what is being called the iiic summit which includes leaders from central europe the baltic states. he is expected to meet with the presidents of poland and croatia.then he goes to germany for the g 20 summit where he is expected to have his first face-to-face meeting with russian president vladimir putin. other leaders attending the g 20 include chancellor angela merkel of germany, president of china and prime minister of japan. >> now labor secretary alexander acosta testifies about the president's budget request for his department. missouri senator roy blunt, chairs the senate subcommittee hearing. >> the appropriations subcommittee on labor, health, human services, education and related agencies will come to order. first of all good morning secretary acosta. we're glad you're here and appearing before this committee today to discuss your department's fiscal year 2018 budget request. as you know, the budget is significantly challenged in terms of the cuts in your department. i think the proposed cuts of $2.3 billion or about 1/5 of the departments operating level. certainly, while i appreciate and i think many of us appreciate the departments prioritizing, limited resources and making decisions to realign programs. the fundamental question is really what you choose to cut and whether you can possibly look at that number and make an argument as to why that much of your previous budget should be cut this year. it is not the first time these kinds of cuts have common in the department. last year, president obama proposed about the same level of cuts. though he proposed somehow these programs would lean heavily on new mandatory spending for the budget caps in the law then. of course, those budget caps are in the law still. instead of making difficult decisions, it would have been easier according to the last administration, to have new mandatory programs. this year the department has submitted a budget that so significantly cuts programs or eliminate them altogether, it is really hard for us to figure out your priorities. we look forward to visiting with you about that. i have serious concerns about the worker training reductions. particularly, the proposal to cut state grants by 40 percent and close job corps centers. the president recognize that there are millions of jobs in the country that do not have workers with the skills to take the jobs. we need to make certain our workforce training programs and apprenticeship programs equip individuals with the skills they need to meet the workforce needs of today and tomorrow. while there are no easy answers, when it comes to budget limitations, i am concerned that reducing funding so much and so suddenly, and particularly taking so much of that from worker training would further jeopardize our workforce development efforts and our ability to compete with and for better jobs and stronger families. as a fiscal year 2018 appropriations process moves forward, it is my hope to work together with you and everyone on this committee to identify priorities. find common ground and how best to spend the taxpayer money that we are given responsibility for.mr. secretary, i look forward to your testimony but first i would like to go to senator murray for her opening remarks, thank you. before we talk about what i think is an indefensible budget request, i want to reiterate again today how appalling it is that we are now potentially days, if not hours away from voting on legislation that would spike healthcare costs for patients nationwide and kick millions of people off of coverage as we have not seen with these cbo numbers. yet republicans have yet to fully single hearing or any kind of open public debate under regular order. now that we have seen it, it is pretty easy to see why. this is going to be bill and have a tremendous impact on patients and families. so we have on this site remain deeply concerned by that. now this committee has a history of working together in a bipartisan matter and i sincerely hope my colleagues remember that. and i urge their leadership to hold open transparent process of people across the country do have time to understand what is in store for the health and financial security.secretary acosta, while trump care has huge implications for our nations workforce, and i do plan on asking about that, i first want to address the deeply harmful budget request that has been put forward. as i am sure you are aware, connecting workers to sustainable jobs and employers to a skilled workforce has been the department of labor's information for decades. and that is because we know that one of the surest paths to good paying jobs is investing in training and education for in demand skills. our ability as a nation to attract and keep good jobs here at home, and grow our economy will only be realized by tapping into the full potential of our workforce. on the campaign trail, candidate trump promised to put workers first. but as president, he has consistently pursued an antiworker agenda that benefits those at the top and leaves workers and families paying the price. in fact, the president recently announced executive order on apprenticeships would loosen standards that are intended to make your business is getting federal workforce funding actually deliver results. given the trump administration pattern of lining the pockets of corporations and special interest at the expense of workers, it is hard to see this executive order is anything but another family veiled broken promise from the president who promised to put workers first but has failed to do so since day one. the president's budget for the department of labor doubles down on those broken promises. the budget completely disregards the overwhelmingly bipartisan enactment of the workforce innovation and opportunity act in 2014. where republicans and democrats came together to streamline the nation's job-training programs to make sure they are targeted, effective and built to last. instead, president trump's budget proposes deep cuts to those investments that provide over 20 million workers with 21st-century skills they need to succeed in a rapidly changing global economy. the president's budget would mean that 9 million workers, including dislocated coal miners, and the veterans would lose access to those critical services next year. again, these are precisely the working families that he said he would support and protect during his campaign. secretary acosta, although important consumer protections for those saving for retirement will go into effect tomorrow, i do remain concerned that you still intend to revise and weaken those protections. i am hoping you will be similarly guided by the rule of law in addressing the overtime role. this is an opportunity to stand up to political pressure the white house when workers and families needs are on the line. i hope you take it. i do remain deeply concerned about president trump's harmful agenda for workers and the federal investments that help make sure they are safe and have security. democrats are going to continue rigorous oversight to hold you, mr. secretary, and the administration accountable for the damage it has done to worker safety, security and opportunity. i do hope republicans will join democrats and continuing to reject the devastating cuts in the president trump's budget proposal. this as we did in fiscal year 2017 omnibus to continue robust investments in job-training programs that coordinate with the efforts of key workforce partners, business leaders, workforce boards, labor unions, community colleges, nonprofits and state and local officials. to make sure all workers can acquire the skills that they need to get good job and climbed the ladder opportunity and grow the economy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator murray. let's have the chairman of the full committee with us. do you have anything you like to start with? >> mr. chairman, i do have a couple of questions. >> let's get mr. custis testimony and go to questions after that. secretary acosta, we are glad you are here. the secretary is now serving in his fourth presidentially appointed senate confirmed job. most recently, he served as dean of the florida internal international university college of law and secretary, we're glad you're here. this is always a department where you have your hands full but meeting the opportunities of futures is important and we look forward to hearing you talk about that in this budget. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and ranking member murray, chairman cochran, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. if not a trip here to administrate -- supporting the ability of all americans to find good jobs and save jobs is a priority for the president and it is a priority for me. i am proud and i remain humbled and leave the department of labor in this critical work. presently, the unemployment rate is 4.3 percent. that is a 16 year low. one has to get back to 2001. this is great news. another very important statistic however, is that they are presently 6 million job openings in the united states. that is the highest number since the department of labor started keeping records and open jobs. we can get more americans back to work if we match those who are looking for work with these available jobs. during my short time as secretary of labor i have heard for many business leaders, governors, mayors and just americans. they all say there is a skills gap. summit workers just don't have the right training to step into many of these vacant positions. the apprenticeship model is a good solution to narrowing the skills gap. as has been mentioned, it is bipartisan. president trump knows the value of apprenticeships from his many years of experience in the building trades. the president also knows that this is a model that works across many industries and should be expanded across industries both in terms of breadth and scale. high quality, and i emphasize high quality apprenticeships, amiable employers to be involved in training their future workforce so they can be sure new hires possess the skills needed to do the job. it is called demand driven education. apprentices who seek wages and just importantly, skills that enable them to thrive in today's workforce. they earn while they learn. according to the department of labor statistics, graduates of apprenticeship programs have a high average starting wage of $60,000. that is higher than the typical college graduate. they are likely to have a job upon completion of their program and often receive certificates recognizing their education that are portable across industry. president trump's executive order on spending apprenticeships has the department of labor and other agencies to paved the way for more apprenticeships. getting americans back to work also requires eliminating other programs that are less effective in helping americans get jobs. there are many programs intended to help americans find were trained for jobs but some are duplicative and proven or ineffective. the department is committed to streamlining programs based on rigorous analysis of data to assess program effectiveness. the department also believes that giving states more flexibility to administer department resources in a way that best suits the state needs will ensure that resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible. the department believes a vast majority of the employers across the nation are responsible actors. fully committed to following worker protection laws for the department has placed part in helping american employers understand and remain in compliance with the laws. but departments likewise takes very serious responsibility to enforce the law. enforcement must go hand-in-hand with compliance assistance. we will vigorously enforce the law against wrongdoers.a good job should also be a safe job. the budget includes funding increases of nearly $17 million to the apartments work protection agencies to support these goals. we will focus the department of labor on the core mission by making smart investments in programs that work.the budget makes hard but responsible choices. it eliminates programs that are less effective or less efficient and dedicates taxpayer dollars to those that we know that are successful. americans want good and safe jobs. the department is here to support americans desire to gain and hold these jobs. the budget restores the department to this fundamental mission. investing in programs know to be successful. the proposals are evidence-based and reflect the seriousness and with which the administration is taking these responsibilities. let me say in closing, i understand, mr. chairman. your remarks. and i understand that going back year after year, the budget is a starting point and as in the past, we look forward to working with your committee as we go forward. on discussions regarding these issues. the focus has and will have to be on detecting america's workers. and so thank you for the opportunity to be here. >> thank you mr. secretary. we will have a five minute round of questions. i am sure they will be time for a second round if people have more than five minutes of time to use. if you would stay pretty close to that, and i know the chairman is here and has some questions so i will ask my questions after senator kennedy. i will come near the end. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i understand the department is close to finalizing a memorandum of agreement with the city of gulfport regarding the rebuilding of the job corps center in gulfport. can you update us on the status of that situation and share with the committee, the estimated completion, if you know that on the gulfport job corps center? >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the question. the department remains committed to serving the youth of the gulfport community. and we appreciate the support that you have offered. it has been very important as we move forward. as you mentioned, we are working with the consulted parties to develop the memorandum of understanding and memorializing the plan that has been discussed. we anticipate that it will be signed sometime this summer. most likely. possibly within the next six days and it will be followed by the design and construction phase, assuming that the budget allows us to go forward. if you would like, i am more than happy to ensure that the department keeps your step up to date with the progress. as those discussions continue. >> thank you. we would appreciate that. let me also ask you to share with the committee, the number of mississippi businesses and schools who have expressed concern about over burdensome and costly regulations including overtime.joint employer and fiduciary roles that have been issued by the department. what is the department doing to evaluate complaints like that? particularly those that are small businesses in rural areas of our state. what are you doing to take steps, if any, to alleviate concerns about burdensome regulations by the previous administration? >> mr. chairman, i don't have the precise number of businesses and schools that have sent letters to the department. i will say this, the department has received correspondence from many businesses. not only mississippi but around the nation. regarding the burden on regulations and the department is examining the regulations that are currently on the books. the department is working to ensure that the regulations that are presently in effect are necessary. to the extent that some are outdated or unnecessary, the department will look at those regulations and determine how to proceed. >> thank you. chairman. senator murray. >> thank you very much. secretary acosta, as you know i am deeply disappointed as many are that trump care is planned to be jammed through the senate this week and obviously, the cbo numbers, millions of people lose health insurance, costs will rise. as you probably know, this is going to have a devastating impact on jobs as well the quest the country in our communities where a lot of the rural hospitals are telling us that because of the loss of dollars they will likely shut their doors or become much smaller. as well as nursing homes telling us of the devastating impact.have you shared with the president any of those job loss numbers? >> senator murray, i do not at present specific jobless numbers with respect to the healthcare industry. but let me say this more generally, i think the issue is a little more complicated and a little more subtle.because at the same time that some jobs may be reduced, any other jobs will be created. one concern that we have heard from employers is the financial burden imposed by high healthcare costs. >> i have not seen any analysis that shows a job increase as a result of this bill. and i think that what we are hearing a line of is the job losses. to me, that deeply disconcerting. i hope your agency is sharing that with the president. let me ask you about the job training cuts. because a few weeks ago, president trump signed an executive order commemorating workforce development week. what we see in the budget is that is tcn. those are programs that help millions of workers find jobs every year. the same work as the president promised to support. experts estimate that your cuts would mean 9 million adult youth and dislocated workers and veterans will lose access to job training and states will is over $1 billion in direct support for worker training. that is a 40 percent cut to the nation's job training system that governors are telling us they cannot absorb. so i'm really disappointed that these are in here. i have heard you say that they are duplicative and ineffective. but not only did congress streamlines training programs will be right there workforce innovation opportunity act, but evidence now shows that 80 percent of the adults find jobs after training. so tell me why this major cut is in this after congress worked really hard, streamlined the bill, cut out the ineffective things and did it so in a bipartisan way. and now your budget because all of the support for that? >> senator, thank you for the question. let me begin by thanking congress was prior worker because it was a bipartisan bill that took several important steps. both in streamlining programs and in returning to the states funding so that states can work with greater flexibility. the current budget proposes to further increase the flexibility to the states and how they can allocate their money, which is an important action. ultimately, governors and localities are those that can provide - that can best focus the money within their jurisdiction. >> governors are telling us nationwide, that they don't support this cut to these investments in job training. they say they don't have the ability to make the federal dollars up in their own budgets. they do not support this budget. >> and so as i was a senator, i understand. flexibility is certainly important. as a chairman indicated, the budget certainly and historically, the proposals have been - have looked to reduce this benefit because ultimately as a federal government, we need to find ways to reduce spending. these are taxpayer dollars. i am certainly willing to work with the committee as the committee looks at this more closely to discuss priorities and to discuss how to best proceed with respect to this budget. let me say one last thing. as a general rule, i think sometimes there is a tendency - will want metrics. and we all judge success based on the level of spending. i see this in universities where universities sometimes judge their success by expenditures per student. >> nobody's trying to do that here. what we have done in continue to want to do is invest in jobs in the communities. to give people skills they need and this budget does not do it. i'm out of time but i have to tell you this isn't about dollars increase. this about major cuts to people and their inability to get the skills they need. >> thank you senator murray. senator alexander. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome. democrats have set some records for delaying president trump's cabinet nominees. president trump is setting records were not sending of sub cabinet nominees for us to consider. under president obama he had sent 10 department of labor nominees by now. the president trump has sent - when will we get more nominations for your department? >> senator, mr. chairman, i appreciate the question. i can say this. i am approaching my own listed a market secretary. i have set a personal goal to have the vast majority of my sub - sub department, the leadership identified and in clearance by the 60 day mark. i believe that the goal is something that can be reached. ultimately, they do have to go through background checks and clearance. >> i know, but i would just urge the white house, the president and you. this is the sentence opportunity to confirm, invent, question is nominees. we want to do that. we can move them quickly through the committee if you would do it. let me go to a second. i want to ask you to respond to this.i want to just give you my opinion to consider on the so-called overtime rule. that was a bad rule. here were the problems with it. the rapid rate of increase, the salary threshold was set to double overnight. the top number was $47,000. just too high for many parts of the country and i think it would be wise to consider a different top level for different parts of the country. it caused a normal hard to nonprofits, especially colleges and universities tell me they would have to raise tuition by a large amount to accommodate it. it included annual increases in only two months notice. annual increases might be a good idea but not with two months notice. i would urge you to show us to write a good overtime regulation as you consider this. one that takes those issues into account. there are thousands and thousands of colleges, universities, boy scout troops and businesses that hope you will do the same. my question is, about your apprenticeship order. i salute your interest in that and the president interest in it. and i look forward to supporting it. i want question about it, the executive order allows you to deny access to the expansion of apprenticeship program. for certain sectors that have already ineffective and widespread apprenticeship programs. is not directed at the construction industry? do you plan to exempt the construction industry from your executive order? >> senator, thank you for the comments and questions. first, let me say going to your earlier comment that this morning department of labor transmitted to omb, a request for information regarding the overtime role. once approved by omb, the request would ask the public to comment on a number of questions that would inform our thinking with respect to many of the issues that you raised. now moving to the president's executive order, the president is well familiar with apprenticeships, particularly in the building trades and is aware of the success of apprenticeships in the building trades. >> by the associated builders and contractors say 500,000 unfilled jobs for skilled construction workers. what would you consider exempting the construction industry if you are? >> center, if i can comment on that. so the executive order provides the secretary of labor with discretion to look at particular industries. and if the current program is effective and widespread. it's a do no harm provision if a program is currently working and would not benefit from wider expansion, then there is discretion to not fix what is not broken. so regulations will have to be presented that implement that. and those regulations would govern how that particular provision - >> i understand that but you have an intention to exempt the construction industry at this moment? >> senator, i have an intention to create regulations that will provide rules for the road on how that provision will be adopted. >> well my time is - i have nine seconds. if there are 500,000 unfilled jobs for construction workers today, i would hope they wouldn't - that would be evidence that there is room for apprenticeship programs in the construction industry. >> we would agree. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. >> thank you mr. senator, thank you for being here and for your good work. many people from this administration have attacked the bureau of labor statistics as phony, fictitious and a hoax when they don't like the data presented to them. for instance, at a rally in iowa at the president-elect said the un-implement number as you know is totally fiction. and a few months earlier, he says you here five percent on employment rate, it is a phony number. this march, the omb director mulvaney i even accused the obama administration manipulate the numbers to make the unemployment rate look smaller. these are really dangerous attacks on government data generally in your department in particular. i know you are a data-driven leader and so i want to ask you, the bureau of labor statistics has existed for more than 130 years to provide independent, unbiased and rigorous data on employment in the country. they uses accurately and form a public and these attacks degrade the public trust. and so, i want to give you as much leeway as possible because i understand you were for trump administration. this is not a set of question in order to get you sideways with any member of your administration. but i would like to hear from you, what you think about the bureau of labor statistics, the accuracy. not just under your leadership over time. >> center, a breach of the question. and let me i guess, make three points. first, all the statistical agencies within the government, not just the bureau of labor statistics, but there are several about and a half a dozen statistical agencies. they serve an incredibly important role. in fact, they have particular protections that are given them by omb. to safeguard them from administration to administration and those are important protections because the data is used over time by researchers and sending policy. and i think it is very important to protecting the integrity of the data. one of the issues coming out of bls is that there are six measures of unemployment. that they produce. at least six and then several sub measures. some of which are more narrow and some of which are broader. and so, sometimes when folks refer to the unemployment range which, as i just did earlier today, of 4.3 percent i was referring to the u3 figure. and then of course there is the u6. -- if we don't do more to bring folks into the labor force. and so, i think sometimes when folks challenge the number, what's really going on is that particular numbers measure those things that they are intended to measure. and they do so professionally. but what they measure may not necessarily be what is being discussed.so we have a very low unemployment rate, but we need to get americans back to work. if you look at the labor workforce, participation rate, enough americans are not working. they have given up. and so, the multiplicity of numbers can sometimes create confusion. >> so i just ask and i understand that point, given the benefit of the doubt to some of the political leaders who characterize the numbers in a way to validate a point. sometimes a valid point sometimes is a point in the context of an election. but that is all to gain. i want to be sure that the secretary of labor stands up for not just 's department and not just bls, generally for the agencies that collect data. because there is something more insidious going on. if the only point being made is haloed, is a low employment rate but that doesn't tell you the whole story. fair enough. but, if people are being told by their leaders at the highest level that the government is lying to them, that's a whole different proposition. and it is your job to stand up for the people who create these data sets. >> i deeply respect the integrity and importance of data sets. they set policy. they are used by senators like yourself and others here. and i hear your point. >> thank you. >> thank you senator shot. senator langford. >> thank you. good to see you again glad you're here and thank you for your continued service. can you give me insight on the path forward on joint employer in the definition when things are going in the ongoing conversation - >> senator i can do so. the department of labor has withdrawn the guidance that is been previously issued on the joint employer. that guidance had been issued in january 2016 and discuss the agencies rejection of the common law concepts. that is no longer in effect in the department of labor now. the national labor relations board as the senator is aware, does not come within the department of labor's jurisdiction. chairman alexander early reference the national labor relations board and denominations. as the national labor relations bills, i would suspect that is an issue they will have to take up. and decide how to proceed. that's great, so everything is on hold at this point, pending that? >> department of labor, the guidance has been withdrawn. and so that is the portion of the issue within the jurisdiction of the department of labor. i'm talking about the fiduciary role in the conversation. this is another when you where you have to have cooperation with another entity and try to figure how this will work. where is that conversation right now? >> previously, the - did not work with the department of labor. as i indicate quite publicly, i think they have important expertise and they need to be part of the conversation. i asked that the chairman of the sec, if they would be willing to work with us. the chairman indicated his willingness to do so. and it is my hope as the sec also receives a full complement of commissioners, that the sec will continue to work with the department of labor on this issue. >> you mentioned in your opening statement about enforcement. this committee i would tell you, would expect that. that if their safety issues, we do want to be able to maintain enforcement. the law is there for a reason and will not be able to maintain it. you can go back as far as the clinton administration when al gore led an effort across the nation and working with regulators to try to bring down the tone of the regulators. and those inspectors that are coming in.i hear pretty consistently that folks used to come in to help us, now they come into fineness. especially from small businesses. and the abundance of new regulations that have come in the last several years. they asked a simple question, can we have some mercy? if we missed something, come tell us but do not come in with a fine. come in with a warning. i will ask only, if we can work through this on the days ahead and i have a bill that deals with this issue specifically to mandate it. especially for small businesses. if they miss something they do not have an attorney on staff. they do not have compliance people on staff. they run their business and it is extremely helpful with the attitude of enforcement individuals that come in to help people rather than just to be able to find your and you have comments on that? >> i do senator, at the same time that i raised the point about enforcement, in the paragraph before that i talked about compliance assistance. the point i was making is that compliance assistance i think is very important. we need enforcement to go hand in hand but compliance assistance at the end of the day, i believe can bring about sometimes greater compliance. when i was united states attorney, i would talk to chambers and say look, we can prosecute cases. but preventing wrongdoing in the first place is more successful. isn't it better to have a traffic light that prevents accidents rather than give people tickets after the accident has occurred? so the current budget requests an increase in compliance assistance within osha for example. and just this morning, the department also announced the return of opinion letters. within the wage and hour division. opinion letters had been in use for 70 years up until 2010. they are a mechanism and by which small businesses and others can write and ask a question, how does this work? because sometimes they do not know the answer. and those opinion letters had been discontinued and we announced this morning that we are going to reinstate those. >> are you doing any kind of shuffling within your own staff to be able to look at to make sure you have people in the right spots? >> one of the reasons that the health care bill is about to be pending before the senate is how stunningly unpopular is that the president, your boss, talked consistently during the campaign and after the campaign about the healthcare reform bill, or repeal of the affordable care act that would not cause anyone to lose insurance. promises made over and over again that more people would be insured after this process was finished then under the affordable care act. and cbo confirmed again yesterday that under the senate bill 22 million people across this country, the global population of 16 your states would lose their health care insurance. and speaking to your portfolio, mr. secretary, the effect is on individuals with employer sponsored health care and those who are getting their insurance through other means. there's a recent article in the atlantic which says come headlight is how the gop health care bill would affect people insured through work and the sub headline is your people would sign up for employer-sponsored plans and few employers would offer coverage. millions would lose employer-sponsored healthcare. according to the cbo estimates. given the promises that were made by many of my colleagues and by the president himself i yes, i have a pretty simple question for you. do you think that the purpose or the outcome of healthcare reform should be to ensure more or less americans? >> senator, healthcare reform, and has a look at this healthcare bill, we are asking how can we go forward as a nation with the bill that respects individual choice. ultimately, senator murray raised a question about health as well, and as we look at the workplace what issue that certainly i think we need to consider is what does this do in terms of jobs, and does the multiplicity of expenses that are put on employers create a disincentive to higher? and so certainly to respect individual choice and we also need to consider whether were going to be creating jobs by impact reducing the costs of many of these programs that do place burdens on the economy as a whole. >> let me restate the question. insurance is really important to people. they prefer jobs that have insurance. do you think that the purpose of healthcare reform should be to ensure more people or less people? >> senator, again, the purpose of healthcare reform is to ensure that individuals have access to insurance choice. and i guess, you know, i pushed back because sometimes there's an effort to measure based on how much we spend or how many people are covered rather than to measure based on our folks getting jobs, or are we respecting individuals choices. once i do think it's important to provide individuals with choice. >> you were not suggesting that as a 22 million people that lose insurance, the majority of those people are choosing to lose insurance? >> what i'm suggesting is that we have a health care system that imposes a number of mandates, and that is, as a nation, getting increasingly, increasingly expensive, and i'm encouraging congress to work to address those issues. i think it's an incredibly, it's one of the most important issues we are facing. healthcare is becoming more costly. individuals are finding that they cannot afford what is in essence a broken system. and i think it's very important that it be addressed in a way that makes it effective in the long term. >> i appreciate your comments. i would just say for the record cbo does not come to the conclusion that 23 million people, 22 million people million people are going to lose coverage because they are exercising their right to decline coverage. they admit that there will be a small portion of healthy individuals who may choose to go without healthcare, but they also come to the conclusion that the vast bulk o of the 22 millin are losing healthcare because they simply cannot afford it. because the cost and the republican health care bill will spiral 20% premium increases in the first year, 400% premium increases for older americans such that it is completely and totally unaffordable. so i understand your comments about choice. that's not what cbo says is the main cause of why these numbers are absolutely catastrophic. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator murphy. senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i think that's exactly what the cbo report says. let me go back just quickly to a question that senator alexander asked you, because i'm not sure about the answer, that the president's executive order, which i applaud, do you plan to exempt the construction industry from it? >> senator, the president's executive order provides discretion to the secretary of labor to enact regulations that will dive decision-making into whether -- >> secretary, get that part. you're going to issue regulations. are those going to exempt the construction industry? >> senator, under the administrative procedures act, i need to issue regulations. i would then need to apply those regulations to a particular fact pattern. i will say this. ththe president is looking to expand apprenticeships across all industries. the president is looking to expand -- expand apprenticeships -- >> i understand all that and i appreciate it. i'm really not trying to be rude but we are given five minutes. if you don't want to answer the question, just tell me. >> senator, i am trying to answer the question. and my point is that the president's executive order to extend something is working as i want to disturb a come to the extent something is not working, is looking to expand it. and i will have to be determined. >> i get it. let's move on. when you became secretary did you find waste in your budget? >> senator, there is certainly, there are certain ways of reducing and saving money within any agency, yes. >> well, you cut $2.6 billion out, right? your budget, am i right on that? >> senator, the budget request does seek a reduction of 2.6 billion. >> do you support all of those cuts? >> senator, i acknowledge that we as a government need to reduce spending, and so i do think it's important that we reduce spending, yes. >> i do, too. i agree with you on that. we're spending $434 million on the senior community service employment program. could you briefly tell me what that does? >> senator, there are a number of programs within the training and employment services budget, and overtime different areas have developed programs of their own. one of the things that we're looking to do is to streamline the different programs so that -- >> what's that program do, mr. secretary? >> the senior community employment services program is to some extent, one-third of its participants predation let me put it this way. does it exist to transition seniors into unsubsidized employment? >> yes, it does, senator. >> okay. that was easy. why do we need to spend $434 million to do that? >> well, senator, as i was saying there are a number of programs that have developed over time focus on different groups within our country. and those programs are important, but we can merge them, streamline them and make them part of larger programs. and so one of the things that the budget looks to do is to streamline. there are well over 40 different jobs training programs within the administration, and merging those would be a cost-saving measure. >> look, i agree with you. i'm on your side, mr. secretary. you been here a long time, longer than i have but i driven over a good portion of washington. i can't find the money tree. maybe it's in a warehouse somewhere. i mean, the topic majority is healthcare which is extremely important for our country. nobody would deny that. but the question is not should we add more people are less people. the question is, how many people can we afford to ensure what the amount of taxpayer money that we have? and i appreciate your approach and appreciate the president approach because that is what is being lost in all this debate. we are borrowing $1 million a minute to run this place. $1.4 billion a day. and i listen to people say at this, at that come like we're spending west virginia ditch water instead of taxpayer money. so i find your approach refreshing. i thank you for it. i wasn't trying to be rude. i'm just trying to get within my five minutes. and your welcome. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator. >> we assume there is more value to west virginia ditch water than other ditch water, so that's all good. senator durbin. >> mr. secretary, thank you for joining a. >> with a problem in chicago, gun violence. it's primarily among young people, primarily minority populations. we also find something else. there's a 40% unemployment rate among young blacks in chicago, 40%. 20% or higher in latino populations and we find something pretty amazing. if we can get many of these young people in a job, trained for in a job, does amazing things. changes in their lives. i'm not making it up. a few weeks ago i went to the urban league office and met with curtis martin. curtis martin is exhibit a in what you'd expect return it to be a gang bang, imprisoned but he's not. it's because he got in a program financed by the federal government and guide them into a job. is working nights at ups. it's not easy work but he's damn proud of it and he told us that. and he's talking about going back to school now. it's a good thing. now i look at your budget and your cutting this program by 20%. you know, the president noticed the violence in chicago and tweeted about it a couple of occasions that i'd like to read you what the president said. january 24, if chicago doesn't fix the horrible carnage going on, 220 shootings in 2017 with 4217 with 42 killings, up 24% from 2016, i'll send in the feds. then february 23, the president tweeted seven people shot and killed yesterday in chicago. what is going on there? totally out of control. chicago needs help, the president tweeted. how does a 20% cut in a program like the one that helped curtis martin help chicago? >> so let me say a few things, senator. first, i appreciate your point as u.s. attorney. i took steps to address gun violence using prosecutions, but one of the points that it is ultimately prosecutions are not the solution. we need to find jobs, and we need to encourage young people to graduate high school and to have skills. and that something that i talked about greatly. just in the past week i had the opportunity to meet with workforce development council at the national conference of mayors, and then i met with local officials at the national association of latino elected officials, later this week and condominium with representatives of some of the groups. many of whom face similar issues with economically challenged regions. and my message to all of them is let's work together. let's develop apprenticeships that will focus on these populations because the best thing that we can do for them is to provide them a pathway to a job at giving them job skills. i understand that the budget, to go to your question, i understand the budget reductions are an issue. and so we're looking at ways that we can make the programs more efficient and more effective and work with the private sector. >> i hate to interrupt you but i've one more question. i'm just going to say this. i would like to invite you to chicago. i want you to come to the programs that you proposed to be cut. what you to meet the people or in those programs. when we say send in the feds, i can agree with the president, i want to send you in. come on over to chicago, take a look at what your programs are doing with what the cut for me. second. what to make. h-1b1 visas come to allow skilled workers to come into the united states come if they did not displace american jobs. exhibit a, a pharmaceutical company in chicago. they announced the 150 of their i.t. workers are been was -- with them for years that they were being terminated, 150 terminated. and he was the deal. they were terminated or would get an extra benefit for the termination of one month of paper every year of work if it agreed to two things. first, that they don't say anything publicly about being fired, and secondly, they train their replacements. their replacements were h-1b1 visa holders from india. it turns out more than have the h-1b visas go to to make outsourcing companies in india. what were their h-1b work is going to do? they're going to replace the american workers. so these pharmaceutical employees were required to train their replacements on the job as they walked out the door, the americans walked out the door. and then the jobs are outsourced to india after these workers were trained. president talked about that in his campaign. he thought it was outrageous. i do, too. i think it ought to be changed or senator grassley and i have a reform bill, but the president wait until after the word of h-1b visas issued an asset in an agency review which i believe involve your department. how many meetings have had in the review of hb one visas? >> matt answer? let me address both your points. first, i gladly will join you in chicago i think it's very important and i do want julie washington soon and travel and understand all the issues facing american workers. so gladly. with respect to h-1b, we've been talking about this quite vigorously. and let me make two points. first, i think what happened as you describe it is offensive. and those are strong words and those senators that if heard me speak before know that i made use those words, it means something and it is offensive. we have scoured the law for options internally on how to address situations like those. and, unfortunately, our hands, our ability is limited but there is in addition to the larger bill that i'm aware of, there are some very simple fixes. there's a $60,000 threshold in the h-1b area. it's interesting because congress talks about it. i've talked about it and responded to questions with respect to overtime and others come and i said it gets more expensive. when you have a dollar threshold it should be updated over time. but congress has not updated that $60,000 threshold over time. if congress were to update that simply for inflation it would bring up to well over $80,000. and many, if not most, of the situations like you identified would be a limited because they would not be within, they would be below that $60,000 threshold. and so perhaps when it was enacted way back when, that was the appropriate threshold but i would encourage the senator to look at that issue because i can't imagine how one explains to an american worker that they have to train their foreign replacement and it has happened again and again and again. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, what you meant there, i think what i believe you said was if the amount was updated, they would be below the updated $60,000, which would now be something close to 80? >> it would be above add and that is correct. if i did not that clearly, that was my error. >> i think he may said it would be below the $60,000 threshold but you meant the it would be bw the updated -- >> a would be below the updated, correct. >> something to talk about and think about. let me ask a couple of veterans questions. one that congress passed and jeff in your department a higher vets act to create some recognition and some standards that employers to figure how to higher vets and in the second question on that topic is the concerns that gao had with the current veterans employment efforts being made by the department before you got the kurds would you want to talk about both of those things? >> gladly, trent you and let me just say i'm reminded that congress has updated that figure since 1998, things have gotten more expensive, so 1990s. with respect respect to the hire vets act, it's interesting because i was very excited when i saw the hire vets acting as i think it's really important we recognize employers and i said okay, so what are we doing for this veterans day? i was told that the regulations couldn't be done by this veterans day and i said, it can't take that long to possibly write regulations for awards. and so we are expediting thin. but i should also say that, that the rules call for the request for nominations to go out in january. and so we may not be able to do this year even if we can move the regulations quickly because of the very rules in the statute, in which case i may take it upon myself just that its discretion authority give the equivalent this veterans day because i don't want to wait another year and a half to do this. >> good answer. this is sort of like the leads a standard recognition you get for energy efficiency. this would be you are establishing standards for employers in the relationship to how the hire vets, what kind of credit they get for training and the service and other things. what about the criticism of the current efforts being made by the department for veterans? i think one of the criticisms was that there's a lack of transparency with regard to the extent for which a veterans employment training services are actually meeting performance goals, and there were others in that gao report. >> so senator, one of the issues around a veterans jobs services is that they're scattered around the executive branch and one of the issues were looking at is doesn't make it -- doesn't make sense to consolidate them in some way, shape, or form. there are at least three different executive branch agencies that are responsible for veterans, jobs, education and working with veterans here and that does lead to some level of confusion. i will say this. it's a top priority. these individuals served, served their nation and they deserve not just to be treated with respect but they deserve to have a job when they arrived here. let me just add one additional issue because i know that this committee a properly -- appropriated funds to look at certifications among the various states. and one issue that i've been made aware of that it think is very important in this area is a veteran can be, a servicemember can be trained in the army, for example, to drive a commercial truck in fallujah. yet they come stateside and they may not have the ability to drive a commercial truck in a particular state because states have different licensing requirements. and one of the concerns that i have and one question that i have is can look at ways of working with states so that the recognize military licenses and certifications. >> that takes me perfectly to my next question, which is in fy '16 and 17, this bill included $7.5 million to continue establishing some sort of consortium state and certainly at the top of the priority list with the skills you learn while serving the country, right at the with that our spouses that move from state to state as their spouses are transferred from one military base to the other. so that would be a second criteria, may be even more important to the active service than the first criteria. and the third would be generally, what are we doing so that when somebody moves across the river from illinois to missouri, that they bring the skills with them, that there some reciprocity or understanding of that? and again the department has been asked to straight years now to do that. >> mr. chairman, the department -- >> of course you were not there but what you going to do about? >> the department has been asked. i know that report is due that has been funded by those appropriations this fall. i can tell the chairman of that i've been talking with my own staff about this for the last two to three weeks since i first learned about it. because particularly and the veteran site i don't know how you justify telling someone it was okay for you to drive a truck full of explosives but it's not okay for you to drive a truck full of coca-cola and pepsi. and that's something that's very difficult to swallow and something that i certainly think is a priority and will commit to working with the national governors association and others that did receive this funding. i know there's consortium of ten states that is being put together, and i've already talked to my staff about tapping into that to make sure that it proceeds expeditiously as much as possible. >> inky. senator graham and senator rubio and then senator capito is the list i have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you asked, senator murphy, about how many people would drop coverage voluntarily i guess the lack of a better word. the cbo report indicates to me, maybe i'm reading it wrong, that 15 million people would drop coverage today because there will be no fines if they don't provide come if they are not covered. do you understand it that way? >> senator, i have not, let me say this. the cbo report is something that before i comment speedy do you know the answer to my question? >> senator -- >> my question is, it's my belief that the cbo report says that 15 million americans would drop the covert sent today because they won't have to pay a fine because it will eliminate the fine. >> , i will not contest your bullet. >> i may be wrong but check it out. you have to answer right now. are you the money with the returning worker problem of h-2b visa program? >> sim, senator. >> you have the authority as i understand it to fix that problem. in other words, legislatively except for last year congress has said the returning workers are not counted against the cap. do you intend to fix that? >> senator, let me address that in two ways because this is an important issue. first, congress this year empowered the secretary kelly in consultation with me to increase that cap. secretary kelly has announced his intent to increase that amount by up to about 18,000 visas, which would be the highest level that we've seen in a number of years. along with that though, i think it's important to say that congress looks at this year by year, and rather than respectfully rather than fixing the issue, sort of says the administration can do it if you would like to come and then calls the administration and says please increase it. and i think it's very important that congress address this. there are specific fixes that can be -- >> until we get there, but you do have the authority i guess with secretary kelly did not count returning orders against the cap, is that correct or not? >> i believe the statute instead says that we can increase the cap by up to the amount of returning workers, and doubly secretary kelly has already indicated his intent to do so. >> do you support that? >> yes. sector and i stand shoulder to shoulder. >> give the suggestions of how we can fix this problem ourselves. >> i will gladly to sit down, have our staff cedilla just because i do think it's a disservice to the businesses into the individual workers to go through this every single year. >> i'm very open minded to helping you fix that one last thing frequently. artificial intelligence. did you say it would be 50 years before we would feel the effect of artificial intelligence in terms of disrupting the labor force, or was that somebody else? >> i have no idea. >> it wasn't you. >> it certainly wasn't me. >> good. amid bending of the guy. i don't know who it was. do you believe it will be 50 50 years before artificial intelligence significant disrupts the workforce? >> senator, you know, i've heard this, this from time to time from various sources. and i'll say this. we've been saying that technology is going to disrupt and displays the labor force since i think technology was first invented. >> right. >> and ultimately that plow met fewer people had to plow a field, but ultimately it changes the nature of the labor force and that's why it's so important to have -- >> is there a plan within the department of labor to look specifically at the disruptive nature of artificial intelligence in the coming decade? >> senator, we started speaking about the changing nature of the workforce, the increasing use of alternative methods of employment, the economy and that something we're already talking about. >> does it include looking at artificial intelligence? >> yes, it does. >> okay. thank you very much. >> senator manchin. >> thank you, secretary, for being here. appreciate it very much. secretarknow about the miners p. my colleague and i introduced a bill to protect the miners pension protection act. i guess what i'm asking is the department of labor activity working on solutions for this problem because that's going to be a terminus problem by 2022. >> senator, it is going to be a tremendous problem, and we are actively working on developing a solution for this and for the broader issues that this touches upon. >> do you have recommendations for the bankruptcy laws that need to be changed so that human beings will be protected more so than financial institutions? >> trend that i don't have recommendations at this time. >> would you -- >> we are looking at options and where discussing them. >> the mine safety health administration funding request underline premise is to prevent minor fattah was an accident. whole money is a dangerous occupation. to date in 20179 miners have perished in coal mines including five in west virginia, i was covered at the time we had some horrific losses. president trump 375 million for mine safety coalition against an increase of 374. i guess i guess i would ask your plan come to think you the necessary resources, and authority to prevent future mine the catalyst? >> senator, as you indicated, the budget is relatively unchanged for that and we do believe we have the necessary resources. >> how do you intend to encourage the environment in which my state inspectors and mine employees are encouraged to speak up about violations? do you all have a plant along those lines? i think more specifically, this awful lot of, oh, mentality if you will around a mindset that some people in the same thing because they're afraid of losing their job. there's other mine operators of basically encourage someone if you see something wrong and you can fix it, please do so if it entails even shutting down the mine for a period of time. have you all wait in and this? >> senator, so there is sometimes i think notches in money but several industries an unfortunate reticence to report issues. and i think that something that we are always looking to address and fight against. i should also say that it something you see particularly in the mining area is frequent inspections to try to identify safety issues. and so even when they are not reported in the ideal case, in fact, in most cases the inspections do turn up the safety issues. >> occupational safety and health administration, osha, plays a critical role in ensuring our workers are safe in the workplaces. unfortunately the president by to request both includes a small cut to ocean ships to focus away from enforcement and inspections. inspections. it would cut 26 employees and conduct almost 1002 inspections. osha resources all restraint and to be workers are being put in danger. in (201)510-4236 workers were killed on the job across the country. 4836 workers were killed on jobs across our country. so i ask sector, given the danger summary workers face in the workplaces, why do believe the department of labor shifting osha resources away from inspections, don't you think this might endanger more workers? >> well, senator, if i could, the osha, if i could, the osha budget does ship net approximate $2 million into compliance system. that does reflect a belief that some of the programs that are long-standing, that work with particular companies to foster an industry, foster compliance assistance, may produce, not made, but the evidence shows actually do produce better safety outcomes. and so it's net about $2 million shipped. >> well, how would you -- if you're focusing, looks like your shift is focusing away from enforcement inspections. why would it be safer? >> senator, let me just say it's not, when you're talking about funding request of $543 million, a $2 million shift, with the due respect, is pretty under 1%. and that is so that we can find the bdp program that has in fact, been shown to be very successful working with companies and saying look, these are the steps you need to take so that you can provide a safe workplace. and so as i said at the opening, the fact that we are engaged in compliance assistance from the were telling people what they need to do to have a safe workplace doesn't mean that we are in the last enforcement. it just means that we are respecting them saying this is what you need to do. if they don't do it anywhere so they going to force a. >> your focus is still on safety belt. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> if you have time to be a second round of questions. senator rubio. >> thank you for being here. i don't know if we can get through this and five mr. one of the topics is at the cutting edge of what will confront labor for you to convert a lot of our debates have been historically over the last few years treating some of the challenges to work in america as a were undergoing some sort cyclical challenger this is not correct this is a to structural. the industrial revolution,, except it's happening every three years instead of over 50 year timeframe. the destruction are extraordinary, fast, difficult to predict and anticipate. sensenator graham as to artificl intelligence. the same is true for automation in general. we had these debates about bringing factories back to mexico. that would be great but there's going to be american robot instead of mexican robots the many of them it will be automation nonetheless. that's the reality. we can't turn the clock back, we could but it would be devastating to do so in terms of the nature of technologies role. i would encourage these reports are prepared, artificial intelligence needs disruptions, i think they will provide come if we could somehow anticipate what the basic skills for the labor force in ten or 15 years are going to be i think would be a valuable tool to develop curriculum and programs to begin to address it. the key worker 25 years and now is probably in grade school today, and if they're not acquiring the skills and there's no system in place to instill those skills, we'll have a real challenge in terms of global competitors. i hope we're not just viewing next years needs but the years and 20 us understand how this come how difficult it is tantras but some of these changes. i've always told by youngest child who is now nine, almost in the job he made of having probably has been invented yet so i don't even know what it's called. but nevertheless,, that's that. on the certification, and you and i had a chance to talk about a little bit, this extends into nursing and healthcare, so maybe we could help a minimum and semi-states and perhaps create other avenues so that there be some short-term recognition, say someone had a profession in the military, transferable to civilian life and son. in which the license would be recognize and giving them time to take the state licensing for whatever that capacity might be. i looked briefly at what the g.i. bill covered probably that covers the cost of the certification tests but it doesn't, potentially, i'm not one of% sure, but my cursory research showed is, i know it's not within your department but the cost of preparing for this test. if you're going to take interesting example get a state license number you got to study this stuff and often times the cost of doing so is education. the two things alone to ask about, i do not give an estimate this yet is the patently component of the budget. i believe paid leave is something that's a 21st century necessity. how we get there is complex. what's interesting is i learn more or more about his makeup is, governments, large employers and, quite frankly, people make a lot of money are offered paid leave in many of the major corporations in america already offered you see people making substantial amount of money also receiving paid leave. i don't want them to lose it. has any thought been given as utility administration's proposal to how we can concentrate our efforts here on the people at the lower end of the income spectrum? in essence the people making 25-65 or 70, 80, whatever the right number cutoff is, i do want people to making $300,000 a year to a year to lose the patently but i think the people that would really benefit from it at almost hurt by the absence of it are the lower end of that scale. this isn't ideal take time to develop but in terms of working it out come has somehow been given towards prioritizing at least whatever we do through government to be at that end of the scale as opposed throughout the entire system? because of the fear quite frankly as we create some sort of incentive for companies that are already offering it come to offer less of it because this new alternative. i know it's an idea still being worked on. >> senator, thank you for the comments and the question. let me take them each in order fairly quickly. there's an interesting book that's been written that calls us the age of accelerations. because with each cycle technology changes faster and faster. and so ten years ago the iphone that i suspect most in this room have a pocket or the smartphone have a pocket didn't exist. facebook was limited to college campuses and sometimes we don't realize it's only been ten years. so what will the world look like ten years from now looks it's almost hard to imagine because it hasn't been invented. and so one of the reasons that we talked about demand driven education is because we believe it's very important that education and workforce education in particular be nimble enough to respond to changing workforce needs and to predict changing workforce needs. because technology will change the skills that are required. moving quickly to your question regarding paid leave, the administration has put forward a proposal. i know that proposal has been discussed vigorously. their sound that say that it's not enough. there are some that say it's too much. there some that say it's not calibrated, but ultimately it is a proposal and it is the start of the conversation that is a very important conversation. and i know that the senate has engaged in it vigorously and i know that you've taken a a leadership role in it, senator. and i am glad that that conversation is being had because at the end of the day it is conversations like this one that will result in good outcomes. >> thank you, senator rubio. senator capito. >> thank you chairman blood, ranking member and thank you secretary acosta. it's nice to see you. thank you for your service. my companion center from the great state of west virginia asked a couple similar questions as to what was going to ask particularly on the mine safety and health administration, obviously is important for us who have a lot of coal miners in a dangerous situation that the remain safe pics i appreciate your efforts bear to continue continuous funding to find that office and the challenge for i'm happy to report that in west virginia we have 103 1034 more l miners working that we did at the end of the 2016. so the administrations efforts in that regard are very much appreciated. in the context of losing so many jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, a program was created within the labor department to a dislocated workers from the coal industry to readjust your it's been funded at 19 and $20 million of retraining and avoid this is still very much needed. do you have any insights now that it's been two years in the making as to what's been effective with training dislocated miners and where your sing some success? >> senator, i don't have the data presently but i'm more than happy to have the department gathered at and to convey that to your staff. and your colleague, senator manchin, staff as well. >> thank you for that. i did want to begin which i forgot to tell you come to invite you to come to west virginia. we would love to have you there. the initiative apprenticeships i think is very much welcomed in a state that has traditionally had many unions that have successfully employed many people for many years in our state to their appendages beginning with their pernicious program. that mode of getting the worker training and to a job has been successful in the past so want to join with the administration efforts to expand that. >> thank you. and i would be more than happy to visit once again west virginia, and so they can. >> great. lastly, your budget also has for the dislocated worker safety 6 million to appalachian communities to dry dislocated workers for employment and training. this is great as we talked about but as you are justification you've said the target services privacy provided by the appalachian regional commission, so i take exception that the appalachian regional commission, even though and the president's budget it was ruled out, i come we will fight hard and with a bipartisan group to make sure we retain the economic development aspects of the arc but i would just like to work with you to not only trade but all of the economic efforts of getting appalachiappalachian back on itt again. we have a huge opioid issue in and around our region that coupled with joblessness and a lot of hopelessness in some cases. your department is absolutely critical to the folks that i live in and around to getting us back on our feet. >> i understand, senator. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator capito. senator murray. >> make it very much. mr. secretary, i know you've heard a lot about the printer ship programs are most of us honestly support them but i'm concerned the presidents executive order serve as a distraction and what is happening in this budget where there's a huge slash in the investments in areas like workforce training, public health and education repeated issues that event bipartisan supported come to the investments on this committee. in fact, chairman blunt and i been able to find investments in registered upmanship grants since 201 2016. these are grants that have actually put tens of thousands of workers on a proven path to the middle class and help address employees needs for skilled workers. the president proposal intends to circumvent a proven program with wages and training an equal opportunity employment standards, and the standard not only protect workers by the way, they ensure employers get highly skilled workers. by comparison the president proposal could open the door to any company, including predatory fake colleges like trump university. develop low-quality programs that benefit corporations and special interest at the expense of workers. so tell us why th the president chose undermined the registered apprenticeship program that is bipartisan support here rather than find what we know works? >> senator, thank you for the question. and it's something that i've been reading about in the media as i do want to take this opportunity to address that. as you mentioned, apprenticeships are proven. the resulting wage is a strong wage. the employment record, the probability of employment following an apprenticeship is outstanding. and it is a proven system. and so the president's executive order set up a mechanism to allow these apprenticeship programs to grow across industries, not just limited to the traditional industries like building trades where they had been used, but across industries. we've had even individuals from capital that were part of the order where they participate in commodity trading apprenticeships can also increase in scale. the approach taken is not an approach that sacrifices quality, and my personal perspective is that this will not and should not sacrifice quality. because the industry has an interest in ensuring quality because they have an interest in ensuring a skilled workforce. >> correct. >> if one were to look at the way the department of education approaches many of these issues, the department of education and powers the american medical association, for example, to accredit medical schools yet we don't hear discussion of how there is a sacrifice in quarreled among medical schools. because will look to the american medical association and we say look, they are empowered -- >> i've only got a minute and half and i hear what you're saying. i just want you to know that that's how i look at this, and with to make sure that those apprenticeship programs, as you talk about, are ones that actually providing highly skilled qualified workforce, and the details matter on this. i do want to follow up on senator rubio owes question to you, mr. secretary about paid leader i heard what he was saying and i am, i have looked at this, the presidents, provides new parents with six weeks of paid leave but the way it pays for is that suggests states pay for it through their state unemployment insurance program, which by the way disproportionally excludes women and vulnerable workers. so the exact people that senator rubio said need it, and to make matters worse, state unemployment benefits are extremely low. so modest effect the low-wage workers will not be able to afford to take a leak even if it were technically available. and similarly the president's tt proposal only focuses on new parents. people need to leave it there. is service at no other child is seriously ill. so that concerns me as well. i just want you to know i'm following this very closely. i think paid leave is extremely important but we can't just write a proposal because states can't make up that aircraft to be serious about a we need to make sure that acid ruby pointed out that those people who apparently tend to be the more highly paid workers picking up the once i'm so worried about. i'm worried about those clerks at the grocery store and nurses and other folks who need it so i'm going to be following that recalls as well. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator murray. so, far be it for me to take any of my time defending cbo. i can think of many more cases over the years were cbo was wrong, like when they had the implementation of medicare part d costing almost twice as much as it actually costs over the first year, and the years to follow that. or when the affordable care act was scored by cbo, there would not be 25 million people getting insurance in the individual market instead of the nine that are getting insurance in the individual market. so cbo score is notoriously bad. i'm sure it's not accurate here, but if you want to look at that 22 million figure they said was the figures they were coming up with, they say 15 million of those people would be uninsured because the penalty was removed and they which is not to insurance if there was a penalty. so that is a big number and answers the question that you asked earlier. i did check on the last scoring of the house bill, i think 3 million people that currently have medicaid at no cost which is not to have medicaid if you eliminate the penalty for not having insurance. so that's the cbo view of that future, not necessarily the one that will turn out to be accurate. on h-2b issues, you pointed out the committee gave quite a bit of flexibility, and i think encouragement to deal with that as we have for some time. whatever you and general kelly would like to talk about in terms of how we get a long-term solution instead of a short-term, i think is a perfectly fine idea, but not for this year. this is going to take longer to put together the facts. i think even the some discussion of looking at regional impact number. what senator mikulski used to sit by senator murray and i on this dais, she was always very interested in the fisherman and crabbing at things that have no impact in misery but have a big impact in maryland, so i understand all that and appreciate it. but what happens this year is what needs to be dealt with right now there and if you move forward, how quickly do you think between you and homeland security you would be at a place where you can decide what's going to happen this year? >> mr. chairman, thank you for the comments, and let me say, senator kellyanne i have spoken to he has indicated publicly his intent to increase the cap pursuant to the authority. he and i stand shoulder to shoulder on the decision. we agree on that outcome, and we've also spoken about how quickly we can move forward. and he is working to move forward as expeditiously as possible with the understanding that individuals are waiting for those visas. and so i would defer to dhs, but i would say that senator kelly is personally committed to moving forward as expeditiously as possible. again, with the understanding, and am happy to work with the germans staff, that is important to not do this year after year,, but to have a permanent fix so that we are not putting all these businesses and all these individuals indisposition of uncertainty again. >> i think that's perfectly resulting to do as long as we realize that's wha we ought to e talking about after your study is done and as your study is being done. it won't come it would be impractical to try to do that this year, but i think very practical to do it in the future. i think that's what senator graham said his poetic think you would find a lot of interest in trying to work this out so we don't have to deal with it every year. let's talk about job corps for just a minute. there are 125 job corps centers in the united states, three of them are in misery. i think in the budget -- in misery. the bill that congress voted on in april we increase job corps by about $15 million. this proposal cut it by $256 million with the expressed intention i think at the department that some of these job corps sites would be close, maybe as many as 20 pics i really have three questions there. one is what methodology would you use to decide? what center to close at how would you relocate any students in those centers? and i committed to keeping at least one center in every state? >> senator, thank you for those questions. first let me take them in order. first as to methodology. i think it's very important to have, if dependent on where the budget ends up, we need to have a methodology because these are very sensitive centers. and that methodology should be based on outcomes that it should be based on the number of participants but rather on. should be sensitive to differences in regions. .. certainly, it would be the case that we would notify members of the senate and members of congress before closing any job because they are important to states. so, i can't commit to not to ensuring that there is one in every state but i can certainly commit to notifying members of congress and members of the senate so that members of both the house and the senate and members of congress so that there is opportunity for a full discussion. at the end of the day i do think it needs to be based on metrics. let me finally say -- >> what about students that you would close? >> senator, that would have to be looked at very closely. my hope is that we could use the plant of the teachout method which is what used in colleges. let me make two final points. as a senator acknowledged at the beginning of the discussion that congress has year from year-to-year and it's something that i be committed to working with the committee staff on because it is important and i do recognize from my visit so many members of the committee the importance of these centers and i don't think this should be a unilateral but i think it needs to be part of a more. discussion. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you for you and your team that has been here today. the record will stay open for one week for additional questions and the subcommittee stands at recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

Related Keywords

Germany , Missouri , United States , Washington , Florida , Illinois , Gulfport , Mississippi , Liberia , Russia , West Virginia , Mexico , India , Togo , Maryland , Poland , Chicago , Warsaw , L67 , Americans , America , Mexican , Russian , Liberian , American , Martin Curtis , Scott Stevenson , States Willis , George Washington ,