon retirement, and I understand that. I look forward to working with Congress and the President as solutions are proposed to address this important issue. 

EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP (ESOPS)

Question 3. Employee stock ownership using the ESOP model has broad-based bipartisan support in Congress. The data shows that employee-owned companies provide jobs that are more productive, competitive, and sustainable, especially in a time 

of economic downturns. Do you believe broad-based ownership by employees in the 

companies where they work is good policy for our Nation—for the employees, their 

companies, their communities? Will DOL work to encourage broad-based employee 

ownership? I have long believed that worker ownership is an economic model that 

we should be using to reduce income and wealth inequality. Studies have consistently shown that worker ownership increases wages, productivity, and benefits, and 

sharply reduces turnover and absenteeism. 

Answer 3. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based retirement plans, can 

provide valuable benefits to participating workers, and I believe that Congress and 

the Department have a shared responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs 

fulfill their important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look forward to working 

with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to 

expand opportunity. 

Question 4. I will be re-introducing legislation to allow the Department of Labor 

to provide grants to States and local government to educate workers and retiring 

business owners about the benefits of employee ownership. I will also be introducing 

legislation to create a U.S. Employee Ownership Bank to provide low-interest loans 

and financial assistance to workers who want to create worker-owned businesses. 

Will you work with me on those bills? 

Answer 4. As I expressed at my confirmation hearing, I look forward to working 

with you and all of the members of the committee on issues like the one you raise 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

110 

here. I share your interest in the benefits of employee ownership programs and look 

forward to learning more about the value they can provide to workers and businesses, if confirmed. 

IMMIGRATION/VISA’S

Question 5. What specific actions will you take to prohibit U.S. workers from 

being replaced by guest workers through the H–1B program? 

Answer 5. As I noted in my testimony, I think that this is an important issue 

to review, particularly where Americans are being asked to train their foreign replacements. That is not the intent of the H–1B program. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working with the Department staff to look for ways to eliminate this problem. 

If legislation is needed, I look forward to working with you and the committee to 

help enact any needed changes. 

Question 6. Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to force U.S. workers 

to train their replacements who are here under the H–1B program in order to receive a severance package? 

Answer 6. I believe this is offensive to American workers. As I noted in my testimony, I think that this is an important issue to review. That is not the intent of 

the H–1B program. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department 

staff and Congress to look for ways to eliminate this problem. The only thing that 

I can think of that is worse than losing your job is being forced to train your replacement. 

Question 7. Currently, the H–2B program requires that the employer offer a wage 

that equals or exceeds the prevailing wage, or adheres to the local minimum wage. 

The program also requires recruitment displacement standards to protect similarly 

skilled U.S. workers. How do you intend to enforce these requirements? 

Answer 7. Protecting U.S. workers is my priority. If confirmed, I will enforce the 

laws in this area that are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and 

direct my staff to work with other Departments involved to address any issues. If 

legislative changes are needed, I look forward to working with you and the committee to come up with a solution. 

Question 8. How will you make sure that H–2B guest workers are not exploited 

by unscrupulous employers? 

Answer 8. Certainly, guest workers on any program should be treated fairly in 

order to protect them and maintain U.S. working conditions. If confirmed, I will enforce the laws in this area that are within the jurisdiction of the Department and 

direct my staff to work with other Departments involved to address any issues. If 

legislative changes are needed, I look forward to working with you and the committee to come up with a solution in this area. 

Question 9. In your opinion, should companies be able to pay guest workers on 

a J–1 visa less than the minimum wage? 

Answer 9. Certainly, guest workers on any program should be treated fairly in 

order to protect them and maintain U.S. working conditions. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed regarding the J–1 visa program, but I believe that program 

is enforced by the State Department, not the Department of Labor as it is considered a cultural or educational visa. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws 

under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, and ask staff to assist the State Department in safeguarding 

these workers. 

Question 10. How would you interpret and enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act 

with respect to the J–1 visa au pair program? 

Answer 10. Certainly, guest workers in any program should be treated fairly in 

order to protect them and maintain U.S. working conditions. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed regarding the J–1 visa program, but I believe that program 

is enforced by the State Department, not the Department of Labor, as it is considered a cultural or educational visa. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws 

under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, and ask staff to assist the State Department in safeguarding 

these workers. 

Question 11. Are au pairs entitled to a State’s minimum wage if that exceeds the 

Federal minimum wage? Are au pairs entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

111 

Answer 11. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed regarding the J–1 visa 

program, but I believe that program is enforced by the State Department, not the 

Department of Labor, as it is considered a cultural or educational visa. Certainly, 

guest workers in any program should be treated fairly in order to protect them and 

U.S. working conditions. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, and ask staff to assist the State Department in safeguarding these workers. 

Question 12. In guest worker programs where employers are required to provide 

housing by statute, will you allow employers to deduct the cost of housing even if 

it would mean that the paycheck of the guest worker would be lower than the minimum wage? 

Answer 12. If confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce all the laws that protect 

guest workers. Whether employers can deduct the cost of housing from employee 

wages depends on the guest worker statute. It would not be appropriate for an employer to deduct the cost of housing from the required wage where the guest worker 

statute requires the employer to pay for housing. 

Question 13. Should the Department of Labor protect guest workers from retaliation if they report problems with their working conditions? 

Answer 13. Anti-retaliation provisions are designed to ensure that workers can assert their rights and should be supported and enforced for that reason. To the extent 

Congress has given authority to the Department under guest worker statutes, if 

confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce all the laws that prohibit illegal retaliation. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULE

Question 14. The DOL estimated that Americans lose at least $17 billion a year 

due to conflicted advice from their advisers. Do you think protecting investors from 

receiving bad, or conflicted advice, is good public policy that will help more Americans retire with financial security? 

Answer 14. It is important that the retirement savings of working Americans be 

protected. Working Americans deserve to have access to sound financial advice at 

fair and transparent prices, and the law requires those who are fiduciary advisers 

give advice that is solely in the interest of plans, their participants, and beneficiaries. 

Question 15. It is difficult for the average person to know who’s who in giving 

them investment advice. Without the enactment of the conflict of interest rule, 

someone who is a ‘‘registered investment advisor’’ must provide advice in the best 

interest of their clients, while someone who calls themselves a ‘‘financial advisor,’’ 

or ‘‘retirement advisor’’ has no such obligation. Do you believe the investment industry has a responsibility to make this clearer and easier to understand for average 

Americans, or does the burden in your view rest on the person investing? 

Answer 15. I believe that transparency with respect to obligations is important 

generally and in this context. Working Americans deserve to have access to sound 

financial advice at fair and transparent prices, and the law requires those who are 

fiduciary advisors give advice that is solely in the interest of plans, their participants, and beneficiaries. 

Question 16. When it developed the fiduciary rule, the DOL prepared an exhaustive economic analysis conservatively estimating that conflicted advice from advisers 

costs American savers at least $17 billion a year. Yet the agency has just submitted 

a proposal to OMB to delay the rule pending another economic analysis. Every day 

that this rule is needlessly pushed back, countless hardworking Americans could 

lose critical parts of their retirement savings. What would you say to those investors? 

Answer 16. It is important that the retirement savings of working Americans be 

protected. I support empowering Americans to make their own financial decisions, 

to facilitate their ability to save for retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to withstand unexpected financial emergencies. There are concerns, however, that the fiduciary rule may adversely affect the ability of Americans, particularly those with smaller accounts, to gain access to retirement information and financial advice. As I noted at the hearing, a presidential memorandum addresses 

with specificity the fiduciary rule and details the Department of Labor’s obligations 

to review the rule. If confirmed, I will conduct the review in accordance with the 

presidential memorandum, but with the underlying goal of ensuring the policy 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

112 

meets the President’s and Congress mutual goal of safeguarding retirement security. 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Question 17. The Federal Government continues to be American’s largest lowwage job creator. On February 12, 2014, President Obama signed an Executive 

order establishing a $10.10 minimum wage for Federal contract workers. Do you 

support or oppose that Executive order? On September 7, 2015, President Obama 

signed an Executive order ‘‘establishing paid sick leave for Federal contractors.’’ Do 

you support or oppose that Executive order? 

Answer 17. I believe that the vast majority of Federal contractors pay $10.10 minimum irrespective of the Executive order and many also provide paid sick leave. As 

I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that apply to the Labor Department or give the Department 

additional enforcement responsibilities. 

Question 18. On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed an Executive order ‘‘prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.’’ Do you 

support or oppose that Executive order? 

Answer 18. I believe the White House has indicated its intent not to rescind this 

Executive order, and I support that decision. I am committed to enforcing anti-discrimination laws. I believe anti-discrimination laws should prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although I support religious entities’ freedom to hire consistent with their faith. 

CIVIL RIGHTS

Question 19. Mr. Acosta, according to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights 

Under Law: 

‘‘[You] led the Civil Rights Division at a time that was marked by stark 

politicization and other improper hiring and personnel decisions that were fully 

laid to bare in a 2008 report issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). 

The OIG found that actions taken during Mr. Acosta’s tenure violated Justice 

Department policy and Federal law. Political and ideological affiliations were 

used as a litmus test to evaluate job candidates and career attorneys, wreaking 

havoc on the work of the Division. This egregious conduct played out under Mr. 

Acosta’s watch and undermined the integrity of the Civil Rights Division. It is 

hard to believe that Mr. Acosta would now be nominated to lead a Federal agency tasked with promoting lawful hiring practices and safe workplaces.’’ 

Given your record at the Department of Justice, how can we trust you to fairly 

enforce our Nation’s labor laws? 

Answer 19. As I indicated at my hearing before the committee, the conduct described in the OIG’s report was wrong and should not have taken place. The OIG 

concluded that I was not aware of the misconduct. Nonetheless, it occurred on my 

watch as Assistant Attorney General. I am well aware of what happened, and committed to ensure it is not repeated. I am committed to enforcing the Nation’s labor 

laws, fairly and fully. 

VOTER SUPPRESSION

Question 20. All over this country there has been a massive effort by Republican 

legislatures and Governors to suppress the vote of African Americans, Latinos, and 

the poor. In 2004, the Ohio Republican Party announced its plan to deploy thousands of people across Ohio to challenge votes in mostly African American precincts. 

Many in the civil rights community called this plan nothing more than ‘‘a vestige 

of Jim Crow laws’’ which ‘‘created the possibility of disenfranchising a voter without 

due process of law.’’ Yet, you wrote a letter in defending this practice when you were 

at the Department of Justice. According to a 2007 article by McClatchy, 

‘‘Former Justice Department civil rights officials and election watchdog 

groups charge that [your letter] letter sided with Republicans engaging in an 

illegal, racially motivated tactic known as ‘vote-caging’ in a State that would be 

pivotal in delivering President Bush a second term in the White House.’’ 

If you fought to suppress the vote of African Americans in Ohio, how can we trust 

you to enforce our Nation’s anti-discrimination laws in the workplace? 

Answer 20. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor I will be committed to fairly and 

fully enforcing all laws entrusted to the Department of labor including workplace 

anti-discrimination laws. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

113 

GENERAL

Question 21. Trump has been involved in at least 60 lawsuits involving employees 

and contractors alleging he did not pay them. According to DOL data, he has been 

cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay 

overtime or minimum wage. Despite his campaign promises, his actions paint a portrait of a systemic culture to devalue workers. How do you plan on addressing this 

conflict of interest? Will you create policies that will have a direct impact on the 

President’s pending labor investigations and lawsuits? 

Answer 21. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws Congress has written fully and fairly and I have done that throughout my career regardless of the individuals involved. 

BUDGET

Question 22. President Trump’s proposed budget cuts the Labor Department by 

21 percent, or $2.5 billion. Meanwhile, full-time workers are struggling to provide 

for their families and find good jobs. Do you know how many U.S. workers the 

Labor Department will have to turn away for job training and career services if the 

President’s budget request to cut $2.5 billion from the Labor Department is enacted? 

Answer 22. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, one of my goals and responsibilities will be to use taxpayer resources wisely to provide the best job training and career services to all Americans 

in need of those resources. 

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Question 23. In a study of 98 of America’s 100 most populous metro areas, which 

includes 66 percent of the U.S. population, Measure of America found that youth 

disconnection is not a spontaneously occurring phenomenon; it is an outcome years 

in the making. Disconnected young people tend to come from communities that are 

themselves disconnected from the mainstream by segregation and concentrated disadvantage, and young people’s struggles with education and employment mirror 

those of their parents and neighbors. Under your leadership, would you direct discretionary funding to high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal areas/communities? 

Answer 23. If confirmed, I look forward to working on this issue in order to find 

ways to better serve youth who confront the challenges you describe. I share your 

concerns about communities and individuals that feel disconnected from society, and 

expect to be briefed on what the Department is doing in this area, and how we can 

improve those efforts, if confirmed. The Department of Labor, along with local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to have substantial 

positive impact on American workers, including young people who struggle with 

education and employment. If confirmed, I will work to maximize the impact of 

every taxpayer dollar directed to job training programs and ensure funds go to programs that work. I would add that efforts in these communities need to be coordinated with other Departments, including Housing and Urban Development and 

Education. 

Question 24. The taxpayer and social burden of a disconnected 16-year-old young 

person during his or her lifetime is over $1,014,140. Do you believe there is a Federal role in supporting States and local areas to connect unemployed youth to the 

labor market? If so, what is that role? 

Answer 24. I believe that programs at the Department of Labor, most prominently 

those in the Employment and Training Administration, do play a role in helping to 

serve the communities you describe. As I mentioned previously, I share your concerns about communities and individuals that feel disconnected from society, and do 

believe that this Federal role is important in partnership with local government and 

private industry. 

Question 25. Youth and young adults in the United States face an unprecedented 

employment crisis. Seven years after the ‘‘official’’ end of the Great Recession, teen 

unemployment remains high at nearly 17 percent. Will you make youth employment 

a top priority for your tenure as Secretary? 

Answer 25. Thank you for highlighting this important issue. Youth and young 

adult employment will be a priority that I plan to focus on, if confirmed. 

Question 26. For the middle class especially, the American dream of each generation doing better than the last is slipping out of reach. Today’s young people are 

working just as hard as their parents did, and yet—due to stagnant wages and highHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

114 

er education costs—are less likely to out-earn their parents in their lifetimes. How 

will you restore and protect this generation’s right to the American Dream? 

Answer 26. I share your concern about this generation struggling to experience 

greater successes than their parents. A strong belief in the American dream and a 

sense that it is achievable is important to our American identity and society. My 

family experienced the American dream first-hand, and I hope that if confirmed, I 

can bring those experiences to bear in order to support policies, initiatives and reforms that will provide the opportunity for this generation to realize greater success 

than did their parents. 

WIOA

Question 27. The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 established a State-administered, 

federally funded national system of public labor exchange offices known as the U.S. 

Employment Service (ES). The Act most recently was amended in 2014 by the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). The Employment Service has 

for decades been providing job search assistance, job interview referrals, re-employment services to unemployment insurance claimants, and recruitment services for 

employers seeking to fill vacancies. It also specially meets the specific needs of 

youth, minorities, older workers, individuals with disabilities, and veterans. WIOA 

has expanded the Employment Service’s mandate to provide more intensive, staffassisted career counseling to job seekers, thus affirming ES’s key role within American Job Centers. Will you fully support the work of the Employment Service 

through appropriations requests for adequate funding and other means? 

Answer 27. The Department of Labor, along with State and local governments, 

industry, and educational institutions, can partner to have substantial positive impact on America’s workers. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I will work to maximize the impact of Federal taxpayer dollars directed to employment and job training 

programs and shift more responsibility for funding job training and employment 

services to States, localities and employers that can effectively address the needs 

of both employers and workers. I strongly believe it is important to invest in worker 

training. I look forward to working with you and Members of the committee to realize these stated goals. 

Question 28. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA) 

passed with virtually unanimous bipartisan support in Congress—marking the first 

update to the Nation’s core workforce training programs in 16 years. Since WIOA 

was enacted, the State and local workforce development system has worked to implement the law’s changes to the Nation’s employment, training, adult education, 

and vocational rehabilitation programs, including its emphasis on improving services to low-income adults and youth who have limited skills, lack work experience, 

and face other barriers to securing an education and getting a good job. In 2016, 

the Departments of Labor and Education published final rules implementing WIOA; 

relying on this regulatory framework, States have completed extensive stakeholder 

consultation processes and finalized their State workforce development plans. Will 

you commit to keeping these rules in place so that States and local areas can continue to implement their 4-year WIOA plans? 

Answer 28. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on WIOA and all related programs 

and implementing regulations in order to understand stakeholder, State workforce 

agency and worker interests and concerns. So long as these rules are working well, 

I see no reason to disturb them; if improvement would be helpful, however, I believe 

changes should be considered. 

WHD ENFORCEMENT

Question 29. Do you believe that government should play an active role in protecting workers and policing misconduct on the part of employers? Examples of misconduct include practices that deny workers a fair wage, practices that reinforce discrimination against protected groups of workers, practices that make it difficult for 

employees to complain about such unfair and illegal conduct and that stack the deck 

against the employee and in favor of the employer when a complaint is made, and 

many others. If so, do you believe that this role cannot be effectively accomplished 

by any other entity? 

Answer 29. Government has an active role and responsibility to enforce laws that 

protect workers. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. 

Question 30. Do you support similar modern-day developments to ensure that 

working conditions are better and pay is better for average working people, including low-wage workers? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

115 

Answer 30. I support improvements in working conditions and raising wages, and, 

if confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including laws pertaining to worker protections. 

Question 31. As the head of DOL, will you actively pursue new public protections 

to create a safer workplace environment? 

Answer 31. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the safety standards to help 

ensure the safety of all workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

requires OSHA to ensure safe and healthful working conditions and I am committed 

to carrying out this mission. Where necessary, OSHA will promulgate appropriate 

and feasible rules to address workplace hazards. OSHA has many other tools at its 

disposal to carry out the obligations of the Act and to address new workplace hazards as they emerge, including conducting training and education, and providing 

compliance assistance to employers and employees. 

Question 32. As the Nation’s chief worker advocate, will you pursue increased 

wages for the middle class? 

Answer 32. Yes, I support increased wages for the middle class. A growing economy combined with improved job training for in demand skills is among the best 

ways to grow the middle class. 

Question 33. The Fair Labor Standards Act at 29 U.S.C. § 201 states, as ‘‘congressional finding and declaration of policy’’ as follows: 

‘‘The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or 

in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the 

maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, 

and general well-being of workers (1) causes commerce and the channels and 

instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor 

conditions among the workers of the several States; (2) burdens commerce and 

the free flow of goods in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds 

that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce. It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by 

Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with 

foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.’’ 

The current WHD engages in targeted enforcement—looking specifically to industries which have high rates of violations and rather than waiting for complaints to 

come in, doing audits of businesses in those industries to drive higher rates of compliance with the FLSA across the board. Would you continue engaging in targeted 

enforcement in the industries we know have high rates of violations? 

Answer 33. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. Strategic enforcement in high violation areas, 

alongside individual complaints, is a balanced enforcement strategy I support. 

Question 34. Do you believe your company’s violation of WHD and OSHA regulations impairs your ability to oversee those programs as Labor Secretary? 

Answer 34. I am unaware of what company you reference. In my roles at the bank 

and Florida International University Law School, I have promoted full compliance 

with the law, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. 

TRADE/OUTSOURCING/INTERNATIONAL LABOR

Question 35. The President has talked a lot about unfair trade agreements that 

have taken away American jobs. While I realize you are nominated for Secretary 

of Labor, not as our trade representative, what will you do as Secretary to help 

these dislocated workers impacted by trade to find new jobs at commensurate or 

better wages than they received before their job moved abroad? What changes need 

to be made in our trade agreements to better protect our workforce? 

Answer 35. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned 

the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements are enforced fairly. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working with that office, the Trade Representative and 

Congress on this important issue. The overall best solution for preventing dislocations is to create an environment where there are few incentives to move jobs overseas. When there are displacements of workers because of trade, however, as I disHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

116 

cussed at the hearing, we need to make better efforts to align job training with the 

skills the market demands today and in the future for those displaced workers. 

MINIMUM WAGE

Question 36. This year, the Republican platform called for the Minimum wage to 

be handled at the State AND local level. Yet many red States are passing laws that 

prohibit localities (cities and counties from raising the minimum wage in their jurisdictions. Ohio is the latest State to do so. This is in direct contravention of the Republican party platform and you yourself have spoken about this being an issue that 

should be handled at the State and local level. What will you do as the SOL to discourage States from pre-empting their localities who wish to enact labor standards 

that comport with the needs of those who live and work in their jurisdictions? 

Answer 36. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. If confirmed, I will 

examine this matter more closely. 

SENATOR CASEY

Question 1. During the Bush administration the Mine Safety and Health Administration failed to fulfill its statutory mandate under the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act to inspect every underground mine 4 times per year, and every surface 

mine 2 times per year. This is known as the ‘‘4s and 2s.’’ In fact, MSHA’s budget 

was cut so deep during the Bush administration that MSHA did not even have 

enough qualified inspectors to carry out these inspections. Will you commit to that 

MSHA will implement this mandate to carry out the 4s and 2s every year Please 

provide a yes or no response. 

Answer 1. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws Congress has written fully and fairly, including inspection obligations at the Mine Safety and Health Administration. 

Question 2. The Obama administration took a number of steps through rulemaking and enforcement that protected the health and safety of coal miners, including those in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Previously, MSHA failed to implement the ‘‘Pattern of Violations requirement’’ included in the Federal Mine safety 

and Health Act to ensure that serial violators will face elevated sanctions if they 

repeatedly place miners in harm’s way by violating mandatory safety standards. 

That was fixed by MSHA after the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster which killed 

29 miners in the worst coal mine disaster in the United States in 40 years. Will 

you commit to maintain, implement and enforce this rule and its implementing 

guidance? Please provide a yes or no response. 

Answer 2. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I certainly support 

strong and fair use of all of MSHA’s enforcement tools, including elevated sanctions 

where appropriate. As I noted in my hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all rules and to make determinations if any rules should be 

revised. If confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that directive. That 

said, Upper Big Branch was a terrible tragedy and I support all actions that effectively ensure the tragedy is not repeated. 

Question 3. The respirable dust rule implemented by MSHA and the industry will 

reduce the exposure of miners to coal dust that causes disabling lung diseases, like 

black lung. Will you commit to maintain this rule and fully enforce it? Please provide a yes or no response. 

Answer 3. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I support efforts to 

reduce black lung disease. As I noted in my hearing, the President has directed each 

Cabinet officer to review all rules and to make determinations if any rules should 

be revised. If confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that directive. 

Question 4. MSHA issued a rule to keep miners from being crushed by continuous 

mining machine. It is known as the Proximity Detection Rule, which requires operators to install equipment to automatically shut down the movement of the machine 

if a worker is caught in a zone where they can be crushed. Will you commit to maintain this rule and fully enforce it? Please provide a yes or no response. 

Answer 4. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I support using technology to improve miner safety. As I noted in my hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all rules and to make determinations if any 

rules should be revised. If confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that 

directive. 

Question 5. The DOL issued a new Black Lung Benefits Act rule which improves 

the claims process to give black lung claimants better access to information and 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

117 

helps level the playing field. Will you commit to maintain and implement this rule? 

Please provide a yes or no response. 

Answer 5. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I support improving 

claims processes for injured workers generally and particularly those suffering from 

black lung disease. As I noted in my hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all rules and to make determinations if any rules should be 

revised. If confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that directive. 

Question 6. President Trump has made deregulation a priority. He also proposed 

a 21 percent cut to the Department of Labor’s budget. Will you pledge to continue 

tough enforcement of these laws and regulations to protect coal miners and commit 

to not gutting or undoing these regulations? How do you propose to have robust enforcement given these proposed budget cuts? Please provide a yes or no response. 

Answer 6. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that 

will determine the funding for MSHA. MSHA has an important responsibility to foster mine safety and an obligation to inspect facilities proactively. Regardless of Congress’ decision, MSHA must use its personnel to the best of its ability to accomplish 

its mission and enforce important safety and health standards. 

Question 7. Will you advocate on behalf of coal miners and their health and pension benefits by pushing the Republican leadership in Congress and President 

Trump to pass and sign the Miners Protection Act? 

Answer 7. I have not reviewed that particular piece of legislation, but I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Congress on potential legislative 

changes. 

Question 8. Do you agree that when trading partners fail to enforce labor laws 

and do not uphold high-standard protections for workers, it can create a competitive 

disadvantage for U.S. workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses? 

Answer 8. Yes, I agree. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs 

is assigned the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements are enforced 

to protect America’s interests, including workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with that office, the Trade Representative 

and Congress to safeguard American jobs. 

Question 9. If confirmed, will you vigorously investigate and enforce the labor obligations of our trading partners? 

Answer 9. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned the 

duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements are enforced. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working with that office, the Trade Representative and Congress 

to vigorously safeguard American jobs. 

Question 10. Do you agree that adopting or maintaining lax labor or human rights 

standards is not a legitimate way for governments to manufacture a competitive advantage for their exporters? 

Answer 10. Yes, I agree. If confirmed, I will consult with the Bureau staff on ways 

to help countries improve compliance with their commitments to uphold the standards applicable to them. 

Question 11. The Department of Labor is responsible for helping to enforce labor 

and human rights provisions of our trade agreements. In the past, DOL has provided direct technical assistance, particularly for significant problematic areas, such 

as anti-union discrimination, forced overtime, and sexual harassment of female 

workers. If confirmed, will you continue to provide robust technical assistance to 

countries that fall short of international standards, and hold our trading partners 

accountable when they violate obligations to protect worker rights? 

Answer 11. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned 

the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements are enforced and to 

monitor compliance with minimum international labor standards. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working with that office, the Trade Representative and Congress to 

vigorously safeguard American jobs and promote our values. 

Question 12. Do you think women should be able to take time off work to take 

care of a sick child or parent? 

Answer 12. Most women have had to take time off work to take care of a sick 

child or spouse. Dependent on the specific facts, the Family and Medical Leave Act 

and/or a State equivalent may be applicable and would allow for leave to take care 

of a sick child or parent. As I mentioned in the hearing, promoting workplace flexibility is something I support. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

118 

Question 13. Do you think men should be able to take time off work to take care 

of a sick spouse or child? 

Answer 13. Most men have had to take time off work to take care of a sick child 

or spouse. Dependent on the specific facts, the Family and Medical Leave Act and/ 

or a State equivalent may be applicable and would allow for leave to take care of 

a sick child or parent. As I mentioned in the hearing, promoting workplace flexibility is something I support. 

Question 14. Do you think the right to take time off work to take care of a sick 

spouse or child should be different for same sex couples? 

Answer 14. The sexual orientation of a parent would be irrelevant to the coverage. 

Dependent on the specific facts, the Family and Medical Leave Act may be applicable and would allow for leave to take care of a sick spouse or child. 

Question 15. The Department of Labor has played an important role in enhancing 

protections for LGBT Americans. This includes the Wage and Hour Division’s steps 

to interpret the Family and Medical Leave Act in a way that recognizes LGBT relationships. Can you assure us that, if confirmed, you will continue to enforce these 

orders and protect LGBT Americans? 

Answer 15. I am committed to enforcing anti-discrimination laws and the Family 

and Medical Leave Act. I believe anti-discrimination laws should prohibit workplace 

discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although I support religious entities’ freedom to hire consistent with their faith. 

Question 16. Do you believe companies have the right to make hiring decisions 

based on pregnancy status or family plans? 

Answer 16. A person’s decisions regarding starting a family should be a private 

matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act would 

likely make such decisions illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 

Question 17. Do you believe companies have the right to ask these questions related to pregnancy status or family plans during the hiring process? 

Answer 17. A person’s decisions regarding starting a family should be a private 

matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act would 

likely make such decisions illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 

Question 18. If you are confirmed as the Secretary of Labor you will be expected 

‘‘to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United 

States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities 

for profitable employment’’. 

Currently, 40 percent of workers experience sexual violence in the workplace at 

fast food restaurants, the national average for other occupations is also unconscionably high. If confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, will you commit to hosting a public forum with public and private stakeholders across the country to implement a 

national framework around gender-based violence in the workplace? Please provide 

a clear Yes or No response. 

Answer 18. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to address this important issue and would need to consult with the Department to see what sort of 

resources and options would be available. This seems to be an area where other government agencies like the Department of Justice and EEOC as well as State governments would have an interest as well so I would want to solicit their input. As a 

general matter, I believe such forums are helpful as a mechanism to call attention 

to important issues. 

Question 19. One of the most important elements of economic security for the middle class is retirement security. Millions of Americans ask, ‘‘Will I have enough 

money saved to retire and retire comfortably?’’ As we have learned, the answer to 

that question for too many Americans is no. Yet, in one its first actions, the Trump 

administration has taken steps to roll back protections for retirement savers. So far 

this administration has demonstrated that it is working to help Trump’s fellow corporate titans at a direct cost to working families and their financial and retirement 

security. Do you think it is fair that while Wall Street has recovered, many of the 

pensions that bore the brunt of the financial crash are struggling? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

119 

Answer 19. It is important that the retirement savings of working Americans be 

protected. Struggling pension funds are a serious problem and, if confirmed I look 

forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to improve pension funding and security overall. 

Question 20. If confirmed as Labor Secretary, you will not only serve as Chair of 

the Board of the PBGC, which serves as the backstop for pension plans, but you 

will also be consulted on any applications to Treasury to cut benefits. Will you commit to a vigorous review of any application to cut pension benefits and be thoroughly 

engaged in the process in order to provide opinions and suggestions when called 

upon for consultation as required by law? 

Answer 20. As you note if confirmed I will be Chair of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s Board of Directors and expect to be briefed on the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans and the Secretary of Labor’s role in the 

process you reference. I will commit to a thorough review of any such applications. 

Question 21. Do you support the use of apprenticeships to help give workers the 

skills they need and to give employers the skilled workers that they need? What 

specifically will you do to increase utilization of apprenticeships? 

Answer 21. I share your belief that quality apprenticeships play a vitally important role in closing the skills gap and providing workers with the skills they need 

to prosper in our economy. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation of 

industry, local academic and training institutions and government partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If confirmed, I believe my role 

will be to make sure this model can be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition to new and growing industries. 

Question 22. What specifically will you do at the Department of Labor to help 

workers who have lost their jobs to technology or trade? 

Answer 22. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program and other efforts at the 

Department that focus on workers who have been displaced from employment are 

very important. If confirmed, I will examine which programs are effective, which 

need reform and whether or not resources are being deployed optimally. If confirmed 

as Secretary of Labor, I will work with States and localities to work with industry 

and trade associations to identify effective programs, including public/private partnerships, that support displaced and unemployed workers’ re-entry into the workforce, including those who have lost their jobs to technology or trade. I will work 

with Congress and stakeholders to continue to advance the Department’s goals to 

support economic growth by aligning job training for displaced workers with the 

skills demands of employers. The Department’s goal should be to accelerate and improve employment outcomes for workers who need new skills and credentials to find 

their next jobs and stay employed. 

Question 23. Is collective bargaining an effective tool to increase income for workers and to grow the middle class? 

Answer 23. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established in law, as is 

the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or to refrain from joining a 

union. The decision of whether to join a union should be left to the individual. If 

they believe that joining together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation 

then they should do so. 

Question 24. How specifically will you ensure thorough investigation and enforcement of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act? 

Answer 24. I support strategic enforcement alongside individual complaints. If 

confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. 

Question 25. Given President Trump’s proposed 21 percent budget cuts for the Department of Labor, how specifically do you propose to ensure vigorous enforcement 

of FLSA violations? 

Answer 25. If confirmed, one of my goals and responsibilities will be to use taxpayer resources wisely and I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. I support strategic enforcement alongside individual complaints. 

Question 26. Following the criticism of your leadership of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, how has your leadership style changed? 

Answer 26. Senior leadership in government has to balance external and internal 

demands. I believe I am more hands-on, and more focused on internal matters. I 

have also learned to better oversee and monitor subordinates while not micromanHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

120 

aging their performance. As U.S. attorney, I walked around the office often in order 

to learn what AUSAs were doing. This day-to-day contact was important, and 

helped me better understand and monitor day-to-day AUSA activity. 

Question 27. How can the Department of Labor help economically disadvantaged 

areas attract new business investment and new jobs? 

Answer 27. Small businesses produce, depending on whose numbers you look at, 

between 7 and 8 out of 10 new jobs. A growing economy generally and encouragement for small business particularly will foster job creation. Regulatory burdens are 

acute problems sometimes for small businesses, however. As I noted at the hearing, 

the President has made clear that every Cabinet agency should review regulations 

for unneeded regulatory burden, and I think that would be a good first step. 

Question 28. Do you support increased OSHA penalties in order to provide a more 

effective deterrent to violations that jeopardize the health and well-being of workers? 

Answer 28. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many other issues 

with the Department’s OSHA staff, to help ensure the safety of all workers. If increased penalties are warranted, I look forward to working with you and the committee to help enact these changes. 

Question 29. Many law-abiding employers are at a disadvantage because they are 

being undercut by other companies that misclassify their workers as independent 

contractors. Do you agree this is a problem? What will you do to crack down on the 

misclassification of workers as independent contractors? 

Answer 29. An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear compliance guidance from the Department. The use of independent contractors is a legal and valuable business practice. However, in some circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a worker 

as an independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not be abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to the requirements 

of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as independent contractors may be denied access to critical benefits and protections they are entitled to by law. This incorrect classification may also generate losses to the Federal Government and State 

governments in the form of lower tax revenues, as well as to State unemployment 

insurance and workers’ compensation funds. Employers who deliberately misclassify 

workers undercut law-abiding employers who are making contributions to these systems and paying their workers properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed 

on matters pertaining to the classification of employees and will work to enforce the 

laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction, including these employment 

laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of workers. If businesses are found 

to be incorrectly classifying workers in a way that violates the law, I will fully and 

fairly enforce the relevant laws. 

Question 30. The Department of Labor has provided support to many States, including Pennsylvania, to provide assistance in studying systems to provide paid 

family leave. Will you and the Department of Labor continue to provide financial 

and technical assistance to States seeking to implement paid family leave? 

Answer 30. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing this issue with DOL staff, 

stakeholders and the committee. I certainly support the concept of providing technical assistance to States. 

Question 31. Will you pursue new rulemaking? If so, in what areas will you focus? 

Answer 31. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing the issue of any regulations 

that may need to be issued with DOL staff, stakeholders and the committee. If new 

public protections are needed, cost effective and legally allowed, they will be pursued. 

Question 32. Will you implement Trump administration policy even if it will harm 

American workers? 

Answer 32. I believe the Administration will work to benefit all Americans, including American workers. 

Question 33. How will you represent the interests of American workers if it conflicts with Trump administration policy? 

Answer 33. I believe the Administration will work to benefit all Americans, including American workers. 

Question 34. Do you support President Trump’s proposed 21 percent cut to the Department of Labor funding? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

121 

Answer 34. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that 

will determine the funding levels. 

Question 35. Do you support the proposal in President Trump’s budget that: ‘‘Decreases Federal support for job training?’’ 

Answer 35. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that 

will determine the funding levels. 

Question 36. Do you think that cutting Federal funding for job training will make 

workers better or worse prepared to find jobs to support their families? 

Answer 36. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I believe job training is very important and may offer a substantial return 

on investment. I recognize as well that resources are limited. That said, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the Department’s budget in order to understand how to efficiently and effectively utilize taxpayer dollars in order to best 

accomplish the Department’s mission. 

Question 37. Do you think that cutting Federal funding for job training will make 

it harder for employers to find workers with the skills they need? 

Answer 37. There is room for efficiencies in these programs, which may reduce 

the impact of budget cuts. Reducing this skills gap requires better alignment of job 

training with the skills that the market and employers demand. This requires a concerted effort working with industry, local governments, educational institutions and 

public-private partnerships to have a substantial positive impact on the American 

workforce. 

Question 38. How do you propose to close the skills gap and help workers compete 

at home and abroad? 

Answer 38. We can and must work to reduce the skills gap. We need to make 

better efforts to align job training with the skills the market demands of its workers, especially as advancing technology changes the types of jobs available in our 

economy. The Department of Labor, along with local governments, industry, and 

educational institutions, can partner to have substantial positive impact on American workers. I believe that this is the vision of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), of apprenticeship programs, of Job Corps and of many other 

programs at DOL. Closing the skills gap is a vitally important aspect of accomplishing the Department of Labor’s mission. If confirmed, understanding the performance and needs of all Departmental programs can play a role in closing the 

skills will be one of my top priorities. 

Question 39. What role do schools play in career and technical education and preparing workers to enter the workforce? 

Answer 39. I believe that schools play a vitally important role in preparing workers to enter the workforce, from primary to post-secondary education. I am particularly interested in how community colleges and technical and vocational education 

programs can best be positioned, supported and leveraged in order to best serve 

workers and industry. 

Question 40. Do you support the proposal in President Trump’s budget that would 

eliminate the Senior Community Service Employment Program, a program designed 

to help older workers find employment? 

Answer 40. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as this one 

in order to deliver the greatest value to the American people. 

Question 41. How will you make it easier for Americans to save for retirement? 

Answer 41. I believe it is important to make it easier for Americans to save for 

retirement, and also encourage Americans to do so. An expanding economy is key 

to growing the assets in retirement accounts for American workers, and relaxing 

burdens and costs as well as reducing taxes on businesses is one way to do that. 

If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on retirement issues and I look forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities 

to support the goal of helping Americans save for retirement. 

Question 42. How will you fight sexual harassment and discrimination in the 

workplace? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

122 

Answer 42. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws Congress has written fully and fairly, including sexual harassment and discrimination 

in the workplace laws. 

Question 43. The Department of Labor has provided competitive grants to successful programs at community colleges to train workers. Will you work to secure funding for similar competitive grants? 

Answer 43. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the many training programs funded by the Department. I understand that many of these grants have provided a substantial return on investment. I expect to encourage Department staff 

to seek innovative solutions to training and employment challenges and opportunities, and I look forward to working with you and other members of the committee 

on such solutions and initiatives. 

Question 44. Will you make the enforcement of equal pay laws a priority? 

Answer 44. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws under 

the Department’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including those related to equal pay. 

Question 45. Do you think that the Department of Labor’s past enforcement of 

equal pay laws have been beneficial to women and their families? 

Answer 45. Nondiscrimination is the law. The Department enforces the law to ensure the rights of all Americans are protected, including women and their families. 

Question 46. If you’re confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, you will inherit a number of labor cases under our free trade agreements and trade preference programs, 

some of which were initially filed between 4–8 years ago. These cases cover workplace violations including discrimination, illegal firings, wage theft and unsafe working conditions. Will you commit to working toward resolving these issues in a timely 

manner to help level the playing field for U.S. companies and U.S. workers? 

Answer 46. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned 

the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements are enforced. If confirmed, I look forward to finding out more and working with that office in resolving 

the cases you describe. 

Question 47. According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 1948 to 1973 worker 

productivity rose by 96.7 percent and wages increased by 91.3 percent; since then, 

however, worker productivity has increased 73.4 percent while wages have gone up 

only 11.1 percent. Further, a 2014 study by The Review of Economics and Statistics 

found that job displacement due to trade led to real wage losses of 12 to 17 percent 

from 1984 through 2002. Global companies have been known to tell their U.S. workers that they must take pay and benefit cuts to stay competitive, even as these companies report significant profits in their SEC filings. 

Do you believe this is just the nature of the economy and that American families 

should get used to it? 

If not, what is your plan, if confirmed, to change this pattern? 

Answer 47. A stagnant economy and wages harms Americans; a growing economy 

is the best solution to also grow wages. The President has made clear that he is 

committed to returning jobs to America. If confirmed, I will work to support that 

effort. 

Question 48. Will you continue to support the continued strong engagement by the 

United States at the ILO to encourage countries to adhere to international labor 

standards? 

Answer 48. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned 

the duty to engage with the ILO. If confirmed, I look forward to working with that 

office and ensuring the United States has a strong voice at the ILO. 

Question 49. The Obama administration published an initial report on alleged 

labor violations in Colombia under the U.S.-Colombia FTA. Can you discuss your 

thoughts on the ongoing anti-union violence and workplace rights violations there. 

If confirmed, how do you plan to approach this problem that has included the murder of 2,500 trade unionists there in the past 20 years? 

Answer 49. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned 

the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements are enforced. If confirmed, I will consult with the Bureau staff on this important issue. 

Question 50. What would you do differently than previous administrations to address violent suppression of working people which holds down wages, limits the 

growth of a middle class and by association, harms U.S. workers? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

123 

Answer 50. Freedom of association is an important American right enshrined in 

the constitution, and something we should support internationally without the 

threat of violence for doing so. I believe that the Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned the duty to address the issue you raise. If confirmed, I will consult with the Bureau staff on this important issue and ask them 

for insight into what has worked and what has not worked in prior administrations 

to address this issue. 

Question 51. If confirmed, part of your job as the Secretary of Labor will be to 

ensure that foreign countries uphold minimum international labor standards. As 

you know, when they do not, it undermines wages for U.S. families. 

How seriously will you take this responsibility? 

Can you explain how you will work to assure compliance with international labor 

standards? 

Answer 51. If confirmed, I will take this responsibility very seriously. The Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned the duty to monitor compliance with minimum international labor standards and represent the United States 

in discussions on those topics at the International Labor Organization. If confirmed, 

I will consult with the Bureau staff on ways to help countries improve compliance 

with their commitments to uphold the standards applicable to them. 

SENATOR FRANKEN

DOL MANAGEMENT

Question 1. The mission of the Department of Labor is to 

‘‘foster, promote, and develop the welfare of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities 

for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.’’ 

Do you believe this is the mission of the Department of Labor and should you be 

confirmed do you intend to change the Department’s mission? 

Answer 1. I support the Department’s longstanding mission statement and have 

no plans to change it if confirmed. 

Question 2. Under the previous Administration, the Department of Labor issued 

administrative interpretations to provide clarity when a statutes meaning was too 

plain or unambiguous. Under your leadership would the Department continue 

issuing administrative interpretations? 

Answer 2. I support giving guidance to the regulated community to ensure compliance with the law. The specific forms of such guidance may change over time and 

between administrations. As I noted at the hearing, for example, I think there’s a 

particular value to opinion letters, and I think that value comes from the fact that 

they are grounded in a specific set of facts, and not in a broad legal premise. 

Question 3. Under your leadership would the Department re-instate the issuing 

of opinion letters? If so who would be permitted to request an opinion letter? 

Answer 3. As I noted at the hearing, I believe there’s a value to opinion letters 

because they are grounded in a specific set of facts. There may be reasons an opinion letter should be delayed (for example, if parties are in active litigation), but generally I see no reason I would not support allowing any member of the public to 

request an opinion letter. 

Question 4. In 2011, the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland 

Security entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to clarify the ways in which 

each department would work together to advance each agency’s directives and avoid 

conflicts. Will the Department continue to honor the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding? 

Answer 4. I believe that the Department has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced regardless of workers’ immigration status. I support that longstanding practice. I have not studied the Memorandum of Understanding you reference, but I believe it is important that both 

agencies avoid interfering in each other’s responsibilities. 

CONTRACTING/WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION

Question 5. Under your leadership will the Department of Labor focus on the fissured workforce and the need of employers to correctly classify their workers as traditional employees or contractors so workers and employers know their legal and 

tax obligations, and so businesses can compete on a level playing field? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

124 

Answer 5. Employers who deliberately misclassify workers undercut law-abiding 

employers who are making contributions to these systems and paying their workers 

properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters pertaining to the 

classification of employees and will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction, including these employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure 

the protection of all workers. 

Question 6. Worker misclassification is a growing problem that threatens workers 

and undercuts law-abiding employers. It is a significant problem in Minnesota, particularly in the construction industry. Why do you think worker misclassification is 

so prevalent? 

Answer 6. I am not sufficiently familiar with the circumstances in Minnesota to 

opine. Employers who deliberately misclassify workers undercut law-abiding employers who are making contributions to these systems and paying their workers 

properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters pertaining to the 

classification of employees and will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction, including these employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure 

the protection of all workers. 

Question 7. Under your leadership how does the Department plan to address 

worker misclassification issues and how will you improve Federal efforts to deter 

worker misclassification? 

Answer 7. An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear compliance guidance from the Department. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters pertaining to the classification of employees as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities and will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction, 

including these employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of all 

workers. 

Question 8. In 2015, the Wage and Hour division issued Administrative Interpretation No. 2015–1 to assist employers and workers by providing clarity as to when 

a worker is an employee or independent contractor. If confirmed, would you maintain this administrative interpretation? 

Answer 8. An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear compliance guidance from the Department. Employers who deliberately misclassify workers undercut law-abiding employers who are making contributions to these systems and paying their workers properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters pertaining to the classification of employees, including this Administrative Interpretation, as we develop 

the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities. 

Question 9. Over the past 8 years, the Wage and Hour Division has entered into 

a Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with many States, as well as the Internal 

Revenue Service that facilitate joint efforts to combat misclassification. Some of 

these MOUs are set to expire in the coming years. Will you work to renew these 

MOUs? Please describe which, if any, you would renew and any changes you would 

seek. 

Answer 9. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on these Memoranda of 

Understandings. As a general matter, I support efforts to cooperate in enforcement 

matters, and such memoranda of understanding are helpful. 

WAGES

Question 10. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour ($15,080 annually) has remained unchanged since 2009. President Trump has said that the current Federal minimum wage is too low, and suggested that Americans need a raise. 

Do you agree the current Federal minimum wage is too low and if so to what level 

should it be increased to? 

Answer 10. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States 

and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and 

other economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that many States 

and localities have increased the minimum wage above the Federal floor. 

Question 11. In recent years, we have seen large amounts of growth in the ‘‘gig’’ 

economy? Workers in this economy are often treated as independent contractors and 

therefore do not receive employee protections such as overtime pay, minimum wage, 

health insurance, or retirement benefits. The courts are reviewing a number of cases 

across the country that question what defines an ‘‘employee.’’ If confirmed, how 

would you plan to use your regulatory authority to ensure that workers in the gig 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

125 

economy are not being denied basic worker rights or their ability to achieve basic 

economic security through their work? 

Answer 11. The use of independent contractors is a legal and valuable business 

practice. However, in some circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a 

worker as an independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not 

be abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to the requirements of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as independent contractors 

may be denied access to critical benefits and protections they are entitled to by law. 

An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure that employers who want 

to do the right thing have clear compliance guidance from the Department. This is 

particularly important in the context of a rapidly changing economy. 

Question 12. Do you believe it is appropriate to have a Federal minimum wage? 

Answer 12. A Federal minimum wage is the law. I support it. 

Question 13. Do you believe the Federal minimum wage should be regularly adjusted for inflation so that workers ability to provide for their families keeps up with 

the rising costs of goods and services over time? 

Answer 13. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States 

and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and 

other economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that many States 

and localities have increased the minimum wage above the Federal floor. 

Question 14. In Minnesota, employer-tipped credits against the minimum wage 

are not allowed. All tipped employees must be paid the State minimum wage of 

$9.50 per hour for larger employers, and $7.75 per hour for smaller employers, for 

all hours worked. Beginning Jan. 1, 2018 those wages will be indexed for inflation. 

Do you think the Federal-tipped minimum wage of $2.13 per hour paid to employees 

that receive at least $30 per month in tips is a living wage? Would you support an 

increase to the Federal-tipped minimum wage? To what level? 

Answer 14. The minimum wage and tip allowance is set federally by Congress but 

also in States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that costof-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that 

many States and localities have increased the minimum wage and tip allowances 

above the Federal floor. 

Question 15. Do you believe gratuities provided by customers to tipped employees, whether their wage is based on the Federal tipped minimum of $2.13 per hour or 

other Federal or State wage levels, are the property of the employers or the employee? 

Answer 15. In its preamble to the final rule regarding this matter in 2011, the 

Department of Labor stated, ‘‘[t]he Department agrees with the analysis in the comments that tips are the property of the employee . . .’’ Updating Regulations Issued 

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 18,841 (April 5, 2011). I am informed that there is current litigation on aspects of the rule that touch on your 

question, including a pending petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Question 16. Do you believe it is appropriate for a salary test to be one aspect 

of rules establishing exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions for certain salaried executive, administrative, and professional employees? If 

so, and if a court determined a . . . 

Answer 16. This question is incomplete. 

OSHA WORKER SAFETY

Question 17. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act was enacted in 1970, 

around the same time as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Research on our 

changing climate and the need to address those concerns have led to advancements 

in environmental laws and the penalties associated with breaking those laws. Unfortunately the OSH Act has not been significantly updated since its enactment. As 

a result the penalties associated with violating worker health and safety laws are 

so low that some unscrupulous businesses factor in those penalties as just a normal 

cost of doing business. Do you think the current penalty levels for OSHA are an 

appropriate deterrent to violating worker health and safety laws? If not what do you 

think is a more appropriate level? Should criminal penalties be considered for willful or repeat violations that lead to serious injury or fatality of a worker? 

Answer 17. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many other issues 

with the Department’s OSHA staff, and if legislative changes are needed I look forward to working with you and the committee to help ensure the safety of all workers. On November 2, 2015, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which manHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

126 

dated OSHA to adjust their penalties to the rate of inflation. The legislation included a one-time catch up increase and an annual adjustment thereafter. In accordance with the legislation, on August 2, 2016, OSHA raised its maximum penalty 78 

percent as a one-time adjustment and on January 15, 2017, adjusted the maximum 

penalties by 2 percent over the previous year. 

The OSH Act also includes criminal sanctions and an employer may be liable for 

criminal prosecution where there is a willful violation of a specific OSHA standard 

that causes the death of an employee. Over the years, OSHA has made referrals 

to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for cases that were deemed appropriate for 

criminal prosecution. In December 2015, OSHA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ that created enhanced procedures for OSHA to refer potential 

criminal cases for consideration by DOJ. I support criminal referrals in appropriate 

cases. 

Question 18. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, do you commit that you would 

not reduce existing safety and health protections for workers? Further, do you commit to moving forward to develop and issue new rules to protect workers as the 

workplace develops and new hazards are identified? 

Answer 18. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the safety standards to help 

ensure the safety of all workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

requires OSHA to ensure safe and healthful working conditions and I am committed 

to carrying out this mission. Where necessary, OSHA will promulgate appropriate 

and feasible rules to address workplace hazards. OSHA has many other tools at its 

disposal to carry out the obligations of the Act and to address new workplace hazards as they emerge, including conducting training and education, and providing 

compliance assistance to employers and employees. 

Question 19. Will you support and defend OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program? What steps, if any, will you take to ensure that whistleblower claims that 

should be referred to other agencies are promptly and appropriately referred? Do 

you believe OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program currently has the resources 

needed to fulfill its mission? Will you advocate for appropriate resources for OSHA’s 

whistleblower programs in the future? Do you agree with the Department of Labor’s 

Inspector General that OSHA whistleblower investigator caseloads should be a maximum of 6 to 8 open cases per investigator? OSHA is currently charged with enforcing the whistleblower protection provisions of 22 different statutes. Do you believe 

it would be appropriate for Congress to consider consolidating these 22 provisions, 

to the extent possible, to provide stronger, more uniform rules for whistleblowers? 

Answer 19. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP), including ensuring the appropriate and timely sharing of 

complaints with other agencies and having appropriate resources needed to fulfill 

the Program’s mission. I am informed that OSHA has agreements with a number 

of agencies impacted by the Whistleblower statutes to ensure a basic exchange of 

information and facilitate referrals between each agency. If confirmed, I will direct 

the review of resource levels for the Whistleblower Protection Program to determine 

the necessary support for this important program, and evaluate the need for the 

consolidation of whistleblower laws. If changes are needed to the program, or if legislation is needed, I look forward to working with you and the committee to see that 

these changes are enacted to help protect the safety of all workers. 

MISC

Question 20. In your budgeting decisions, would you treat Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in the same way you treat other workforce training programs that 

are subject to discretionary appropriations? Has the President proposed any cuts to 

programs subject to TAA? Do you support the level of funding for TAA programs 

authorized in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2015 

Answer 20. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. That said, if confirmed I look forward to being briefed on the TAA program 

to better understand its goals, performance and opportunities for improvement. 

Training programs that serve workers who have been displaced as a result of our 

trade agreements must provide participants with skills and support required to 

place them in permanent, well-paying jobs. As I understand it, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program is one of many entitlement programs with mandatory 

funding. 

Question 21. Minnesota is home to the Hubert Humphrey Job Corps Center, a site 

that since 1981 has helped prepare at-risk youth for meaningful careers in in-deHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

127 

mand fields, yet the President’s budget proposes cuts to the Job Corps program. Do 

you support continued funding for Job Corps sites like the one in my State? 

Answer 21. I believe the Department of Labor, along with local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to have a tremendous positive impact on American workers, especially young people seeking to enter the workforce 

and get good paying jobs. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the 

committee to determine the best way to ensure the success of the Job Corps program and to identify other opportunities within our States that can be better utilized to help our young people succeed. I look forward to learning more about the 

center in your State that you mention as well as others and our focus will be on 

helping Job Corps centers best provide to students the services and training central 

to their core mission. 

Question 22. Youth apprenticeships have been proven to help young people succeed in their academics and put them on a clear pathway to meaningful work and 

careers. Will you continue to promote and expand the youth apprenticeship programs that DOL has seen increase during the Obama administration? 

Answer 22. I share your belief that quality apprenticeships are part of a clear 

pathway to meaningful work and careers. If confirmed, I expect to focus attention 

on understanding the Department’s important role in increasing access to apprenticeships and facilitating high performance in apprenticeship programs. 

SENATOR BENNET

Question 1. Every year, my office hears from hundreds of Colorado employers that 

rely on the H–2A and H–2B visa program and who, year after year, run into difficulty obtaining visas for guest workers. Colorado is one of the top users of this 

program. 

The jobs they are trying to fill are critical for Colorado’s economy. From landscape 

and construction companies that cannot find enough workers to meet demand, to 

farmers and ranchers who don’t have enough hands to cultivate the crops, there is 

a gap in meeting our labor needs. 

I understand the concerns about potential exploitation of foreign workers and the 

desire for Americans to fill those jobs. I agree that there are worker protections that 

must be enforced. But Colorado employers lose millions of dollars every year due 

to the program’s inefficiencies. They do all they can to comply with the law but cannot find American workers to fill those jobs. 

Do you recognize the significance of the H–2A and H–2B visa programs in meeting our labor needs? 

Where does the program fall within the Administration’s priorities, particularly 

given the context of immigration reform? 

Answer 1. I recognize the difficulty that many employers face on this issue and 

the potential repercussions for vital industries across the country. I understand how 

important an adequate labor supply is for the Colorado industries you identify and 

look forward to working together to fix this issue if confirmed. As a nominee, I have 

not been involved in immigration-related discussions, but, if confirmed, my primary 

goal will be to protect the interests of American workers. Guest workers on any program should be treated fairly in order to protect them and maintain U.S. working 

conditions. 

Question 2. In his address to a joint session of Congress. President Trump said 

that his administration 

‘‘wants to work with members of both parties to make childcare accessible and 

affordable, [and] to help ensure new parents that they have paid family leave.’’ 

Paid family leave was also a major platform on President Trump’s campaign. 

Have you discussed paid family leave with anyone within the Trump administration? Can you discuss in further detail the Administration’s plans on paid family 

leave? 

Answer 2. I have not discussed this matter with the Administration. If confirmed, 

I will actively participate in these discussions. 

Question 3. During your confirmation hearing, we discussed public-private partnerships as part of the Trump administration’s plan to help dislocated workers find 

new jobs. Can you elaborate on the type of P3s the Administration envisions? Are 

there examples of successful partnerships that the Administration hopes to model? 

How will your Labor Department support partnerships between schools and businesses? 

Answer 3. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation of industry, local 

academic and training institutions and government partnering effectively to train 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

128 

and place workers in growth sectors. If confirmed to lead the Department of Labor, 

I expect to take a leadership role in compiling best practices and seeking out partnerships with the private sector, particularly partnerships with business and industry. We will work with employer associations, community colleges, and other organizations to encourage sector strategies and work-based approaches, including apprenticeship programs and other successful models carried out by States and in local 

communities across the country. Connecting dislocated workers to new jobs cannot 

just be the work of the Federal Government. Private-public partnerships with active 

employer engagement are essential. 

If confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this model can be accessed 

in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition to new 

and growing industries. 

SENATOR WHITEHOUSE

Question 1. Please list all DOL regulations you would seek to delay, modify, or 

eliminate. 

Answer 1. As I noted in my hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all rules and to make determinations if any rules should be revised. 

If confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that directive. In addition, 

there are a number of rules that are in litigation or that Congress may act on under 

the Congressional Review Act, which could require the Department to make revisions or eliminate those regulations. 

Question 2. Knowing what you know now about the violations of Department of 

Justice policies and Federal employment law that occurred during your tenure by 

your staff at the Department of Justice, what would you have done differently as 

a manager? 

Answer 2. With the benefit of perfect hindsight, I would not have assigned hiring 

responsibility in the manner I did and would have focused more closely on the activities of my deputies. I also learned the importance of ensuring that appointed personnel subordinate to you share your values. 

Question 3. Why do you think your management of your Deputy Bradley 

Schlozman in the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice was insufficient? 

Answer 3. Senior leadership in government has to balance external and internal 

demands. I believe I focused too much on external matters, i.e., communications 

with the public and the civil rights communities. I have since become more handson, and more focused on internal matters. I have also learned to better oversee and 

monitor subordinates while not micromanaging their performance. As U.S. attorney, 

I walked around the office often in order to learn what AUSAs were doing. This dayto-day contact was important, and helped me better understand and monitor dayto-day AUSA activity. 

Question 4. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General and Office of 

Professional Responsibility’s report that you had ‘‘sufficient information about 

Schlozman’s conduct to have raised red flags warranting closer supervision of him,’’ 

that you should have been alert to ‘‘potential problems with Schlozman’s conduct 

and judgment,’’ and that you ‘‘did not sufficiently supervise Schlozman.’’ What steps 

will you take to ensure that your staff at DOL do not engage in the same sort of 

inappropriate behavior and illegal activities? 

Answer 4. While the OIG/OPR Report did reach the conclusion stated, the report 

failed to identify a single instance of anyone alerting me, or me otherwise being 

aware, of the improper consideration of political views in hiring career staff. None 

of the three instances on which the report based its conclusion involved such misconduct. That said, I am keenly aware of the laws and regulations prohibiting the 

consideration of politics in hiring career staff and, if confirmed, will make it abundantly clear to staff that such conduct will not be tolerated at all. 

Question 5. During your tenure at DOJ there was a ‘‘significant’’ drop in civil 

rights enforcement, according to a 2009 GAO report—including a drop in lawsuits 

to enforce laws prohibiting race or sex discrimination in employment from about 11 

per year to about 6 per year from the Clinton to Bush administration. What assurances can you give me that we will not see a similar drop-off in enforcement under 

your Department of Labor? 

Answer 5. As an initial matter, the GAO report covered the 2001–07 period. As 

I was Assistant Attorney General for 2 of these years, I cannot comment on the 

premise of the question. I would note that in 2004, the Division filed more pattern 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

129 

or practice employment discrimination cases than in several of the preceding years. 

Further, I would note that numbers of cases filed is not always reflective of enforcement outcomes. For example, a complex high-impact matter may require more resources than several low-impact cases. Yet, ‘‘1’’ high-impact matter may have more 

positive enforcement outcomes than several smaller cases. I believe the Secretary 

of Labor should enforce Federal labor laws fully and fairly. As a prosecutor, I used 

government resources carefully to bring the best cases possible and get the best resolutions. I will follow that model at the Department if confirmed. 

Question 6. Your tenure at the Department of Justice was marred by conflicts between political appointees and career staff that reportedly led to an unusually large 

number of career attorneys to leave the Department. What steps will you take to 

retain career staff at DOL at similar levels under the previous Administration? 

Answer 6. The Department of Labor career staff is expert in their areas of responsibility, and critical to the Department’s mission. Their knowledge would be difficult 

to replace. If confirmed, I hope to convey to the staff that I value their knowledge 

and expertise, and that I value them. I recognize, of course, that the appropriation 

levels will ultimately be set by Congress. Nonetheless, I will advocate for sufficient 

levels to ensure full and fair enforcement. 

Question 7. America Rising Squared, a 501(c)(4) organization that does not disclose its donors, recently launched a six-figure digital and TV advertising campaign 

in support of your nomination. 

Do you know who its donors are? 

Have you had any contact with America Rising Squared, its employees, or its donors? 

Do you believe there is a risk of a conflict of interest, or of an appearance of conflict, if funders of that effort have matters that come before the Department of 

Labor? 

Answer 7. I do not know who the donors to this organization are or who they employ. Thus, I do not know if I have had contact with either. I will assess conflict 

of interest questions on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Department’s 

career ethics officials as they may arise. 

Question 8. In April 2016, the Department of Labor released a final version of the 

Conflict of Interest Rule which holds brokers and advisers who work with tax-advantaged retirement savings to a ‘‘fiduciary’’ standard. Do you believe that advisors 

providing advice regarding retirement accounts have a legal obligation to provide 

advice solely in the best interest of their clients? Why or why not? 

Answer 8. Hardworking individuals and retirees should receive advice that is in 

their best interest. If confirmed, I expect to carefully examine the rule, pursuant to 

the presidential memorandum. If repealed or scaled back, the basic protection articulated above would be important to address. 

Question 9. The Chamber of Commerce, SIFMA, ACLI and a number of other 

trade associations opposed to the DOL fiduciary rule have argued in court that they 

should not be held to a fiduciary standard because they are not ‘‘advisers’’. According to their testimony, they are mere salespeople engaged in arm’s length transactions. Do you agree with that argument? Please explain why or why not, citing 

the legal basis for such conclusion. 

Answer 9. This matter is presently under review. If confirmed, I expect detailed 

briefings on this distinction, including the legal basis. 

Question 10. Apprenticeships are an important tool to train workers, and have 

been critical in Rhode Island. What will you do as Secretary of Labor to promote 

apprenticeships as a cost-effective tool for workforce training? 

Answer 10. Apprenticeships are part of a clear pathway to meaningful work and 

careers. If confirmed, I expect to focus attention on understanding the Department’s 

important role in increasing access to quality apprenticeships and facilitating high 

performance in apprenticeship programs. 

Question 11. Rhode Island is the home to one of the Nation’s most successful Job 

Corps sites, the Exeter Job Corps Center, which serves roughly almost 200 young 

people. For many in Job Corps, the training means the difference between success 

in getting a job or not. As Secretary of Labor will you commit to proposing a budget 

with at least level funding for Job Corps? 

Answer 11. I appreciate the conversations I have had with several Senators about 

the difference that Job Corps centers are making for the young people in their 

States. If confirmed, I will support the most efficient and effective use of every taxHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

130 

payer dollar that Congress directs toward job training programs, including Job 

Corps. Under my leadership, the Department will continue its efforts to better align 

job training with the skills necessary to meet the market demands for workers, 

which I believe will improve the outcomes for Job Corps graduates. If confirmed, I 

expect to be briefed on the Job Corps program and the performance of each of the 

more than 100 Job Corps centers. I look forward to learning more about the center 

in your State that you mention as well as others and our focus will be on helping 

Job Corps centers best provide to students the services and training central to their 

core mission. 

Question 12. Since 1994, YouthBuild has helped over 150,000 at-risk youth break 

the cycle of poverty by rebuilding their communities while also learning key skills. 

Each year I hear from Rhode Islanders whose lives were turned around through 

YouthBuild. As Secretary of Labor, will you commit to proposing a budget with at 

least level funding for YouthBuild? 

Answer 12. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I do look forward to being briefed on the proposed budget and 

programs like Youthbuild, so that I can better understand their mission, their performance and their resource needs. I will work to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar directed to YouthBuild and other job training programs. I look forward 

to engaging with the committee and private and public stakeholders in a discussion 

about how to improve the employment outcomes of young people in a time of resource constraints. 

Question 13. According to the Census, as of March 2016, there are over 25 million 

adult Americans who do not have either a high school diploma or a GED. According 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate of these workers is 8 percent. Do you consider this a problem? If so, please outline your proposal for actions 

the DOL would take on this matter, if you are confirmed. 

Answer 13. Our workforce training system must be positioned to provide training 

and skills to the millions of workers who lack a post-secondary education if they are 

to prosper in our modern and constantly changing economy. The worker training 

and apprenticeship programs under the Department’s purview must position these 

workers with skills that meet the needs of growth industries and sectors. 

Question 14. The Obama administration took a number of steps over the last several years to expand the anti-discrimination provisions in Federal programs. Executive Order 13627 strengthened anti-trafficking protections in Federal contracts. Executive Order 13548 directed Federal departments to increase employment of workers with disabilities. Executive Order 13583 directed departments and agencies to 

implement human resource strategies that emphasize diversity and inclusion. The 

Department of Labor also issued complementary guidelines updating the Sex Discrimination and Ethnicity Discrimination rules. These guidelines specifically addressed the needs of populations that traditionally have been marginalized but who 

form a growing population of the workforce. If confirmed, do you promise not to 

weaken or delay these protections? 

Answer 14. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind Executive 

orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that apply to the Labor 

Department or give the Department additional enforcement responsibilities. 

Question 15. Each year, thousands of workers lose their jobs simply because they 

need to take a day to recover from illness or care for a sick family member. Under 

Executive Order 13706 issued by President Obama, more than one million workers 

who are employed by Federal contractors gained the right to take paid, job-protected 

sick days. Do you support ensuring workers employed by Federal contractors having 

access to paid sick days? 

Answer 15. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind Executive 

orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that apply to the Labor 

Department or give the Department additional enforcement responsibilities. 

Question 16. Please name which of President Obama’s DOL policies you would 

like to see continued? 

Answer 16. The vast majority of Department policies are continued from Administration to Administration. Executive order 13672 is one example. There are many 

others. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

131 

Question 17. Studies have shown large majorities of women in the construction 

industry reporting either overt discrimination or on-the-job sexual harassment, and 

the percentage of constructions jobs held by women remains very low. Do you believe this is a problem? Can we expect you to enforce anti-harassment protections 

to ensure that construction projects funded by Federal dollars provide real opportunities for women? 

Answer 17. Overt discrimination and sexual harassment are illegal, and as I 

noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly. OFCCP 

has a substantial compliance assistance program on large construction projects designed to expand the opportunity for women and minorities. I look forward to learning more about that program and assuming it is successfully and efficiently expanding equal employment opportunity, supporting it. 

Question 18. According to BLS data as of December 2016, only 20 percent of all 

Americans with disabilities ages 18–64 were employed. One of the key roles of the 

Department of Labor, particularly the Office of Disability Employment Policy 

(ODEP), is to implement programs that help increase the labor force participation 

rate of these individuals and help them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. If 

confirmed, will you commit to supporting ODEP programming including the STARTUP program? Can you commit that any budget you prepare will not eliminate funding for this department? 

Answer 18. I would need to review any particular program before I committed to 

supporting it, but I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate 

of disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. 

I am informed that ODEP works with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs to help Federal contractors meet important goals of employing disabled 

Americans on Federal contracts. As to funding, I expect that any budget I help prepare would include support to increase the labor force participation rate of disabled 

workers. 

Question 19. At your confirmation hearing you said you would look into the FLSA 

14(c) certificate issue. Have you looked into this? What have you learned about this 

issue? 

Answer 19. I understand the Fair Labor Standards Act 14(c) exemption is statutory and is an area of concern and interest for many Members of Congress. If confirmed, I want ensure that individuals with disabilities who might not otherwise 

have a job, have access to a good job and are trained for that job. While I would 

need to thoroughly review any particular program or statutory exemption before I 

committed to supporting or opposing it, I certainly support increasing the labor force 

participation rate of disabled individuals and helping these individuals lead successful and self-sustaining lives. 

Question 20. In 2008, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act passed 

with overwhelming bipartisan support. This law requires that all health plans (including employee-sponsored plans) have the same limits on mental health benefits 

that they do for medical or surgical benefits. MHPAEA violations can result in a 

breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

(ERISA) and an IRS excise tax of $100 per covered individual per day. As Secretary 

of Labor, you will be responsible for performing audits to ensure compliance by employer-sponsored health plans. If confirmed, will you commit to publishing the deidentified results of the audits? 

Answer 20. Treatment for mental health issues and addiction can save lives, and 

I support enhancing affordability and access to those services. As noted at my hearing, if confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s 

jurisdiction fully and fairly, including as to mental health and addiction coverage. 

If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act and the Department’s responsibilities pursuant to the Act and 

working with you on this important matter. 

Question 21. After the election, immigrant communities have become concerned 

about the potential for mass deportations. The President has exacerbated these 

fears by stating that there will be ‘‘no amnesty’’ for immigrants who came into this 

country illegally. 

What role do you envision for DOL should policies like this come to pass? 

Answer 21. I do not believe that the Department has a role in deportation issues. 

Question 22. Immigrants fill not just high skilled roles in the United States, but 

also fill technical and manual skill jobs. A 2010 study by the Federal Reserve Bank 

of San Francisco concluded that immigration helps companies expand, and allows 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

132 

more U.S.-born employees to assume managerial and leadership positions. In particular, immigrants play a key role in startups. Between 2006 and 2012, 33 percent 

of venture-backed companies that went public were founded by immigrant entrepreneurs, according to a study from the National Venture Capital Association. If 

confirmed, your Department will have a key role in overseeing companies that seek 

to hire legal foreign workers. How will you use this oversight role to incentivize 

companies to hire legal foreign workers? How will you support foreign innovators 

who want to build new companies in the United States that employ American workers? 

Answer 22. I recognize the role that immigration has played and continues to play 

in our Nation. I also recognize that abuse of the visa process costs Americans jobs. 

This is a difficult balance and one that I will study carefully. 

Question 23. If confirmed as Secretary, do you commit to having your Department 

maintain the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between the labor agencies and 

DHS, which reiterates the policy goal that immigration enforcement will not interfere with employment and labor rights in the workplace? Do you believe that threats 

of deportation and or ICE raids should not be used to intimidate those seeking to 

exercise their right to organize, collectively bargain, or otherwise seek to improve 

their workplaces? 

Answer 23. I am informed that the Department has a longstanding commitment 

to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced regardless of workers’ immigration status. I have not reviewed it but I believe there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the two cabinet departments that is designed to avoid interfering in each other’s enforcement responsibilities. If confirmed, I will discuss this 

issue with Department of Labor staff and ask them to work with Department of 

Homeland Security staff to help ensure that both agencies can continue to fulfill 

their responsibilities. 

Question 24. Although human trafficking spans all demographics, there are some 

circumstances that lead individuals to become more susceptible to victimization. 

Foreign nationals who come to the United States on temporary work visas are a 

particularly vulnerable group. Many have paid large recruitment and travel fees to 

labor recruiters and become highly indebted. Traffickers control and manipulate 

these individuals by leveraging the non-portability of many temporary visas as well 

as the victims’ lack of familiarity with surroundings, laws and rights, language fluency, and cultural understanding. Do you commit to prioritizing efforts to ensure 

foreign nationals on temporary work visas are not trafficked? Will you support increasing the ability of workers on temporary visas to change jobs, in order to remove 

a tool traffickers use to exploit victims? 

Answer 24. Eliminating human trafficking is one of the most important issues 

upon which we should focus. If confirmed, I will work to use all tools at the Department’s disposal to end this horrific practice. 

Question 25. Do you support the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in employee 

contracts? 

Answer 25. There is a preference for allowing the use of arbitration generally 

under the Federal Arbitration Act, and the Supreme Court has upheld that preference. If Congress were to change that preference and disallow arbitration clauses, 

I would follow the law. 

Question 26. How do you view the ‘‘contingent workforce’’ and ‘‘gig’’ economy jobs, 

in the context of the broad definitions of ‘‘employee’’ found in the Fair Labor Standards Act? How will you approach enforcement in this area? 

Answer 26. The use of independent contractors is a legal and valuable business 

practice. However, in some circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a 

worker as an independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not 

be abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to the requirements of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as independent contractors 

may be denied access to critical benefits and protections they are entitled to by law. 

An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure that employers who want 

to do the right thing have clear compliance guidance from the Department. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction, 

including these employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of workers. 

Question 27. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 18 percent of low-income 

American workers do not have access to paid leave. Is that acceptable? If confirmed, 

will you promote policies that increase access to paid leave for workers? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

133 

Answer 27. I recognize that many States and localities have implemented paid 

leave laws. I believe attempts to expand paid leave would require congressional action. As I mentioned in the hearing, promoting workplace flexibility is something 

I support, particularly for working parents with young children. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working with the President and Congress as discussions regarding paid 

leave occur. 

Question 28. In recent years, there has been interest in bipartisan criminal justice 

reform. An important DOL initiative supporting criminal justice reform efforts is the 

Reentry Employment Opportunities (REO) program. REO helps connect returning 

citizens to job training and employment. What is your position on REO? Would you 

work with Congress to ensure this important program receives at least level funding 

from the previous Administration? 

Answer 28. Reintegrating citizens into the economy after they have been involved 

with the criminal justice system is something I believe is of great importance, providing individual, societal and economic benefit. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this important program in order to better understand its goals, its performance and its resource needs. I will work to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar directed to job training programs to improve the employment outcomes 

for America’s workers, including offenders transitioning back into their communities, and build a skilled workforce that meets employer needs. I will also continue 

to buildupon the body of evidence of what works to improve outcomes for individuals 

who have been part of the criminal justice system, and I look forward to working 

with Congress and your committee to achieve this goal. 

Question 29. Congress recently repealed the DOL rule outlining the limited circumstances that a State may drug-test individuals applying for Unemployment Insurance. Do you support or oppose policies requiring applicants for Unemployment 

Insurance be drug-tested? Do you believe such policies are cost-effective? If so, what 

evidence do you have to support your view? 

Answer 29. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this matter so as to 

understand the impact such policies would have on cost and program effectiveness. 

Helping the unemployed reenter the workforce is central to the Department’s mission, as is the Department’s obligation to ensure that its budget dollars and policies 

deliver on that mission. I will work to ensure implementation of the provisions set 

out in law as envisioned by Congress and to ensure the benefits of the important 

UI program are provided to individuals meeting its eligibility requirements, including being able to work and available to work. 

Question 30. A significant body of research finds that providing comprehensive reemployment services through job centers can help UI recipients become re-employed 

faster and ultimately reduce State UI benefit payments overall. Federal funding for 

these services—through Wagner-Peyser grants to States—has fallen by 61 percent 

in real terms since 1984. At the same time, workers today face a higher probability 

of permanent displacement and extended unemployment than they did a few decades ago. Are you concerned that the Federal Government is disinvesting in these 

cost-effective services? Do you believe such proven programs are worth increased 

funding given current labor participation rates and the costs and risks associated 

with unemployment? 

Answer 30. As a general matter, I believe job training programs and quality apprenticeships can offer a substantial return on investment. I look forward to being 

briefed on the entire universe of dislocated worker and job training programs at the 

Department, if confirmed. Understanding the intersection between UI and job training and dislocated worker programs will be a major focus. I look forward to understanding the budgets for these programs in order to make sure tax payer dollars 

are being used effectively and to ensure the programs have the resources needed 

to be effective. 

Question 31. If confirmed, you might have occasion to work on the Deferred Action 

for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. I hope you share my concern for innocent 

youths in any transition away from DACA. These young people are looking to better 

themselves by going to school and are contributing to our economy. They are following the rules and have often overcome incredibly difficult personal circumstances. A key component of DACA is being able to work, and having work authorizations to do so. DOL will likely have a say in how the Administration might 

address work authorizations for DACA recipients. Do you agree that young individuals protected under the DACA program deserve care and consideration when developing our priorities and policies? Would you commit to giving these young people 

the extra consideration they deserve when developing future DOL policy? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

134 

Answer 31. To the extent that the Department has a role to play regarding these 

issues, if confirmed I will work to ensure that due care and consideration are taken 

when developing policy in this area. 

SENATOR BALDWIN

Question 1. Mr. Acosta, as you may know, there is strong support among many 

members of this committee for employee ownership and ESOP (employee stock ownership plan) companies. S corporation ESOPs in particular lead to greater firm longevity and higher wages, wage growth, job stability, retirement plan contributions, 

employment and sales. It is a model that is working and that we should do more 

to promote and encourage so that more hardworking Americans can own a piece of 

the rock. Will the Department of Labor commit to working with Congress to promote employee ownership and ESOPs? 

Answer. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of their working 

endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based retirement plans, can 

provide valuable benefits to participating workers, and I believe that Congress and 

the Department have a shared responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs 

fulfill their important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look forward to working 

with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to 

expand opportunity. 

SENATOR MURPHY

Question 1. Today’s economy demands Federal investment in a highly qualified 

workforce. This is critical to ensure the United States to remain competitive. A recent study by the National Science Foundation found that women continue to lag 

behind men in obtaining STEM jobs, despite earning an increasing number of STEM 

graduate degrees. At a time when our Nation faces a serious shortage of 

highly skilled employees in the STEM disciplines, what action items do you 

intend to implement that will increase recruitment and retention, specifically of women and minorities, in STEM jobs? How do you plan to ensure 

States are meeting performance measures and are taking steps to increase 

enrollment and completion in ‘‘nontraditional careers’’? 

Answer 1. I have stated that helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, should 

not be a partisan issue. A labor force with the science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics knowledge and skill that can meet the needs of business and industry 

and help grow and sustain healthy regional economies is important, as is a diverse 

and inclusive workforce. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I hope to have the benefit of an ongoing dialog with you and Members of the committee about how best 

to advance these goals within the context of a dynamic, global economy that is 

changing more rapidly with each passing year, and within the constraints of limited 

resources. If confirmed, I also expect to be briefed on efforts being conducted by both 

the Department of Labor and Department of Education to encourage all Americans 

to succeed in STEM jobs. I hope to hear from Federal, State and private sector 

stakeholders on how we can ensure that performance measures are met and exceeded. 

Question 2. Last year, I spent a week walking across my State talking to people 

who would not normally interact with my office. I kept hearing from people who 

were working at a full-time job, but were still not able to make financial ends meet. 

In light of that, do you agree with the following statement, ‘‘No one who 

works full-time should have to live in poverty? ’’ 

Answer 2. I hear the same concerns. That is one reason that skills training is important, as it can provide access to better jobs. Too many have difficulty finding 

good, safe jobs. As I said at the hearing, I know every member of the HELP committee wants Americans to find jobs, good jobs, safe jobs, even if there is a difference 

of opinion as to how. If confirmed, I hope to benefit from an ongoing dialog with 

the committee as to how we can advance that goal. 

Question 3. Major employers across the Nation, many States including Connecticut, and over 150 cities have embraced ‘‘ban the box’’ and other fair chance hiring strategies that help reduce the stigma associated with a criminal record in the 

hiring process. Do you support bi-partisan legislation, such as the Fair 

Chance Act, that would help advance employment opportunities for people 

with records? 

Answer 3. I have not reviewed that particular piece of legislation, but I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Congress to advance employment opportunities for all Americans. I fully believe in giving a second chance to those who 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

135 

have been convicted of a crime but have paid their debts to society. I find too often 

that a youthful, minor offense carries an inappropriate stigma. 

Question 4. WIOA emphasizes career pathways as a proven practice. Since the enactment of WIOA, the Departments of Education and Labor have worked to improve 

coordination in order to promote and support the expansion of this innovation. 

Under your leadership, would the Department of Labor continue that 

work? In what other ways might the coordination between the Departments of Education and Labor be improved? 

Answer 4. As I mentioned in my hearing, I believe that effective coordination between these two closely linked departments is vital. I look forward to working closely with the Department of Education on WIOA and other matters, and I will strive 

to improve coordination whenever possible. 

Question 5. Under administrations led by both Republican and Democratic presidents, the Department of Labor has funded competitive grants for workforce training programs at post-secondary education institutions (especially community colleges). In Connecticut, these job training activities are funded from Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) grants. Will 

you dedicate new funding for focused investments in community collegebased workforce training programs? If so, how will you ensure that low-income students can affordably access the training offered under these programs? 

Answer 5. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process so that I can understand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as this one 

in order to deliver the greatest value to the American people. Serving low-income 

workers and workers displaced by trade are both very important responsibilities of 

the Department. 

Question 6. As you know, Congress recently passed a major mental health bill as 

part of the 21st Century Cures Act. Among these are provisions designed to improve 

enforcement and compliance with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity 

Act. 

Among other things, the new law directs the Secretary of the Department of 

Labor to: 

• issue new Federal guidance on compliance with mental health and substance 

use disorder parity requirements; 

• convene a public meeting to produce an action plan to improve Federal and 

State coordination related to the enforcement of parity; 

• audit plans that have violated mental health parity at least 5 times; and 

• release an annual report for 5 years summarizing the results of all closed Federal investigations of alleged parity violations. 

Will you commit that the Department of Labor will meet these specific statutory 

obligations to improve mental health parity compliance? Also, will you commit to 

have the department collaborate with the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that parity compliance improves significantly from where it is now? 

Additionally, the White House Task Force on Parity, after investigation and input 

from all stakeholders, issued a report in October 2016 making several recommendations to improve enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act 

and its implementing regulations. For example, the report recommended increased 

funding for staff to audit health plans for parity compliance and allowing the department to assess civil monetary penalties for parity violations. 

Do you support these two specific recommendations? Which other recommendations are you prepared to support and which are you not prepared to support? 

Answer 6. Treatment for mental health issues and addiction can save lives, and 

I support enhancing affordability and access to those services. If confirmed, I look 

forward to learning more about the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act 

and the 21st Century Cures Act and the Department’s responsibilities pursuant to 

those Acts. As I stated at my hearing, I will follow the laws that Congress has 

passed, including any statutory obligations. I also support coordination with other 

cabinet agencies to ensure the government is effective and efficient in its actions. 

I would need to review any recommendations on this issue and consult with staff 

at DOL before I could commit to them. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

136 

1https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/executive-order-ethics-commitments-executive-branch-appointees. 2https://www.propublica.org/article/labor-department-hire-could-presage-collision-trump-construction-unions; https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/beachhead. 

SENATOR WARREN

CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

Question 1. Do you believe President Trump should fully divest from The Trump 

Organization in order to prevent conflicts of interest for you and other Federal Government agencies? 

Answer 1. I have no personal knowledge of these issues, which are outside the 

scope of the Department of Labor’s responsibilities. With regard to me personally, 

if confirmed, I will regularly consult with the Department’s ethics counsel to avoid 

conflicts of interests. 

Question 2. Will you commit to enforce wage and hour and occupational health 

and safety regulations against The Trump Organization if the company violates 

these laws and harms its employees? 

Answer 2. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully 

and fairly with respect to all organizations, including the Trump Organization. 

Question 3. What is your specific plan for insulating yourself and DOL from conflicts of interest related to DOL actions that may impact the Trump Organization? 

Answer 3. I worked with the career ethics staff at the Department of Labor and 

the Office of Government Ethics to ensure any possible conflicts of interest were addressed as part of my ethics clearance. If confirmed, I would continue to work with 

ethics staff to address conflicts of interest. 

Question 4a. Will you commit to closing the revolving door and preventing Labor 

Department employees from personally profiting from their activities at the Department? 

Will you prevent Labor Department employees from working on issues that directly impact a previous employer? 

Answer 4a. I am committed to seeing that employees of the Department of Labor 

fully comply with all ethics laws and regulations, including the restrictions contained in 18 U.S.C. 208 and 5 C.F.R. 2635.502. Non-career employees are also subject to additional restrictions contained in Executive Order 13770 (‘‘Ethics Commitments by executive branch Appointees’’), which includes a requirement that they 

sign an ethics pledge. 

Question 4b. Will you demand that, prior to appointment, political appointees 

pledge that they will not work in industries related to or significantly subject to 

Labor Department regulation for 3 or more years upon leaving Federal service? 

Answer 4b. As discussed above, upon appointment all non-career employees are 

required to sign the ethics pledge set forth in Executive Order 13770. By signing 

this pledge, the non-career employee commits to 

‘‘. . . not, within 5 years after the termination of my employment as an appointee in any executive agency in which I am appointed to serve, engage in 

any lobbying activities with respect to that agency.’’ 

All employees, including non-career appointees, are also subject to the applicable 

post-employment conflict-of-interest provisions in 18 U.S.C. 207. 

Question 5a. On January 28, President Trump issued the Ethics Commitments by 

Executive Branch Employees Executive order, which prohibits executive branch appointees from participating 

‘‘in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to [their] former employer or former clients, including regulations 

and contracts’’ 

for ‘‘a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment.’’1 The beachhead team 

at the Department of Labor, however, includes individuals who have previously lobbied on issues in DOL’s jurisdiction, including the Davis-Bacon Act and the Conflict 

of Interest Rule.2

Will you commit that, if confirmed, you and all of your subordinates at the Department of Labor will follow this ‘‘lobbying ban’’? 

Answer 5a. I am committed to complying with the quoted provision, and ensuring 

that my subordinates do as well. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

137 

3 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, July 2003. Online at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

pkg/CHRG-108shrg91833/pdf/CHRG-108shrg91833.pdf. 4https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/12/22/trump-team-asked-state 

-department-for-info-on-womens-issues-programs-stoking-fears-of-another-witch-hunt/?utmlterm 

=.50b42eb8cf86. 5 5 U.S.C. § 7211. 

Question 5b. Will you commit to firing anyone on the DOL beachhead team who 

does not meet the terms of this rule? 

Answer 5b. I am committed to seeing that anyone who is found to have violated 

the provisions of Executive Order 13770 will be disciplined appropriately in accordance with applicable personnel procedures. 

POLITICIZATION OF DOJ’S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Question 6. Do you agree with the DOJ Inspector General in 2008 that, as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, you failed to appropriately supervise your 

staff? 

If so, to what do you attribute this failure? 

What lessons did you learn from this incident? 

Answer 6. As I indicated at my hearing before the committee, the conduct described in the OIG’s report was wrong and should not have taken place. The OIG 

concluded that I was not aware of the misconduct. Nonetheless, it occurred on my 

watch as Assistant Attorney General. I am well aware of what happened, and committed to ensure it is not repeated. Since then, I am a more hands-on manager. I 

have also learned to better oversee and monitor subordinates while not micromanaging their performance. As U.S. attorney, I walked around the office often in order 

to learn what AUSAs were doing. This day-to-day contact was important, and 

helped me better understand and monitor day-to-day AUSA activity. 

Question 7. During your confirmation hearing for your DOJ position, Senator Kennedy asked you about preventing a politicized hiring process. You answered by saying: 

‘‘I would hope that the hiring process looks for the best qualified individuals— 

by ensuring that those who are participating in the process, those who do the 

interviewing understand what the role is and what the role is not. That’s something I think should be emphasized to all participants in the hiring process, and 

certainly if confirmed I would do that.’’3

Given your explicit commitment to Senator Kennedy, how did you let the DOJ politicized hiring scandal happen under your watch? 

Answer 7. As I indicated in my previous answer, the conduct described in the 

OIG’s report was wrong and should not have taken place. The OIG concluded that 

I was not aware of the misconduct. Nonetheless, it occurred on my watch as Assistant Attorney General. If confirmed, I will make it abundantly clear that such conduct will not be tolerated. 

Question 8. If you are confirmed as Secretary, will you commit to preventing 

politicization of DOL? How will you do so? 

Answer 8. If confirmed, I will make it abundantly clear that such conduct will not 

be tolerated. If I learn of inappropriate conduct I will take appropriate disciplinary 

action, including dismissal. 

Question 9. During Mr. Trump’s campaign, there were reports that even volunteers were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. And following his election, 

there were also reports that transition officials were requesting information about 

career employees who worked on issues such as climate change at the Energy Department or women’s issues at the State Department.4 Any implication that people 

who worked on advancing policies that the new President disagrees with may be 

targeted or retaliated against could create a chilling effect on non-political Federal 

employees simply trying to do their jobs. 

If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all civil servants 

in the Department of Labor? 

Those rights include the right for civil servants to communicate with Congress, 

and in fact it is against the law to deny or interfere with their right to do so.5 If 

you are confirmed, do you commit to protect this fundamental right for government 

employees? 

How will you do so? 

Answer 9. Civil servants have many protections under the law and I would follow 

the law. If I learn of inappropriate conduct I will take appropriate disciplinary acHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

138 

6https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018lblue 

print.pdf; https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/labor-dept-cuts-target-job-training-programs-for-seniors-disadvantaged-youths/2017/03/15/4aba0966-0999-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd 

74ed1lstory.html. 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

tion. If confirmed, I commit to protect the rights of all civil servants in the Department. 

BUDGET

Question 10. President Trump’s preliminary 2018 budget proposal includes a 21 

percent cut to the Department of Labor’s budget. 

Will you commit to advocating against large cuts to the Department’s budget? 

If so, how specifically will you do so? 

What level of spending on the Department as a whole do you believe is necessary 

to fulfill its mission? 

Answer 10. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding for the Department. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process so that I can understand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs in order to deliver the greatest value to the 

American people. As I noted at the hearing, I think the principles that need to be 

used to guide spending are how successful is the program and does the program address particular needs. 

Question 11. How do you believe that a 21 percent cut to the Department of Labor 

would affect the agency? 

How many career staff do you expect would lose their jobs? 

Which programs do you expect would be eliminated or significantly cut? 

Answer 11. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. The publicly available Labor Department chapter is all the information I 

have. The labor department chapter details some proposed cuts and eliminations 

and is available at page 31 here: www.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/ 

fy2018/2018lblueprint.pdf. I have insufficient data to answer the question more 

specifically. 

Question 12. President Trump’s budget proposes completely eliminating the Senior 

Community Service Employment Program, which helps low-income seniors seeking 

employment.6

Do you believe that eliminating or significantly reducing funding to the Senior 

Community Service Employment Program would be a wise decision? 

If so, why? 

If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for funding for the Senior Community Service Employment Program? 

Answer 12. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as this one 

in order to deliver the greatest value to the American people. I do believe older 

Americans encounter difficulty finding jobs and that quality programs for this community are important. 

Question 13. President Trump’s budget proposes significant cuts to Job Corps, a 

DOL program that helps disadvantaged youth enter the workforce.7

Do you believe that making large cuts to Job Corps would be a wise decision? 

If so, why? 

If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for Job Corps funding? 

Answer 13. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the Job Corps program and the 

performance of each of the more than 100 Job Corps centers. I look forward to learning more about the centers in each State. I expect our focus will be on helping Job 

Corps centers best provide to students the services and training central to their core 

mission. If I conclude that a center is the best way to train a particular population, 

I will advocate to fund it. 

Question 14. President Trump’s budget proposes significant cuts to the Office of 

Disability Employment Policy, which helps people with disabilities succeed in the 

workplace.8

Do you believe that making large cuts to the Office of Disability Employment Policy would be a wise decision? 

If so, why? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

139 

If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for funding for the Office of Disability Employment Policy? 

Answer 14. I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. The 

President, however, proposes the budget and it is ultimately Congress that determines the budget. 

Question 15. Do you support President Trump’s proposed elimination of the 

OSHA-funded small grant programs that provide workers in dangerous jobs with 

life-saving information such as how to protect themselves from chemical hazards, 

prevent falls, and guard themselves against dangerous machines? 

If so, why? 

If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for funding for these programs? 

Answer 15. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. That said, if confirmed I look forward to being briefed on all aspects of the 

Department’s budget and will work to ensure that workers are protected while the 

taxpayers’ dollars are spent in the most effective ways possible. If, after review, I 

believe this program offers the most efficient use of funds to encourage safety then 

I will advocate for it. 

VOTER SUPRESSION AND DISCRIMINATION

Question 16. When you were the head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division the 

Texas State Legislature proposed a redistricting plan that the U.S. Supreme Court 

found ‘‘failed to protect minority rights,’’ you recused yourself with no explanation. 

Your deputy overruled several career attorneys and analysts and allowed the redistricting plan to proceed. 

To your knowledge, why did your office overrule DOJ career appointees’ recommendations with regard to the Texas voting rights cases? 

Why did you recuse yourself from that case? 

Answer 16. Recusal is appropriate where an official has an actual conflict of interest, or where under the circumstances the official may reasonably appear to have 

a conflict of interest. As I mentioned at my hearing, I have a longstanding friendship with the then-Solicitor General of Texas, Mr. Cruz, who was litigating this 

matter personally. I recused myself out of concern that this contact may be portrayed as a conflict of interest. I take recusal obligations very seriously. It is as important to recuse in cases where recusal is required as it is not to recuse in cases 

where recusal is not required. In this case I believe my decision to recuse from any 

involvement in the Department’s deliberations and decisionmaking was appropriate. 

Because I was recused from the matter I was not privy to the decisionmaking process. 

Question 17. Will you commit to respect the policy findings and conclusions of 

DOL experts and career staff? 

Answer 17. If confirmed, I will certainly need the advice of career staff to ensure 

I am fully informed about issues. I respect their expertise. Policy decisions are ultimately for the leadership of the Department. 

Question 18. In 2004, while you were the head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, 

you defensed an Ohio voter challenge law that disproportionately disenfranchised 

African American voters. Despite there being no formal intervention in the case by 

your office, you submitted a letter-brief to the judge arguing in favor of the voter 

challenge law, just 4 days before the 2004 presidential election. 

Why did you submit a letter-brief in that case? 

In how many other voting rights cases in which DOJ did not formally intervene 

nor submit an amicus brief did you submit a letter-brief? 

Answer 18. The Department of Justice has a long history of submitting its views 

of statutes committed to its enforcement. The Department of Justice is charged with 

enforcing both the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (‘‘HAVA’’) and the Voting Rights 

Act (‘‘VRA’’). At the time, HAVA was a relatively new statute. Because of this, there 

was value in bringing to Judge Dlott’s attention key aspects of HAVA, i.e., that 

State and local election officials must permit any individual whose name does not 

appear on the official registration list or whose eligibility to vote is called into question to cast a provision ballot even if they are unable to answer specific questions 

posed by election judges; that provisional ballots are part of a congressionally established balance between ballot access and ballot integrity; and that as a result, nondiscriminatory challenge statutes are not prohibited on their face (although they can 

be prohibited as applied). Provisional ballots would mitigate the impact of the Ohio 

‘‘challenge statute’’ at issue in that case, which otherwise may have resulted in the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

140 

disqualification of some voters without any recourse to confirm their eligibility and 

to restore their vote. The letter alerting Judge Dlott to HAVA’s requirements was 

consistent with the Civil Rights Division’s many other efforts to raise awareness of 

and to enforce HAVA in several States during 2004, and although I recall full amici 

briefs, I do not recall other less-impactful letter briefs. Importantly, the Department 

did not speak to the specific allegations raised by the plaintiffs in that suit, but limited its comments only to the statutes on their face. 

Question 19. What key challenges do you see in enforcing labor laws that protect 

workers’ civil rights? Which areas of enforcement will you prioritize? 

Answer 19. The Department shares responsibilities for labor and civil rights enforcement with a number of other agencies. If confirmed, I would consult with career staff to identify the areas of greatest need and direct available resources to address those areas, but I would also want to make sure that the Department was 

coordinating with the other agencies that share the same responsibility. 

At the Department of Labor, I would work with the agencies involved in civil 

rights to ensure that their efforts have the greatest benefit for those who are discriminated against, serve as a deterrent by example for those who accidentally or 

purposely discriminate, and increase overall compliance. 

Question 20. What metrics will you use to determine whether DOL is fulfilling 

its role in protecting workers’ rights and stamping out discrimination? 

Answer 20. I believe results matter and need to be quantified, but it can be hard 

to measure reductions in discrimination. For example, one high impact case can reduce discrimination more than several lower impact matters. As a prosecutor, I used 

government resources carefully to bring the best cases possible and get the best resolutions for the largest number of victims. I also brought smaller individual cases. 

I will follow that model at the Department if confirmed. 

Question 21. What key challenges do you see in enforcing labor laws that protect 

workers against discrimination? Which areas of enforcement will you prioritize? 

Answer 21. If confirmed, I would consult with career staff to identify the areas 

of greatest need and direct available resources to address those areas, and I would 

also want to make sure that the Department was coordinating with the other agencies that share the same responsibility. 

Question 22. Which workers do you believe are at greatest risk of discrimination? 

What specific actions will you take to protect them? 

Answer 22. If confirmed, I would consult with career staff to identify the areas 

of greatest need and direct available resources to address those areas, and I would 

also want to make sure that the Department was coordinating with the other agencies that share the same responsibility for discrimination prevention. I note that 

there may very well be different issues dependent on wage rates, industries, and 

regions of the country. 

ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION OF WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

Question 23. Will you commit to continuing enforcement of DOL wage and hour 

and workplace safety standards? 

Answer 23. Yes. 

Question 24. What metrics will you use to assess the effectiveness of your enforcement efforts? 

Answer 24. Each enforcement agency may have different metrics because of the 

nature of their responsibilities and legal authorities. Increased compliance with the 

law is a great metric to consider but can be hard to measure. For example, one high 

impact case can reduce violations more than several lower impact matters. As a 

prosecutor, I used government resources carefully to bring the best cases possible 

and get the best resolutions for the largest number of victims. I also brought smaller 

individual cases. I will follow that model at the Department if confirmed, 

Question 25. If President Trump’s 20.7 percent proposed budget cut is enacted, it 

will be virtually impossible to maintain the level of enforcement the previous administration obtained. How will you prioritize enforcement activities and investigations 

in the Wage and Hour Division if this budget is enacted? 

Answer 25. As budgets are reduced, high impact cases become more important as 

they tend to offer more impact per dollar. It is important, however, to bring smaller 

individualized cases as well. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

141 

9https://www.bna.com/workers-turn-down-n57982084889/. 

Question 26. President Trump has expressed criticism of the DOL Overtime Rule. 

Will you commit to defending the Rule, which would extend overtime protections for 

millions of American workers, in court, starting by appealing the injunction that is 

currently in place preventing implementation of this rule? 

If not, what are your specific plans for updating regulations so that only bona fide 

executives, rather than low-income workers, are exempt from overtime protections, 

as the FLSA requires? 

Answer 26. As I noted at my hearing, I am sensitive to the fact that the overtime 

rule has not been updated since 2004. If confirmed, this is an issue I will look at 

very closely and commit to examining the rule and the legal basis of the judge’s decision. 

Question 27. I am concerned about DOL’s duty to ensure that all employers are 

held accountable for abuses of their employees—including large corporations that 

try to shirk responsibility through franchises, over whose policies and balance 

sheets they maintain significant control. Will you hold parent companies responsible 

for violations of the minimum wage or overtime laws of the workers in their franchises where the parent company is legally culpable? 

Answer 27. This answer would be dependent on a specific set of facts. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction 

fully and fairly. 

Question 28. What are your specific plans to protect the rights of workers of franchised companies? 

Answer 28. If confirmed, I look forward to receiving input from the Department 

of Labor staff and Congress to improve the working conditions and opportunities for 

all Americans. 

Question 29. Workers’ ability to collect back wages is a crucial part of the enforcement of Wage and Hour Laws. Yet recent reports indicate that some workers are 

turning down back pay because they fear deportation in light of President Trump’s 

anti-immigrant policy and rhetoric.9

If confirmed, will you commit to investigating this phenomenon to determine 

whether workers are declining back pay because they fear deportation? 

If you find that this is taking place, what is your plan for ensuring that all workers who experience wage theft are able to access back wages, regardless of immigration status? 

Answer 29. The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division enforces the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, and other laws in its purview, without regard to immigration 

status. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed by DOL staff and learning more 

about these concerns and I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of 

Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including wage and hour laws, to protect all 

workers’ rights. 

Question 30. What will you do to improve the implementation and enforcement 

of Federal labor law and ensure that all American workers can work in a safe and 

healthy environment, achieve financial security, and retire in old age? 

Answer 30. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I will enforce the law fully 

and fairly. I also look forward to working with Congress to further improve safety, 

security, and retirement of workers. 

Question 31. Some employers misclassify their employees as independent contractors in order to avoid wage and hour laws and other basic worker protections, paying taxes, and fair competition with other employers. In what specific ways should 

the Department of Labor improve its efforts to (a) identify mis-classified workers 

and (b) conduct enforcement actions against employers that misclassify them? 

Answer 31. An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear compliance guidance from the Department. The use of independent contractors is a legal and valuable business practice. However, in some circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a worker 

as an independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not be abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to the requirements 

of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as independent contractors may be denied access to critical benefits and protections they are entitled to by law. This incorrect classification may also generate losses to the Federal Government and State 

governments in the form of lower tax revenues, as well as to State unemployment 

insurance and workers’ compensation funds. Employers who deliberately misclassify 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

142 

workers undercut law-abiding employers who are making contributions to these systems and paying their workers properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed 

on matters pertaining to the classification of employees and will work to enforce the 

laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction, including these employment 

laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of workers. If businesses are found 

to be incorrectly classifying workers in a way that violates the law, I will fully and 

fairly enforce the relevant laws. 

WELLS FARGO, RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, AND OTHER ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS

Question 32. Will you continue all ongoing investigations at the Wage and Hour 

Division of DOL to ensure that workers will not suffer setbacks in their effort to 

recover lost wages as a result of the change in leadership? 

Answer 32. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of investigations in 

which the Department of Labor is engaged. As a general matter, I will enforce the 

law fully and fairly, and I expect investigations to go forward. 

Question 33. Will you continue with debarment proceedings of Restaurant Associates to ensure that the workers who feed Federal workers and Senate employees 

aren’t cheated out of their wages and to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are 

being used responsibly? 

Answer 33. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of this matter. As a 

general matter, I will enforce the law fully and fairly, and I expect ongoing enforcement to go forward. 

Question 34. Will you continue with any other ongoing debarment proceedings? 

Answer 34. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of other ongoing debarment proceedings. As a general matter, I will enforce the law fully and fairly, 

and I expect ongoing enforcement to go forward. 

Question 35. Will you promise to continue the Department’s ongoing investigation 

of wage and hour violations at Wells Fargo? 

Answer 35. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of this matter. As a 

general matter, I will enforce the law fully and fairly, and I expect investigations 

to go forward. 

IMPLEMENTING DOL’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULE

Question 36. The memorandum President Trump issued on February 3 requires 

you to conduct a new economic and legal analysis of the Conflict of Interest Rule, 

and, depending on the results of this analysis, publish a new rule or rescind the 

rule. DOL has already asked for public comment on this analysis. Additionally, DOL 

has closed the comment period on a proposed 60-day delay of the April 10 applicability date of the rule. 

(a) Did the President or anyone in the White House, on the transition team, or 

at DOL consult you about the contents of his memorandum? If so, please list the 

names of all parties you consulted with and send any correspondence on this topic. 

(b) If you are confirmed before the 60-day delay of the fiduciary rule is finalized, 

will you stop the delay? 

(c) Do you think the costs to investors of the delay are justified? If so, please explain how you have calculated the benefits of the delay and please identify the parties that would benefit from the delay under your analysis. 

(d) Do you agree with President Trump’s decision to call for additional analysis 

of the Conflict of Interest Rule? 

(e) What information will you review as part of this assessment? 

(f) Will you commit to only reviewing information that is independent and is not 

funded or otherwise compromised by financial industry players with a vested interest in the findings? 

(g) Please identify all political staff at DOL that will conduct the analysis. 

(h) Do you have any reason to believe that the findings of the new analysis will 

be any different from the detailed, multi-year analysis of the costs and benefits of 

the rule that was already conducted by DOL before the proposed rule was issued 

or in the extensive Regulatory Impact Analysis that was issued at the time the rule 

was finalized? If so, why? 

(i) The memorandum asks you to consider litigation costs and possible disruptions 

to the financial services sector in your economic and legal analysis, Will you also 

consider the full benefits of the rule for retirees and consumers in addition to any 

potential costs for the financial industry? Will you consider the costs to financial advisers who have already invested in complying with the rule? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

143 

10 Elizabeth. ‘‘Warren Questions White House, Labor, Financial Services Roundtable on Report 

that Wall Street Lobbyist Reviewed Drafts of Trump Executive Orders and Memorandums.’’ Online at: https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=presslrelease&id=1451. 11 Elizabeth Warren. ‘‘Villas, Castles, and Vacations: How Perks and Giveaways Create Conflicts of Interest in the Annuity Industry.’’ Online at: http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-10-27lSenatorlWarrenlReportlonlAnnuitylIndustry.pdf. 

(j) The DOL finalized the Conflict of Interest Rule after a long process of extensive 

public comment periods, meetings with stakeholders, and days of public hearings. 

Will you commit to following the same process before finalizing any new change of 

the Rule, in order to allow the public to comment on the DOL’s new analysis? 

(k) Big banks that make huge sums of money from selling high-fee, high-commission products to investors have made it very clear in Washington that they do not 

support the Conflict of Interest Rule, to the point of drowning out the voices of thousands of Americans who have lost a large portion of their retirement savings because of bad advice from someone with conflicted interests. Before you make any 

final decisions on the Rule, will you commit to soliciting input from the victims of 

bad retirement investment advice? 

(l) Will you refrain from taking any additional action to delay or limit the rule 

until your analysis is complete? 

(m) Will you commit to informing Congress on an ongoing basis of the status of 

this analysis? 

Answers 36(a) and (g). As a nominee, I did not participate in discussions regarding the presidential memorandum and do not know who will handle the analysis 

at the Department of Labor. 

Answers 36(b)–(f), and (h)–(l). As I noted at the hearing, the presidential memorandum addresses with specificity the fiduciary rule and details the Department of 

Labor’s obligations to review the rule. If confirmed, I will conduct the review in accordance with the presidential memorandum. Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, all stakeholders may comment and their views must be considered by the Department. As Chairman Alexander noted, as a nominee it would be presumptuous 

to make any further regulatory determinations at this time. With that said, it is 

important that the retirement savings of working Americans be protected. I support 

empowering Americans to make their own financial decisions, to facilitate their ability to save for retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical 

lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to withstand 

unexpected financial emergencies. 

Answer 36(m). If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to safeguard retirement security. 

Question 37. On February 14, I sent a letter to the White House and DOL asking 

about reported involvement by a Financial Services Roundtable lobbyist in the development and drafting of President Trump’s memorandum. I have not heard back 

from either the White House or DOL.10

Will you commit to responding to the questions I asked in that letter about the 

potential involvement by a Wall Street lobbyist from a leading advocacy organization for the financial services industry? 

Answer 37. I have not received a copy of your letter, and without knowing the 

contents of the letter it would be inappropriate for me to make specific commitments. 

Question 38. My office has issued two reports on kickbacks like lavish vacations, 

tropical cruises, and other prizes that are offered as incentives to salespersons in 

the annuities industry.11 Do you believe that these incentives could encourage a 

salesperson to recommend a product that is not in the best interest of the customer? 

Answer 38. It is important that the retirement savings of working Americans be 

protected, and certainly there are individuals that may put their personal interests 

ahead of their clients in many industries where that is potentially unethical and illegal. 

Question 39. If a family member or personal friend were to ask you about how 

to pick a financial adviser, would you recommend that he or she pick an adviser 

with a fiduciary duty to their client, or not? 

Answer 39. If asked, I would recommend to my friend someone who I knew and 

trusted. I would also advise that in my experience the best advisors in professional 

fields are transparent about their fees and products, including in regards to compensation structure. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

144 

12 U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘U.S. Labor Department Announces Updated Sex Discrimination 

Regulations for Federal Contractors’’ (June 14, 20160 (online at https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20160614). 13 U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘Equal Employment Opportunity’’ (online at https://www.dol 

.gov/general/topic/discrimination). 

Question 40. In your confirmation hearing, you refused to offer your personal 

views on or commit to implementing the Conflict of Interest Rule. You said that, 

if confirmed as Secretary of Labor, you would work for the President, which is troubling in light of President Trump’s anti-worker statement and policies. 

Will you commit to expressing disagreement with President Trump if and when 

his rhetoric or policy proposals, including Executive orders, conflict with the DOL’s 

mission to promote the welfare of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees? 

To the extent they conflict, will you commit to relying on the expertise of the DOL 

career staff rather than the political interests of the White House in making decisions about the Conflict of Interest Rule and other policies on which hundreds of 

millions of workers and retirees are relying? 

Will you commit to following the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the 

rulemaking process, in all rulemakings you participate in if confirmed? 

Will you do so even if the President asks you to do otherwise? 

Answer 40. All Cabinet officers work for the President. That does not mean, however, that one cannot express disagreement on particular matters. As I stated, if 

confirmed, I will advocate for the mission of DOL. This includes disagreement regarding priorities or implementation. Once a decision by the President is made, 

however, I have an obligation to implement it or to resign. I certainly respect the 

expertise of staff. At all times, I will follow the law as I understand it. No one, including the President of the United States, is above the law, including the APA. 

PROTECTING WORKERS FROM DISCRIMINATION

Question 41. On June 14, 2016, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) at DOL issued a final rule, Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, 

which updated OFCCP’s sex discrimination regulations to explicitly include ‘‘the 

protections against compensation discrimination; sexually hostile work environments; discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions; 

and discrimination based on unlawful sex stereotypes, gender identity, and 

transgender status.’’12

Would you commit to fully enforcing this rule, should you be confirmed as Labor 

Secretary? 

Please describe the specific steps you would take to improve enforcement of this 

rule, and the specific metrics you will use to measure the effectiveness of the rule 

and its enforcement by DOL. 

Answer 21. The President, through an executive action, has directed all Cabinet 

secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency. If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me, including for this rule. With that said, I strongly support 

equal employment opportunity and, if confirmed, I will apply the law fully and fairly 

to prevent sex discrimination in areas under authority of the Secretary of Labor. 

Question 42. DOL’s Civil Rights Center ‘‘oversees EEO in programs and activities 

receiving Federal financial assistance’’ from DOL. The Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs, meanwhile, oversees EEO programs among ‘‘employers holding Federal contracts and subcontracts.’’13

a. Will you ensure that DOL’s Civil Rights Center is fully funded, so that Americans are protected from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, national 

origin, disability, or genetic information? 

(i) If confirmed, will you commit to continuing the Civil Rights Center’s work? 

(ii) What metrics will you use to evaluate its success or failure? 

b. Will you ensure that DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

is fully funded, so that employees of Federal contractors are protected from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or genetic information? 

(i) If confirmed, will you commit to continuing the Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs’ work? 

(ii) What metrics will you use to evaluate its success or failure? 

Answer 42. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that 

will determine the funding for the Department’s agencies. Although the level of 

budget reductions have not yet been approved by Congress, some reduction is likely. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

145 

14 41 U.S.C. § 6706; 41 U.S.C. § 6504; 41 U.S.C. § 3144; Manuel, K. ‘‘Responsibility Determinations Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation: Legal Standards and Procedures.’’ Congressional Research Service (January 4, 2013). Online at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40633.pdf. 15 ‘‘Final Rule: Executive Order 13706, Establishing a Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors.’’ Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor. Online at: https:// 

www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/eo13706/. 16 ‘‘Fact Sheet: Final Rule to Implement Executive Order 13658, Establishing a Minimum 

Wage for Contractors.’’ Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor. Online at: 

https://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/eo13658/fr-factsheet.htm. 17 ‘‘OFCCP’s Sex Discrimination Final Rule, Fact Sheet.’’ United States Department of Labor. 

Online at: https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/SexDiscrimination/SexDiscrimFinalRuleFactSheetl 

JRFQA508c.pdf. 

I cannot commit to insulate any one program from some reduction. Each enforcement agency may have different metrics because of the nature of their responsibilities and legal authorities. I am aware that each Federal agency has developed comprehensive metrics and reports on them regularly. If confirmed, I will consult with 

staff and review the performance metrics DOL enforcement agencies have been 

using to see if there might need to be changes and then evaluate the agencies accordingly. The missions of both of these offices are important and I would work to 

ensure they can perform their responsibilities. 

FEDERAL CONTRACTORS

Question 43. Now that congressional Republicans and President Trump have rescinded the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order, what authorities does 

DOL have to ensure that contracting agencies have access to and can consider prior 

labor violations in procurement decisions (as Federal law and acquisition regulation 

requires)?14

Will you implement these authorities? 

Answer 43. I understand that government agencies have suspension and debarment authorities and that the Department of Labor has existing capacity in the context of some of its statutes, including the service contract act. For example, I am 

informed that for certain contracts, the contracting officer at a Federal agency would 

be required to check if the potential contractor had received a recent review by 

OFCCP before awarding a contract. I am committed to providing agencies this data 

so they can make an informed decision. 

Question 44. The Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors Executive 

order (Executive Order 13706) requires Federal contractors to offer covered employees up to 7 days of paid sick leave each year, giving sick leave to around 1.15 million workers.15

Would you advise President Trump to retain this Executive order? 

Will you commit to enforcing this Executive order? 

Answer 44. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind Executive 

orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that apply to the Labor 

Department or give the Department additional enforcement responsibilities. 

Question 45. The Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors Executive Order 

(Executive Order 13658) gives 200,000 workers raises by setting the minimum wage 

for Federal contractors at $10.10, with modest cost-of-living increases going forward.16

Would you advise President Trump to retain this Executive order? 

Will you commit to enforcing this Executive order? 

Answer 45. I believe that the vast majority of Federal contractors pay this wage 

irrespective of the Executive order. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend 

or rescind Executive orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if 

confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that 

apply to the Labor Department or give the Department additional enforcement responsibilities. 

Question 46. The Sex Discrimination Regulations Executive order (Executive 

Order 11246) prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and childbirth, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and updated guidelines on fair pay and sexual 

harassment for contractors.17

Would you advise President Trump to retain this Executive order? 

Will you commit to enforcing this Executive order? 

Answer 46. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind Executive 

orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

146 

18 ‘‘OSHA’s Final Rule to Protect Workers from Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica.’’ Occupational Safety and Health Administration. United States Department of Labor. Online at: 

https://www.osha.gov/silica/factsheets/OSHAlFS-3683lSilicalOverview.html. 

force the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that apply to the Labor 

Department or give the Department additional enforcement responsibilities. 

Question 47. In addition to the Executive orders described above, what are your 

specific plans to address the widespread labor law violations by contractors of the 

Federal Government? If confirmed as Labor Secretary, what will you do to ensure 

that taxpayer dollars are spent more responsibly? 

Answer 47. I understand that government agencies have general suspension and 

debarment authorities and that the Department of Labor uses a similar authority 

in the context of some of its statutes, including the service contract act. If confirmed, 

I would need to discuss this issue with DOL staff to better understand your concerns and what additional authorities DOL may have in this area. 

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Question 48. Will you commit to pursue all penalties allowed by law for employers 

who put their workers in harm’s way? 

Will you commit to pursuing criminal penalties, including jail time, for employers 

who willfully violate OSHA and cause the death of an employee? 

Answer 48. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many other issues 

with the Department’s OSHA staff, to help ensure the safety of all workers. I support the use of all of OSHA’s penalties. If criminal penalties are warranted in a 

given situation they will be pursued. When the evidence demonstrates a willful violation of a specific OSHA standard that causes the death of an employee, an employer may be liable for criminal sanctions. In such cases, if confirmed, I will direct 

OSHA to continue to refer potential criminal matters for consideration by Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to established procedures, including the recently executed Memorandum of Understanding between OSHA and DOJ in 2015. 

Question 49. Will you commit to ensuring that OSHA is fully funded so that it 

can continue its inspection and enforcement efforts? 

Answer 49. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that 

will determine the funding for the Department’s agencies. Although the level of 

budget reductions have not yet been approved by Congress, some reduction is likely. 

I cannot commit to insulate any one program from some reduction. Each enforcement agency may have different metrics because of the nature of their responsibilities and legal authorities. I am aware that each Federal agency has developed comprehensive metrics and reports on them regularly. If confirmed, I will consult with 

staff and review the performance metrics DOL enforcement agencies have been 

using to see if there might need to be changes and then evaluate the agencies accordingly. 

Question 50. Even when OSHA is fully funded, it can’t inspect every workplace 

every year. What types of inspections will be the highest priority to the agency, and 

what industries will you prioritize for inspections? 

Answer 50. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many other issues 

with the Department’s OSHA staff and working with them to make certain that the 

appropriate prioritizations for inspections are in place to help ensure the safety of 

all workers. As specified in the OSH Act, OSHA operates a balanced program of enforcement, compliance assistance, training, outreach and voluntary collaborative 

programs to maximize its effectiveness. OSHA cannot inspect all 8 million workplaces it covers, and as such prioritizations are required. The industries with the 

highest hazards will receive top priority. 

Question 51. In June, OSHA’s new Silica Rule, which will save hundreds of lives 

by protecting the 2.3 million workers exposed to silica in their workplaces from diseases like silicosis and lung cancer, went into effect.18

In your hearing, you would not commit to enforcing the silica rule because the 

President’s January 20 memorandum asks agency heads to delay rules that are not 

yet in effect by 60 days. But the silica rule is already in effect. Will you commit 

to ensuring that the upcoming compliance dates for industry are implemented as 

currently set forth in the final rule? 

Will you commit to enforcing this rule and inspecting workplaces to ensure that 

this rule is being properly implemented? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

147 

19https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=presslrelease&id=896. 

Will you defend the rule against any ongoing legal challenges in the courts? 

Answer 51. The President, through an executive action, has directed all Cabinet 

secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency. If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me. As part of that responsibility I look forward to discussing 

this and many other issues with the staff of the Department’s Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. 

Question 52. Will you enforce the beryllium rule if you are confirmed? 

Will you commit to adhere to the currently scheduled compliance dates and not 

delay of the effective date of this life-saving rule any further? 

Answer 52. The President, through an executive action, has directed all Cabinet 

secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency. If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me. As part of that responsibility I look forward to discussing 

this and many other issues with the staff of the Department’s Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. 

Question 53. On February 22, just hours after your nomination hearing, the Senate repealed OSHA’s ‘‘Volks Rule’’ using a resolution of disapproval under the congressional Review Act. The rule clarifies OSHA’s authority to hold employers accountable for their continuing obligation to maintain accurate injury and illness 

records for 5 years. As a result, underreporting of workplace injuries and illnesses 

will skyrocket and the odds that a worker is increased on the job will increase. 

How will the Department of Labor enforce OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements in 

the absence of this important rule? 

How will you ensure that the DOL’s statistics on workplace injury rates remain 

accurate, considering that employers will not be required to maintain accurate 

records after 6 months? 

Answer 53. I believe the Occupational Safety and Health Act still requires employers to maintain records for 5 years and that the DC Circuit overturned an attempt to apply a continuing violation previously given the Act’s 6-month statute of 

limitations. If confirmed, however, I look forward to discussing these and many 

other issues with the Department’s OSHA staff to make certain that employers comply with the law regarding the recording of injuries and illnesses in the workplace 

in order to ensure that all workers are protected. 

FAIR SCHEDULING LEGISLATION

Question 54. As Secretary of Labor, what specific steps would you take to improve 

the working conditions of low-wage workers in the food service, retail, and cleaning 

sectors? 

Answer 54. If confirmed, I look forward to receiving input from DOL staff and 

Congress to improve the working conditions and opportunities for all Americans, 

and particularly those in low-wage sectors. 

Question 55. Will you support the passage of the Schedules that Work Act, which 

would help workers address unstable and unpredictable schedules?19

If not, what are your plans for introducing fairness into work schedules so that 

workers are able to arrange for childcare, juggle a second job, or go back to school? 

Answer 55. I would need to thoroughly review that legislation before I committed 

to supporting it. As I mentioned in the hearing in the context of the gig economy, 

promoting workplace flexibility is something I support, particularly for working parents with young children. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Question 56. Will you commit to fully implementing the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA)? 

Answer 56. As you know, WIOA was enacted in 2014 and many implementing 

regulations have been promulgated. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I also will 

work to maximize the impact of every Federal taxpayer dollar directed to job training programs and employment service formula grants while discussing shared responsibility for these grants by States, localities and employers. I do support and 

commit to fully implementing the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. 

Question 57. Will you commit to aggressively advocating for any and all funding 

that is needed to implement WIOA? 

Answer 57. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process, so that I can unHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

148 

derstand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as this one 

in order to deliver the greatest value to the American people. Further, I believe that 

job training can offer substantial positive returns on tax payer dollars and do commit to aggressively advocate for it. 

Question 58. In light of the importance of summer jobs programs for disadvantaged youth, will you commit to expanding the summer jobs program for youth so 

that every young person who could benefit from a summer job will have access to 

one? 

Answer 58. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the Department’s activities and programs related to providing summer jobs for disadvantaged youth. 

Question 59. Important Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs are designed to connect people with disabilities to employment opportunities. 

How will your administration ensure that State and local workforce plans and 

boards use these programs and related funding streams to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities? 

Answer 59. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on WIOA and all related programs 

and implementing regulations, so that I can understand the goals, performance and 

resource needs of programs such as this one. Taxpayer dollars are scarce and it is 

important that we ensure that State and local workforce plans and boards use these 

programs and related funding streams to improve employment outcomes for people 

with disabilities. I believe metrics should be used to measure outcomes success. 

Question 60. What will you do as Secretary to encourage self-employment and entrepreneurship among Americans with disabilities? 

Will you support the Office of Disability Employment Policy’s START-UP program, which provides technical assistance and training to States to promote entrepreneurship among Americans with disabilities? 

Answer 60. I would need to review any particular program before I committed to 

supporting it, but I certainly favor increasing the labor force participation rate of 

disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. 

LABOR STATISTICS

Question 61. Do you have doubts about the non-partisan objectivity of the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics? 

If so, what evidence do you have to support those doubts? 

If not, do you believe it is appropriate for the President to attack the credibility 

and objectivity of an independent government agency like the BLS? 

Answer 61. As I noted at the hearing, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has kept 

statistics for decades. It has a transparent procedure that makes clear how they calculate statistics. I think that procedure is very important because BLS keeps data 

that is used not just for today but for the future. BLS provides several measures 

of unemployment. There is, however, legitimate disagreement as to which particular 

BLS measurement for the unemployment rate tells the true story of the economy. 

Question 62. If confirmed, will you commit to defending the independence of the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics? 

Answer 62. Yes. As I noted at the hearing, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has 

kept statistics for decades. It has a transparent procedure that makes clear how 

they calculate things. And I think that procedure is very important because BLS 

keeps data that is used not just for today but for the future. 

Question 63. What steps will you take to ensure that the BLS’s professional staff 

continue to collect and report employment and related data free from any political 

interference? 

Answer 63. BLS must be viewed as a reliable collector of data. If confirmed, I will 

insist that BLS continue its tradition of being insulated from political interference. 

Question 64. If confirmed, will you commit to aggressively advocate for full funding of the Bureau of Labor Statistics? 

Answer 64. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is ultimately Congress that 

will determine the funding for the Department’s agencies. Although the level of 

budget reductions have not yet been approved by Congress, some reduction is likely. 

I cannot commit to insulate any one program from some reduction. That said, as 

I mentioned at the hearing, I certainly understand the value of BLS and support 

its mission. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

149 

20https://blog.dol.gov/2016/03/05/measuring-gig-work. 

Question 65. The Department of Labor announced last year that it would conduct 

a survey on contingent and alternative employment as part of the May 2017 Current Population Survey, after collecting no such data since 2005, with the intention 

of continuing the CPS supplement on alternative work arrangements every 2 years 

going forward.20

Will you advocate for continued funding to conduct the contingent worker supplement to the CPS? 

Will you commit to conducting the supplement at regular intervals in the future 

and to communicating the results of that survey to Congress and the public? 

What steps will you take to ensure that DOL regulation, compliance, and enforcement policy adapts to the results of this survey and the changing nature of the 

workplace and safety net in the United States? 

Answer 65. I would need to review any particular program before I committed to 

supporting it. That said, as I mentioned at the hearing, I certainly understand the 

value of BLS data and the ‘‘gig’’ economy is something that the Department of Labor 

needs to address. Data from such a BLS survey may be helpful, and I would support 

its collection. One reason for this is that the data will assist DOL in adapting to 

the changing nature of the workplace. 

SENATOR KAINE

Question 1. Through Federal support and States encouraging apprenticeship models, the number of registered apprenticeships has increased. This includes the extension of the apprenticeship model beyond the construction and mechanical trades, 

into industries such as information technology, insurance, and health care. However, the average age of an apprentice still remains high at around 30, which suggests we’re not doing a sufficient job of routing young people into these pathways. 

Will you support expanding pre-apprenticeship programs in order to create onramps and more seamless pathways for youth into apprenticeships and middle-skill 

jobs? 

Answer 1. I appreciate you raising this issue that I agree is vitally important. I 

share your belief that getting more young people involved in apprenticeship programs is an important goal. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation 

of industry, local academic and training institutions and government partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. I understand that encouraging quality pre-apprenticeship programs is part of the Department of Labor’s apprenticeship expansion strategy. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I expect to examine the Department’s options for providing quality pre-apprenticeship programs 

with States and others interested in developing this important on-ramp to careers. 

If confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this model can be accessed in 

more communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition to new and 

growing industries. 

Question 2. The Secretary of Labor chairs the Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 

Do you believe there is a retirement crisis in this country? 

Will you propose a plan to Congress to address the insolvency issues at the PBGC 

and large multiemployer pension plans before they fail? 

Answer 2. If confirmed, I will be chair of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s Board of Directors and expect to be briefed on the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans. I believe our system of private pensions and retirement 

savings is working well for many Americans. Yet, too many workers are saving too 

little to ensure their financial security in old age. In addition, we must grapple with 

the legacy of pension promises that were made but not fully funded. As I noted in 

the hearing, I have not proposed a plan to address the issue of underfunded multiemployer plans and I wish there were an easy solution. These workers have worked 

hard for pensions they expect upon retirement, I understand that. I look forward 

to working with Congress and the President as solutions are proposed. 

Question 3. The Department’s conflict of interest rule was finalized after extensive 

public comment periods, including multiple meetings with stakeholders and 4 days 

of public hearings. 

Will you commit to following that same transparent process and allow members 

of the public to comment fully on the Department’s new analysis before it is finalized? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

150 

Would a delay of this rule a month before its applicability date create additional 

uncertainty for savers and the financial institutions that have spent considerable 

sums of money to comply with this rule? 

Answer 3. I understand the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the rulemaking process and if confirmed I will abide by the requirements of the APA. As 

I noted at the hearing, a presidential memorandum addresses with specificity the 

fiduciary rule and details the Department of Labor’s obligations to review the rule. 

If confirmed, I will conduct the review in accordance with the presidential memorandum. I believe part of the inquiry the Department is conducting addresses the 

issues of the effects of investor uncertainty and expenditures to meet the rule’s requirements. 

Question 4. What will you do as Secretary to encourage self-employment and entrepreneurship among Americans with disabilities? Will you support the Office of 

Disability Employment Policy’s START-UP program providing technical assistance 

and training to States to promote disability entrepreneurship? How will you partner 

with the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration to support people with disabilities who want to launch their small businesses or become 

entrepreneurs? Furthermore, how do you plan to include business-owners with disabilities in the competitions to obtain government contracts? 

Answer 4. I would need to review any particular program before I committed to 

supporting it, but I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate 

of disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. 

As I noted at my hearing, I believe it is important for the Department to break 

down silos between governmental agencies to improve efficiency, and if confirmed, 

I will ask Department staff to look into interagency cooperation with Commerce and 

the Small Business Administration on this issue. I believe it would be illegal to discriminate against disabled business-owners in awarding Federal Government contracts, and I expect that they would be encouraged to compete for contracts by all 

government agencies. 

Question 5. Immigrants fill not just high-skilled roles in the United States, but 

also fill technical and manual skill jobs. A 2010 study by the Federal Reserve Bank 

of San Francisco concluded that this helps companies expand, and allows more U.S.- 

born employees to assume managerial and leadership positions. What role can the 

Department of Labor play in ensuring that employers have access to sufficient workers to perform roles needed for expansion, including access to immigrants to perform 

technical and manual skill jobs if needed? 

Answer 5. I recognize the role that immigration has played and continues to play 

in our Nation. I also recognize that abuse of the visa process costs Americans jobs. 

This is a difficult balance and one that I will study carefully. 

Question 6. I am a strong supporter of DOL’s job training and workforce programs. I am very worried that President Trump’s budget cuts to job training programs are a direct attack on the programs necessary to help put Americans back 

to work. Will you commit to fighting these cuts and defending the proven job training, apprenticeship, Job Corps, and career pathway programs at DOL? 

Answer 6. I share your belief that job training programs can offer substantial returns on investment. The bi-partisan enactment of WIOA made advances based on 

evidence, lessons learned, and promising practices, such as increasing strategic 

alignment of investments in these programs and enhancing employer leadership and 

engagement. If confirmed, I will work to continue to advance goals like these within 

the reality of our constrained resources. I share your sense of how important these 

programs are and I pledge to focus on making them as effective and successful as 

possible. 

Question 7. The U.S. Labor Department plays a critical leadership role in shaping 

Federal policy to help the one in three adults in the United States (over 70 million) 

who have a criminal record to navigate the challenging employment landscape, and 

the 700,000 Americans who are released from prison every year and seek out employment in their communities. For example, DOL is the lead agency that funds reentry training and job placement services, which are funded by WIOA, the Second 

Chance Act and other critical programs, and promotes the business hiring incentives 

made available by the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Federal Bonding Program. Probably most importantly, working with other Federal agencies, the Secretary of Labor is in a unique position to engage the business community to recruit 

and hire people with records building on the remarkable momentum generated by 

business leaders on this issue over the past several years. Federal funding of job 

training, job placement and reentry services is a critical component of the national 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

151 

strategy to help move people with records back into the labor market. As Secretary 

of Labor, would you prioritize support for WIOA, the Second Chance Act, and other 

critical reentry programs? 

Answer 7. I share your belief that job training programs can offer substantial returns on investment. The bi-partisan enactment of WIOA made advances based on 

evidence, lessons learned, and promising practices, such as increasing strategic 

alignment of investments in these programs and enhancing employer leadership and 

engagement. If confirmed, I will work to continue to advance goals like these within 

the reality of our constrained resources. I share your sense of how important these 

programs are and I pledge to focus on making them as effective and successful as 

possible. 

Question 8. We know that fair workplaces are good for business and good for the 

economy. Ninety-two percent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted nondiscrimination provisions protecting lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers and 82 percent have adopted protections for transgender workers. These protections are essential. Recent studies have shown that more than one in five LGBTQ workers experience discrimination on the job. Transgender workers face even greater obstacles. As 

Secretary, you will be charged with furthering the mission of the Department of 

Labor, which includes advancing opportunities for all workers. What steps are you 

prepared to take to ensure that the Department continues to protect the rights of 

all workers, including ensuring the Department is proactively taking steps to combat discrimination against LGBTQ workers? 

Answer 8. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the Department’s laws fully and fairly. This includes efforts to combat discrimination against 

LGBTQ workers. 

Question 9. The majority of minimum wage workers are women and over onequarter have children to support. In Virginia, women earn 80 cents to every dollar 

that men earn. This information is concerning, but specifically for those of us who 

want to see women thrive and not be held back. Women make up two-thirds of the 

minimum wage workforce. And women are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of families with children. Do you believe gender pay discrimination exists? 

Answer 9. Discrimination based on gender, including as to pay, is illegal. Though 

unfortunate, it does exist. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce 

the Department’s laws fully and fairly. 

Question 10. If confirmed, will you take action to address and prevent pay discrimination? 

Answer 10. Discrimination based on gender, including as to pay, is illegal. As I 

noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the Department’s laws fully and 

fairly. 

Question 11. What do you believe is a fair minimum wage? In your view, do you 

believe that raising the minimum wage is a way to close the gender pay gap between men and women? 

Answer 11. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States 

and localities by their respective governments. I am unaware if raising the minimum wage would have any effect on any variance in wage rates paid to men and 

women respectively, but discrimination based on gender, including as to pay, is illegal. 

SENATOR HASSAN

Question 1. Low-income older Americans have an unemployment rate three times 

greater than other workers. Will you continue to support funding of the Senior Community Service Employment Program, the only Federal workforce program targeted 

to serve older workers? 

Answer 1. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as this one 

in order to deliver the greatest value to the American people. 

Question 2. Do you believe registered apprenticeship programs—whether union or 

non-union affiliated—are beneficial to training workers to become better and more 

skilled employees? Why or why not? 

Answer 2. As I mentioned during the confirmation hearing, I believe that quality 

apprenticeship programs are an important part of workforce development and training and are often a vital pathway to skills attainment and a prosperous career. Earn 

while you learn programs like Registered Apprenticeship represent work-based 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

152 

learning experiences that create real opportunities to develop a workforce that is capable of meeting employers’ skill needs regardless of union affiliation. Apprenticeship sponsors that meet national or State standards include a range of organizations, including employers, industry associations, joint labor-management organizations, government and the military. If confirmed, I hope to learn more about apprenticeship programs and will look for every opportunity to help position such programs 

to best serve workers and the economy. 

Question 3. In 2014, a national goal was set to double the number of Registered 

Apprenticeships—‘‘earn and learn’’ on-the-job training programs—within 5 years. 

Apprentices earn, on average, $60,000 after completing an apprenticeship program, 

and recent research shows that the benefits to employers, employees and taxpayers 

outweigh the costs. Congress has increased investments to expand apprenticeships, 

helping to create tens of thousands of new apprenticeships across the country, in 

traditional industries like construction, as well as non-traditional industries like 

health care, advanced manufacturing, and information technology. Importantly, 

those funds are also aimed at ensuring greater racial and gender diversity in apprenticeship. As labor secretary, will you continue to work toward a goal of doubling 

the number of registered apprentices in the United States? If so, how will you proceed? 

Answer 3. I am told that a study of U.S.-Registered Apprenticeship programs found a return of nearly $28 in public benefits for every dollar of public funds invested in the program, and that these programs leverage significant private investment, estimated at $1 billion, to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar Congress directs toward this job training program. The Department supports this public-private partnership where both employers and workers win, and if confirmed as 

Secretary of Labor, I will work with the Department team to support States in their 

efforts to expand apprenticeships and work to reduce barriers to employer participation. 

Question 4. A Georgetown study titled America’s Divided Recovery recently found 

that 99 percent of the jobs created since the end of the Great Recession, 11.5 of 11.6 

million jobs, went to workers with some post-secondary education. These trends 

seem likely to be only exacerbated by technological changes related to the automation of low-skill work. As a result workers in this country that lack some post-secondary education, whether through an apprenticeship, industry-recognized credential, a certificate or a college degree, will increasingly find it difficult to secure gainful employment. Do you believe the Department has a responsibility to help every 

American gain the skills, particularly the post-secondary training, they require to 

be competitive in the labor market? 

Answer 4. Post-secondary training—whether it be 4-year college, community college, apprenticeship or industry-recognized credential—are vital in positioning job 

seekers to survive in our modern economy, as you point out. If confirmed, creating 

viable pathways that will provide more workers with this sort of education and 

training will be a priority for the Department under my leadership. 

Question 5. Do you think collective bargaining is an appropriate means of increasing the share of the Nation’s wealth that goes to middle-class Americans? 

Answer 5. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established in law, as is the 

right of workers to decide whether to join a union or to refrain from joining a union. 

The decision of whether to join a union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining together to bargain collectively will increase their share of the Nation’s wealth then they should do so. 

Question 6. Do you support executive actions like Executive Order 13548, that 

President Obama issued to mark the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act and committed the executive branch to being a model employer of people who experience disabilities, including hiring an additional 100,000 

employees with disabilities? 

Answer 6. I support actions that uphold the Federal Government as a model employer. 

Question 7. In light of the budget proposal stating it will eliminate ‘‘less critical 

technical assistance grants’’ within the Office of Disability Employment Policy, will 

you commit to providing this office with the support it needs within the Department? Yes, or no? 

Answer 7. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on this and other programs to understand 

how they are succeeding in accomplishing their mission. Serving Disabled AmeriHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

153 

cans in search of employment is a particularly important part of the Department’s 

mission. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I will focus the expertise and resources 

of the Office of Disability Employment Policy on the areas where it can be most effective. 

Question 8. Will you continue to direct the Department of Labor to work with the 

Office Personnel Management to assist executive departments and agencies to recruit, hire, and retain employees with disabilities? 

Answer 8. I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. Such 

efforts contribute to our economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. If 

confirmed, I expect to be briefed on programs at the Department that serve the disabled in order to understand how they are succeeding in accomplishing their mission. 

Question 9. According to a recent report from the previous administration, students with disabilities graduate high school at the lowest rates of any minority population. Nationally about 83 percent of all students graduated in 2014–15. Students 

with disabilities graduated at a rate of nearly 65 percent. How will you partner with 

the Department of Education to ensure that youth with disabilities get the education and training they need to enter the workforce? What will you do through the 

Employment and Training Administration to ensure that youth with disabilities can 

gain the skills needed to compete in the 21st century economy? 

Answer 9. I certainly support increasing the labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. Such 

efforts contribute to our economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. If 

confirmed, I expect to be briefed on programs at the Department that serve the disabled in order to understand how they are succeeding in accomplishing their mission. As I mentioned in my hearing, I believe that effective coordination between 

the Labor and Education departments is vital. I look forward to working closely 

with the Department of Education on disabled employment and training and other 

matters and I will strive to improve coordination whenever possible. 

Question 10. Under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, new rules mandate that 

all Federal contractors must take affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and 

retain individuals with disabilities. The new rules established a 7 percent utilization 

goal for individuals with disabilities. They also required increased data collection 

and record keeping to improve employer accountability. This is an important part 

of solving the unemployment and under-employment of people with disabilities. Will 

you commit to enforcing this regulation, which is under the Department of Labor’s 

jurisdiction? 

Answer 10. I certainly support expanding opportunity for the unemployed and 

under-employed generally, including particularly Americans with disabilities. If confirmed, I will comply with that directive. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, 

I will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully 

and fairly, including regulations requiring contractors to improve their equal employment opportunities for disabled Americans. 

Question 11. What steps will you commit to take to continue to vigorously enforce 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, including violations relating to wage theft, and ensure that there is no political interference with the Wage and Hour career staff? 

Answer 11. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, without regard to political pressure, and 

would expect the same commitment from all Department of Labor staff. 

Question 12. Can you ensure that hiring made by the Department of Labor remains strictly non-politicized? 

Answer 12. As I noted at the hearing, political views in the hiring of career attorneys or staff should not be used, and, if confirmed, I will not allow it. The Federal 

Government has merit selection processes that should be followed in hiring career 

staff. 

Question 13. Will you take steps as Secretary of Labor to ensure that decisionmaking about case selection and litigation strategy to enforce labor and employment 

protections is free from improper political influence? What specific steps will you 

take? 

Answer 13. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, without regard to improper political influence. I will make this clear to all staff. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

154 

Question 14. What did you learn from the DOJ hiring scandal that will change 

the way you manage personnel decisions at the Department of Labor? 

Answer 14. Senior leadership in government has to balance external and internal 

demands. I believe I am more hands-on, and more focused on internal matters. I 

have also learned to better oversee and monitor subordinates while not micromanaging their performance. As U.S. attorney, I walked around the office often in order 

to learn what AUSAs were doing. This day-to-day contact was important, and 

helped me better understand and monitor day-to-day AUSA activity. 

Question 15. Do you think employers should be responsible for providing health 

benefits to their employees? 

Answer 15. Many Americans get their health care coverage through their employers and value that benefit. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on health benefit 

issues in the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction and I look forward to working with 

Congress as we develop the Department’s regulatory policies and priorities to promote greater access to health care. 

Question 16. At the end of the Obama administration, the unemployment rate hit 

a 9-year low of 4.6 percent. How do you propose continuing this trend? How will 

you make sure that, if jobs are created, they pay a living wage? Which of President 

Obama’s policies would you like to see sustained? 

Answer 16. Ensuring that all workers are positioned to find a good job and possess the skills needed to succeed and meet the needs of a changing economy will 

be a major priority of mine, if confirmed. Many Americans have left the workforce 

or are under-employed or discouraged. We must restore their faith in the American 

Dream and create the conditions for them to believe they can be more prosperous 

than their parents, as was the case in so many previous generations. 

Question 17. What do you believe an appropriate minimum wage should be? Do 

you believe that the minimum wage should provide employees a path to the middle 

class? 

Answer 17. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in States 

and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and 

other economic factors vary greatly across the United States and that many States 

and localities have increased the minimum wage above the Federal floor. 

Question 18. Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking are 

present in workplaces of all kinds across the United States. Do you believe that domestic violence and sexual assault survivors should be able to take paid time off 

at work in order to seek medical attention, participate in legal proceedings, and seek 

other services related to their victimization? 

Answer 18. Violence of all forms, including gender-based violence, is wrong. Further, gender-based violence can cause psychological issues that impact the employment. I believe expanding job-protected leave would require congressional action 

and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and Congress as discussions regarding leave occur. 

Question 19. Should workers come to work with the flu? Doesn’t coming to work 

sick risk spreading the illness to coworkers? Should workers in this country be guaranteed paid sick leave? Which is a better way for a company to spend five million 

dollars: paid sick leave for all workers or executive bonuses? 

Answer 19. I recognize that many States and localities have implemented paid 

leave laws. I believe attempts to expand paid leave beyond Federal contractors 

would require congressional action. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the 

President and Congress as discussions regarding paid leave occur. 

Question 20. Is sexual harassment in the workplace an issue you could decisively 

oppose and how would you demonstrate your opposition? 

Answer 20. Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal and wrong. If confirmed, I will enforce the laws against sexual harassment that are within DOL’s jurisdiction. 

Question 21a. As Secretary of Labor, would you enforce the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 

Pay Act? 

Answer 21a. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including those portions of the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act that fall within DOL (as opposed to EEOC) jurisdiction. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

155 

Question 21b. What role will the Department of Labor play under your leadership 

in addressing violations of equal pay laws so that women and people of color get 

equal pay for an equal day’s work? 

Answer 21b. Employment discrimination on the basis of sex and race are illegal 

and wrong. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, instead of the Department of Labor, is generally tasked with enforcement of discrimination laws. The Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces presidential 

Executive Order 11246, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment by Federal contractors. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department 

of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly. 

Qiestion 21c. U.S. businesses say they can’t find the qualified workers they need; 

skills attainment is vital to our country’s economic competitiveness. Today’s manufacturing jobs require skills that were not necessary even 5 years ago. As Secretary, 

how would you enhance America’s competitiveness by upskilling our workforce? 

Answer 21c. As our economy innovates and changes, the training we provide must 

do likewise. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on what the Department is doing 

to respond to the needs of a rapidly changing economy, and will focus my attention 

on ensuring that the taxpayer dollars that we invest in such programs are being 

used effectively, efficiently and with a focus on the future of our workforce. Closing 

the skills gap by matching training and employment services to growth industries, 

and expanding access to quality apprenticeships are steps I believe would be a 

major part of enhancing our competitiveness. 

Question 22. Under your leadership, how would intermediary organizations like 

nonprofits help deliver workforce training and connect Americans to employment 

and career advancement? 

Answer 22. Intermediary organizations currently help deliver workforce training 

and connect Americans to employment and career advancement as recipients of 

DOL grant funds. If confirmed as Secretary, I will review all workforce programs 

to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar Congress directs toward employment and job training programs, and I am open to maintaining the role of intermediary organizations in this effort if they are doing the best job. Furthermore, if 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on how such programs and partnerships 

can be leveraged in order to train more workers and place more Americans in prosperous employment. 

Question 23. WIOA Title I prioritizes services to out-of-school youth. Under your 

leadership, will the Department of Labor provide timely technical assistance and 

guidance to States and local communities on effective practice and strategies? 

Answer 23. If confirmed, I believe the Department should strive to be a clearinghouse of best practices and guidance to States and local communities in this area. 

The Department of Labor should take a leadership role in identifying and compiling 

promising practices and evidence-based approaches to improve youth services under 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, 

I will work with the Department of Labor staff to continue to identify and disseminate to States and localities these practices and approaches to serving out-of-school 

youth to make maximum use of Federal taxpayer resources. I expect to be briefed 

on such existing efforts and look forward to working to make sure that programs 

and practices that are most effective are shared and replicated far and wide. 

Question 24. Do you consider it a form of theft when an employer fails to pay a 

worker the wages that worker is entitled to by law? If so, would you therefore agree 

that the Department of Labor should hold employers accountable for such theft? 

How should the Department of Labor hold such employers accountable? 

Answer 24. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed I will work to enforce the laws 

under the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction fully and fairly, including wage and 

hour laws. 

Question 25. Do you think an employer should be able to take punitive action 

against a woman because of her reproductive health decisions? Yes or No? 

Answer 25. A person’s decisions regarding starting a family should be a private 

matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act would 

likely make such decisions illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

156 

Question 26. Do you think an employer should be able to deny a woman insurance 

coverage of birth control? Yes or No? 

Answer 26. The issue of whether contraceptive coverage is required is a matter 

that I understand is subject to litigation and was part of the Affordable Care Act 

and its regulations. 

Question 27. Do you think an employer should be able to ask a female job applicant about whether she intends to become pregnant? Yes or No? 

Answer 27. A person’s decisions regarding starting a family should be a private 

matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act would 

likely make such decisions illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 

Question 28. Do you think an employer should be able to fire, demote or otherwise 

take a punitive employment action against, an unmarried woman who becomes 

pregnant? Yes or No? 

Answer 28. A person’s decisions regarding starting a family should be a private 

matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act would 

likely make such decisions illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. There are some instances where the law allows religious organizations to require fidelity to tenets of the faith as a condition of employment. 

Question 29. Can you tell me your opinion on electronic delivery and what 

changes you would make to any rules and processes, if any and how so? 

Answer 29. I am not clear as to what kind of electronic delivery or Departmental 

program or initiative your question references, so I am unable to answer this question without additional information. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER