U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor
05/01/2024 | News release | Distributed by Public on 05/01/2024 17:15
Hearing Recap: Acting Secretary Su Edition
Today, Acting Secretary Julie Su stepped into the Committee arena for the second time in the 118th Congress to fight for yet another bloated budget request.
Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) opened the hearing by addressing the elephant in the room-Acting Secretary Su's still-pending Senate nomination. She is the longest pending nominee since at least the Civil War. Her status as President Biden's "forever nominee" raises great concerns about the administration's respect for the democratic process.
"Today marks the 417th consecutive day in which you have led the Department of Labor (DOL) as acting secretary without the constitutionally required Advice and Consent of the Senate," said Chairwoman Foxx. "In effectively abrogating the Senate nomination process, the Biden administration has treated the Constitution as but a footnote. That is unacceptable."
Democratic accountability to the people's elected representatives in the Senate aside, Republicans also levied harsh criticism against Acting Secretary Su's record. Su is one of the most extreme, partisan, and controversial heads of DOL in American history, and she was made to answer for her ideologically charged agenda and persistent department mismanagement.
Setting the tone, Chairwoman Foxx issued a warning regarding DOL's lax in-person work schedule. "I intend to serve a subpoena to the Acting Secretary if we do not receive, by May 6th, the Department's return to office plan."
The plan is already three months late per the administration's own guidance. Moreover, if in-person work is expected of taxpayers, it should certainly be expected of those whose salaries they fund. Regrettably, this is not the first time Acting Secretary Su has been forced to comply with Committee requests under threat of subpoena, and it is unlikely to be the last.
Next, Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) questioned DOL's proposed apprenticeship rule, specifically an advisory recommendation it cites as justification. He read from the advisory document that some apprenticeship sponsors are "actively hostile" to hiring minorities.
Naturally, he asked, "Do you agree that some registered apprenticeship programs are racist, and if so, who are they?"
"We should be able to make things here. We invented semiconductors, and there is no reason why we can't be the ones to manufacture them," replied Acting Secretary Su. Huh?
Moving on, Rep. Banks stated that "the recommendations also say that registered apprenticeships have been 'the domain of white, able-bodied men.'" He then asked if Acting Secretary Su agreed.
Spoiler alert, she failed to give a straight answer.
Later, Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) ripped into Acting Secretary Su's pro-union posture, pointing to an April tweet that stated, "If your boss says everyone at work is like family, you might need a union."
Rep. Good asked, "Why would that be?" and "Do you think treating people like family at work is a good thing or a bad thing?"
Acting Secretary Su responded, "I think all working people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect." Ok, sure, but that begs the question: does treating one like family not constitute treating them with dignity and respect?
In a day filled with weasel words and non-answers, Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) was able to extract a rare moment of clarity from the witness. With a massive NYT graph depicting a stark rise in child trafficking under Biden serving as her backdrop, Rep. Miller asked, "Do you believe that open border policies have caused this spike in child trafficking and exploitation. Yes, or no?"
"No," replied Acting Secretary Su. While this response was upsetting, Rep. Miller seemed to be taken aback most by receiving an actual direct answer.
Finally, a flurry of exchanges unfolded involving DOL's job-killing independent contractor rule. The rule will disrupt and damage millions of livelihoods by forcing workers to change unwillingly from 1099 to W-2 status.
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) asked, "Isn't that the choice of the employee?"
"Well…" Acting Secretary Su trailed off.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who at this point has earned the reputation of Su's chief critic, replayed testimony of a Democrat-invited witness testifying before the Committee that independent contractors should, in fact, be reclassified against their will.
He asked, "Do you agree with her?"
"I do not agree that the Acting Secretary of Labor has the authority to force any kind of classification against people's will," replied Acting Secretary Su.
What a perfectly mangled sentence to punctuate a day of confusing testimony. While the Committee may agree DOL should not have such authority, the new rule will do exactly that-force reclassification against people's will.
Bottom Line: Standing accused of bureaucratic waste, ideological agenda-making, burdensome regulatory policies, and a noticeable indifference to responding to oversight, DOL did not send its best today.
"Today marks the 417th consecutive day in which you have led the Department of Labor (DOL) as acting secretary without the constitutionally required Advice and Consent of the Senate," said Chairwoman Foxx. "In effectively abrogating the Senate nomination process, the Biden administration has treated the Constitution as but a footnote. That is unacceptable."
Democratic accountability to the people's elected representatives in the Senate aside, Republicans also levied harsh criticism against Acting Secretary Su's record. Su is one of the most extreme, partisan, and controversial heads of DOL in American history, and she was made to answer for her ideologically charged agenda and persistent department mismanagement.
Setting the tone, Chairwoman Foxx issued a warning regarding DOL's lax in-person work schedule. "I intend to serve a subpoena to the Acting Secretary if we do not receive, by May 6th, the Department's return to office plan."
The plan is already three months late per the administration's own guidance. Moreover, if in-person work is expected of taxpayers, it should certainly be expected of those whose salaries they fund. Regrettably, this is not the first time Acting Secretary Su has been forced to comply with Committee requests under threat of subpoena, and it is unlikely to be the last.
Next, Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) questioned DOL's proposed apprenticeship rule, specifically an advisory recommendation it cites as justification. He read from the advisory document that some apprenticeship sponsors are "actively hostile" to hiring minorities.
Naturally, he asked, "Do you agree that some registered apprenticeship programs are racist, and if so, who are they?"
"We should be able to make things here. We invented semiconductors, and there is no reason why we can't be the ones to manufacture them," replied Acting Secretary Su. Huh?
Moving on, Rep. Banks stated that "the recommendations also say that registered apprenticeships have been 'the domain of white, able-bodied men.'" He then asked if Acting Secretary Su agreed.
Spoiler alert, she failed to give a straight answer.
Later, Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) ripped into Acting Secretary Su's pro-union posture, pointing to an April tweet that stated, "If your boss says everyone at work is like family, you might need a union."
Rep. Good asked, "Why would that be?" and "Do you think treating people like family at work is a good thing or a bad thing?"
Acting Secretary Su responded, "I think all working people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect." Ok, sure, but that begs the question: does treating one like family not constitute treating them with dignity and respect?
In a day filled with weasel words and non-answers, Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) was able to extract a rare moment of clarity from the witness. With a massive NYT graph depicting a stark rise in child trafficking under Biden serving as her backdrop, Rep. Miller asked, "Do you believe that open border policies have caused this spike in child trafficking and exploitation. Yes, or no?"
Finally, a flurry of exchanges unfolded involving DOL's job-killing independent contractor rule. The rule will disrupt and damage millions of livelihoods by forcing workers to change unwillingly from 1099 to W-2 status.
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) asked, "Isn't that the choice of the employee?"
"Well…" Acting Secretary Su trailed off.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who at this point has earned the reputation of Su's chief critic, replayed testimony of a Democrat-invited witness testifying before the Committee that independent contractors should, in fact, be reclassified against their will.
He asked, "Do you agree with her?"
"I do not agree that the Acting Secretary of Labor has the authority to force any kind of classification against people's will," replied Acting Secretary Su.
What a perfectly mangled sentence to punctuate a day of confusing testimony. While the Committee may agree DOL should not have such authority, the new rule will do exactly that-force reclassification against people's will.
Bottom Line: Standing accused of bureaucratic waste, ideological agenda-making, burdensome regulatory policies, and a noticeable indifference to responding to oversight, DOL did not send its best today.