A.k.a., visa rubber-stamper. This story gives you insight into the offshoring and globalization of America, instituted by US government agencies who are violating their Constitutional purpose.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/...
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:99663.wais]
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
MARCH 4, 2004
________
Serial No. 108-41
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland [Cardin is NOT our friend, but let’s listen to his straw man allegations. Actually, none of these guys are your friends, unless you are a CEO of a major multi-national corporation.]
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JERRY WELLER, Illinois MAX SANDLIN, Texas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. Madam Secretary,
Secretary Chao, it is a pleasure to have you before the
Committee, and we certainly look forward to your testimony.
There are certainly a number of questions that many of us have
related to President Bush's policies on job creation and on
helping the unemployed workers.
The first question I would like you to answer as you make
your presentation is whether President Bush supports extending
unemployment benefits for workers who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own. Last year, Congress allowed the
extended benefit program to expire, and the President, quite
frankly, said nothing in that regard. As a result, three-
quarters of a million workers have been denied extended
unemployment benefits in just the last 2 months.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
said that these workers do not deserve any additional
assistance because unemployment has been higher in the past.
That overlooks the fact that the extended benefits program has
terminated in the past only after the economy has recovered all
the jobs lost in that recession. In fact, in early 1990, the
program did not stop until nearly 3 million new jobs had been
created. Today, we have 2.4 million fewer jobs than when the
recession started in March 2001. This means, of course, that
the unemployed have limited job prospects, a fact revealed by
the data.
The number of long-term unemployed Americans, meaning those
jobless for 6 months or longer, remains nearly three times
higher than in prior recessions. As the chart shows, nearly 2
million now fall into this category.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9663A.001
Furthermore, the exhaustion rates for regular UC which
stops after 6 months have stayed at record levels. More than 4
out of every 10 unemployment recipients run out of benefits
without finding work. These are the people who need extended
benefits. Over the last month, a majority in both the House and
the Senate have voted to extend unemployment benefits. Yet we
have seen no action because of the silence in the White House.
We have not heard whether President Bush will support or
not support the extension of unemployment benefits, and I hope
during the course of this hearing you can clarify the
Administration's position. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Ms. CHAO. Good morning, Chairman Thomas and distinguished
Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify before this esteemed Committee. I am pleased to have
the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2005
budget proposal, which includes improvements to the Federal-
State Unemployment Insurance (UI) program and the President's
proposal for the Personal Reemployment Accounts. I am also
looking forward to sharing with you the progress that we have
made in implementing the Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210).
Recent indicators indicate that the economy is turning the
corner and jobs are being created. The unemployment rate
dropped to 5.6 percent in January, even as more people entered
the job market. Approximately 112,000 new jobs, as noted by one
survey, were created in January, [Christmas returns of merchandise]
the largest monthly increase
since December 2000, and 366,000 jobs have been added over the
past 5 months. [350,000 NEW CLAIMS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT occur each WEEK]. There is another survey which indicates a
tenfold difference between the surveys (at one point) in the
amount of jobs being created, but, nevertheless, both surveys
indicate an increased trend toward more job creation.
Let's see how well she has done her research:
http://www.epi.org/...
January 6, 2006
Job growth weaker than expected in December, closing out a year of moderate gains
Percent change in payroll employment, first 49 months of recoveries
02/61- | 03/75- | 11/82- | 03/91- | 11/01- |
03/65 | 04/79 | 12/86 | 04/95 | 12/05 |
12.0% | 16.7% | 13.2% | 7.8% | 2.7% |
I just ran a trendline of long-term unemployment from 1948 thru 2005. Up 240%, folks. It ain’t getting better no matter whose lies you believe.
http://www.epi.org/... (Excel)
Once you fall out of UC (Unemployment Compensation, for those of you who aren’t there yet) you fall out of the job statistics. You are not unemployed, you are non-existant, no longer in the job market (presumed indepentently wealthy or dead by BLS).
http://money.cnn.com/...
And the number of people on payrolls at year-end stands 122,000 below where they were in January 2001, when Bush was sworn into office, putting him at risk of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a drop in employment during a term in office.
Back to Chao:
CHAO:
As the President has said many times before, we will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job can find one. We believe that job training is critical to help workers find new jobs and prepare themselves for the opportunities in the 21st century workforce.
There are growth opportunities in certain sectors, and
there are also sectors that are desperately seeking workers,
and there again, training and retraining is absolutely critical
in facing that gap.
That is why the President has also added $500 million in
new moneys on top of the $15 billion that American taxpayers
already paid for a publicly funded workforce development
system. This new initiative, Jobs for the 21st Century Growth
Sectors, has about $250 million going to community colleges,
who have proven themselves so nimble and adroit in meeting the
employment challenges of the 21st century.
The overall budget for training has, in fact, increased
$104 million over last year's enacted, and the Department will
continue to play a critical role in accomplishing the
President's agenda of ensuring that America's workers get the
training that they need to succeed and build better futures for
themselves and their families.
Hmm, the TRAINING assault. For what should we train? Perhaps Congressional Candidate? Or Presidential Appointee?
You can skip over this block, yawn.
Chao:
The UI reform is something that I want to talk about as
well. As you know, the UI program is an important element of
our Nation's social safety net. The UI is also the portal
through which workers can access a wide array of training and
employment services. The Department has examined ways to reform
the UI program so that it better serves workers. While the
Administration remains committed to UI taxes and administrative
reform, we have heard from the States that now is not the time
for comprehensive reform, and, therefore, we will defer
legislation on reforming the UI system until the States' budget
outlook improves.
One of the key elements of our current proposal is closing
a loophole in many State UI laws that permits some employers to
pay less than their fair share of State UI taxes. I want to
thank Chairman Herger and Ranking Member Cardin for introducing
legislation to close this loophole. We estimate that enactment
of this proposal would result in UI tax payments of over $200
million annually from employers who are not now playing by the
rules.
We have also requested $50 million in discretionary funding
for Personal Reemployment Accounts. This will provide up to
$3,000 to selected UI claimants who are having the most
difficulty finding work, and this year we propose to launch the
Personal Reemployment Accounts as a pilot to demonstrate the
added value of these accounts before replicating them
nationwide.
We also want to talk about the tax offsets against Federal
income tax refunds for UI overpayment. When UI claimants
receive benefits to which they are not entitled under State
law, an overpayment is established after notice and opportunity
for appeal. Although States utilize many methods to collect
overpayments, many overpayments remain outstanding. For this
reason, we want to give the States another tool to help them
recover overpayments and strengthen their trust funds.
Let me say a few words also about the TAA program. Since
passage of the Trade Act in 2002, the Department has actually
made great strides in implementing this program. As of last
month, the Department has reduced the average processing time
for certifying trade petitions from 103 days to just 26 days.
We have also eliminated the petition backlog, and this summer
we will implement an improved TAA petition process that applies
more rigorous and standardized procedures that ensure that the
Department will continue to process petitions within the 40
days required by the law.
The Trade Act also authorized an alternative TAA program
for older workers for whom the retraining benefits offered
under the regular TAA program might not be appropriate. The
Department implemented the program on August 6th of last year,
and we have certified 349 worker groups.
In partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the
Department of Labor has also successfully implemented the
Health Coverage Tax Credit authorized by the Trade Act.
Finally, in order to encourage States to better align the
resources available with the number of workers requiring
training, we have adopted a new formula method for allocating
funds to States for trade training. This important reform
provides States with an advance estimate of the amount of
moneys they are to receive in the next fiscal year. This is the
first step in helping the States manage their training
resources more effectively so that they can help as many
workers as possible.
So, today I have shared with you a number of important
initiatives that will help make programs operate more
efficiently and effectively for the benefit of workers and
employers. I look forward to working with this Committee as we
move forward. Thank you.
OK, this is where it gets good....
Mr. RANGEL. Okay. Thank you so much. The President's chief
economist, George Mankiw, said that having American jobs go to
countries with cheaper labor, which we call outsourcing or
offshore, is a plus for the economy in the long run. Do you or
the President agree with this chief economist, the President's
chief economist?
Ms. CHAO. Outsourcing is an issue that we are all very
concerned about.
Mr. RANGEL. Do you agree with this statement made by
Mankiw? I am interested. You are interested. The President is
interested. The corporations are interested. I have a limited
amount of time. I just want to know do you agree with the
statement that it is a plus for our economy in the long run.
Ms. CHAO. I think it is--when you talk about outsourcing,
you have to also talk about insourcing.
Mr. RANGEL. Okay, thank you.
Ms. CHAO. You have to talk about----
Mr. RANGEL. No, no, no. Now, that is good. We can talk
about sideways-sourcing, outsourcing, insourcing.
Ms. CHAO. No, I think it is very----
Mr. RANGEL. You don't want to answer this one. Okay.
Ms. CHAO. Misinforming just to talk about outsourcing.
Mr. RANGEL. Let me ask you this: this economic report
suggests that maybe we can adjust the unemployment figures as
it relates to manufacturing loss of jobs. It asks, ``When a
fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it
providing a service or is it providing inputs to manufacture a
product?'' Have you given any thought to that observation that
maybe McDonald's should be considered as a manufacturer rather
than as a producer of service?
Ms. CHAO. It is not as if one person is making these
decisions. Part of----
Mr. RANGEL. I see. Thank you.
Ms. CHAO. Part of what we are----
Mr. RANGEL. You are terrific this morning. I can see why it
took so long for us to get you here.
Ms. CHAO. Mr. Rangel, I really would appreciate the
opportunity to answer some of the questions you----
Mr. RANGEL. I wish you would answer some of our questions.
Ms. CHAO. I would be more than delighted to, if given the
time.
Mr. RANGEL. Well----
Ms. CHAO. The issue about McDonald's and how it is
classified points to a larger issue facing our 21st century
workforce and, that is, the old classifications no longer
apply.
Mr. RANGEL. I understand.
Ms. CHAO. So, all of us as a society must look at how----
Mr. RANGEL. I have got a yellow light now, and I just want
one more question, and that is, we have lost a lot of jobs that
are not considered manufacturing jobs but service jobs due to
globalization and outsourcing. The TAA merely deals with
manufacturing jobs. Do you think that people who have lost
their employment that may have different types of service jobs
should be covered by the TAA?
Ms. CHAO. Well, we administer the TAA as it passed by
Congress.
Mr. RANGEL. You are terrific, Madam Secretary. I am telling
you, if we ever get the majority and don't want to answer any
questions, you have got a job.
Ms. CHAO. That is not----
Mr. RANGEL. You are fantastic. Honestly, you are good. You
are very good. Thank you.
Ms. CHAO. I would----
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you very much.
Ms. CHAO. Again, given the courtesy of the time to reply, I
would be more than glad to.
Mr. LEVIN. Welcome.
Ms. CHAO. Thank you.
Mr. LEVIN. First, let me talk to you about the matter
raised by Mr. Cardin. Your testimony does not touch the
extended benefit issue. What is the position of the
Administration?
Ms. CHAO. In the past----
Mr. LEVIN. I mean now. Really, Mr. Rangel pressed you for a
specific answer on some issues, and I do not mean to interrupt
you, but, really, I do mean to interrupt you.
Ms. CHAO. That is okay.
Mr. LEVIN. In this sense: I asked you a question. The
program has expired. We have tried to extend it. Are you, is
the Administration in favor of it or not, in favor of extending
it?
Ms. CHAO. Well, the President has worked with the Congress
to extend UI three times already in the past 18 months.
Mr. LEVIN. I know, but now.
Ms. CHAO. Let me just give some background if I could----
Mr. LEVIN. Why do you need to give us background when I ask
you the question whether you want to extend the program now or
not?
Ms. CHAO. I think it is--if indeed we are going to--if
indeed you called me before this Committee for a discussion, I
think it is very important for us to discuss some of these
issues----
Mr. LEVIN. Okay, but----
Ms. CHAO. Rather than----
Mr. LEVIN. Then say yes----
Ms. CHAO. Go ahead and ask for a one-sentence sound bite.
Mr. LEVIN. No, I am not asking you for one sentence.
Ms. CHAO. I am not good at the sound bites, by the way, and
I apologize for that.
Mr. LEVIN. Say yes or no----
Ms. CHAO. That is the Administration's----
Mr. LEVIN. Then explain----
Ms. CHAO. Position.
Mr. LEVIN. Then explain your position. Are you in favor----
Ms. CHAO. Let me just say temporary extended benefits were
available during January in 11 of the past 32 years from 1973
to 2004. The average total unemployment rate for these months
was 7.1 percent, significantly higher than today. Today's
unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is lower than the unemployment
rate----
Mr. LEVIN. Okay, so----
Ms. CHAO. Of the 1970s, 1980s----
Mr. LEVIN. Okay, we know that.
Ms. CHAO. And the 1990s.
Mr. LEVIN. You are reading it----
Ms. CHAO. Again, the----
Mr. LEVIN. Are you in favor of--look, there is a vote in
the Senate, 58, I think, Senators voted in favor of extending;
here in the House we brought it up, and a majority voted--it
wasn't a direct vote on that program, but it was clear what our
message was. Can you say, are you, is the Administration in
favor of renewing that program, yes or no?
Ms. CHAO. I think the Administration is willing to work
with Congress.
Mr. LEVIN. No, no. That is what was said a few months ago
when another representative was here. Do you favor it? Yes or
no. Does the Administration----
Ms. CHAO. I am saying the Administration is willing to work
with Congress----
Mr. LEVIN. No, no, no. Are you----
Ms. CHAO. Let me also say there is also $4 billion in Reed
Act (P.L. 107-147) distribution moneys in the States. If each
State finds and States unemployment rates are different----
Mr. LEVIN. You know----
Ms. CHAO. The States want to increase UI benefits in their
individual States, they have the resources to do so. There are
$4 billion----
Mr. LEVIN. Except the Reed Act money----
Ms. CHAO. Four billion dollars there.
Mr. LEVIN. You know the Reed Act money cannot be used----
Ms. CHAO. That is not true, sir.
Mr. LEVIN. But----
Ms. CHAO. With all due respect, it can be used.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me finish. Except for those who have
exhausted their extended benefits. Now----
Ms. CHAO. Not true. It can be used for----
Mr. LEVIN. All right. So----
Ms. CHAO. Extending UI benefits.
Mr. LEVIN. So, your answer is you do not favor renewal of
this program.
Ms. CHAO. I have said, number one, the Administration is
willing to work with Congress----
Mr. LEVIN. Okay. Are you----
Ms. CHAO. Number two, the States have their own options as
well.
Mr. LEVIN. Okay. Are you willing----
Ms. CHAO. They have $4 billion in Reed Act fund
distribution----
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Secretary, are you willing to advocate,
the Administration, that this Congress renew this program? Are
you willing to advocate it? Yes or no.
Ms. CHAO. What I provide in terms of advice to my fellow
colleagues is something that remains with them.
Mr. LEVIN. All right. I just want you to know how I think
inexcusable, when we have had the largest number of people in
history exhausting their benefits, that you duck this issue and
essentially say you will work with us. I thought the President
said he was a leader. If he is a leader, he should lead on this
issue. Now, let me----
Ms. CHAO. As I mentioned----
Mr. LEVIN. Okay. Enough said. When you are ready to answer
this----
Ms. CHAO. I am more than willing to answer.
Mr. LEVIN. Yes or no, come back here.
Ms. CHAO. Sir, with all due respect, I think it is
important to talk about these issues.
Mr. LEVIN. I am all in favor of talking about them, but we
need more than talk. We need walk. We need an answer from the
Administration----
Ms. CHAO. The President has worked with this Congress to
extend UI three times.
Mr. LEVIN. You are----
Ms. CHAO. Extension of UI has occurred in the past when the
average unemployment rate is 7.1 percent----
Mr. LEVIN. I know, but we have had a higher----
Ms. CHAO. The unemployment rate now is----
Mr. LEVIN. Percentage--Madam Secretary, let me finish.
Ms. CHAO. It is 5.6 percent.
Mr. LEVIN. We have had a higher number of exhaustees than
in the history of the program, and you sit here and will not--
--
Mr. HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. Say yes or no.
Ms. CHAO. I beg to--that is not the right number, but,
nevertheless, we are all concerned about them.
Mr. CRANE.
.......
Can you discuss some of the differences between these two
surveys and what types of new jobs, such as self-employment,
contract work, even the thousands of people who trade goods by
eBay full-time, might not be captured, at least not right away,
in the payroll survey data?
Reach, Mr. Crane, reach!
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I
find your justifications difficult to accept here, and let me,
if I might--it was Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve
System that said that the payroll survey was assuredly more
accurate, but now you are sort of giving credibility to a
different survey just because it serves your purpose. I think
we need to have a common line in order to analyze the
information that is out there.
I also find disappointing your testimony today in regards
to the 2001 tax cut. I was in Congress when we passed that tax
cut, and it was clearly aimed at the fact that we had a large
projected surplus. If we were using the fact that we were going
into a recession, then the projected surpluses would not have
been as high as the Administration presented to Congress as
justification for that tax cut.
So, let me get to the most recent numbers that we have, and
that is, in the second half of 2003 the Administration said
that we would create 1.9 million jobs, and you fell 1.8 million
short. Now, I don't remember anything extraordinary happening
in the second half of 2003, but do you have a justification as
to why we fell so short in the second half of 2003?
Ms. CHAO. Let me go back to your question about the two
surveys.
Mr. CARDIN. I didn't ask a question about the two surveys,
and I really----
Ms. CHAO. Let me make a comment anyway, then. There are two
surveys that the Bureau of Labor Statistics----
Mr. CARDIN. I am not interested in that. I am sorry, but I
really do want to stay on the subject, and that is, do you have
an explanation why you fell 1.8 million short in the second
half of 2003?
Ms. CHAO. There are two surveys, and both are produced by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we have an obligation to
report both surveys.
On the issue of job creation, we agree with you, job
creation is not as strong. We have had the recession. We have
had the attacks of September 11th, which have----
Mr. CARDIN. No, this is the second half of 2003. The
recession----
Ms. CHAO. If I may be allowed----
Mr. CARDIN. Both of those issues predate those projections.
These projections were made for the second half of 2003----
Ms. CHAO. May I have----
Mr. CARDIN. Well after the recession----
Ms. CHAO. A minute to answer the question?
Mr. CARDIN. Well after the--but you are--I think I am a
rather patient person. If you don't want to answer the
question, please say so. If you want to answer it, I will be
glad to----
Ms. CHAO. I am seldom given an opportunity to do so.
Mr. CARDIN. Please.
Ms. CHAO. In 2002 and 2003, we have had the corporate
scandals. We have also had obviously some uncertainty with the
economy. Our productivity growth has been very, very high. That
productivity growth cannot continue unabated. It is going to
translate into more jobs.
Mr. CARDIN. Do you know what the numbers will be? In
January, according to your testimony, you fell--the CEA are the
President's economic advisers. If he wants to discount their
information, fine. They projected over 300,000 jobs for
January. Under your numbers, we are at 115,000, 117,000 jobs.
Tomorrow or the next day we are going to get the numbers for
February. Will we hit 300,000 new jobs in February? Do you know
that answer?
Ms. CHAO. I do not.
Mr. CARDIN. Well, we will see whether we make that
projection or not.
Let me move on to the UC issues, because one thing is
clear. We have a negative job growth during this
Administration. You are going to join the Hoover
Administration, the last Administration that had a negative job
growth during the 4-year term of this Administration, and that
is not a proud record.
On the UC, Mr. Levin asked a direct question. I am not
going to ask it again because I appreciate the fact that you
don't want to answer it and that you are under either
instructions or your personal view is that you don't want to
answer that question. Let me just challenge your assumptions
that the States have adequate money under the Reed Act. Many of
our largest States have exhausted their Reed Act funds and
don't have the dollars. California, for example, is actually
asking to borrow money in order to pay their regular benefits.
We have a U.S. General Accounting Office report that shows that
as many as 30 States would have to raise their taxes on
employers if they used their Reed Act funds.
Is the Administration suggesting that a better alternative
than using the trust funds that are here that we have
accumulated exactly for this purpose, the Federal unemployment
trust accounts, rather than using that, we would prefer the
States to raise taxes on employers in order to provide
additional benefits? Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms. CHAO. First of all, to compare this Administration's
record to the Hoover Administration is ridiculous. The Hoover
Administration had a workforce of 31 million. Our workforce now
numbers 146 million. The unemployment rate during the Hoover
Administration or during the great recession----
Mr. CARDIN. I am just, Madam Secretary----
Ms. CHAO. Was 25 percent. Our unemployment rate is 5.6
percent----
Mr. CARDIN. Quote me accurately, Madam Secretary----
Mr. HERGER. Order----
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I have the time. Mr. Chairman, I
have the time.
Mr. HERGER. The Members----
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I have the time.
Mr. CAMP. Regular order.
Mr. CARDIN. Regular order is that I have the time, not the
witness.
Mr. CAMP. Let the witness answer.
Mr. CARDIN. I will, but she misquoted me, and I have the
right to take the time.
Mr. HERGER. Order. I want to remind the Members again that
we owe the courtesy to the witness to allow her an opportunity
to answer the question. During this hearing, we have repeatedly
heard Members interrupting when the Secretary is attempting to
answer the questions. I want to once again request of the
Members to allow our witness to answer. They may not like the
answers, but we do owe our witness that courtesy.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, the regular order
of this Committee is that the Member controls 5 minutes in
debate to ask questions to the witnesses. I asked a question to
this witness, and she started to characterize my question
differently than I asked it. I didn't ask the question about
the Hoover Administration versus the Bush Administration. What
I said is that both will go down in record as having negative
job growth. If she wants to counter that argument that the Bush
Administration does not have a negative job growth, I am
willing to listen to that answer. I didn't ask the question.
She then characterized my question differently.
I control the time, Mr. Chairman. I have the right to
reclaim my time.
Mr. HERGER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp, will
inquire.
This is better than Survivor, isn’t it?
Chairman THOMAS. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. Does
the gentleman from Washington wish to inquire? The gentleman
from Massachusetts?
Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do wish to inquire.
Madam Secretary, I have been doing a random survey of the
Administration. Do you think that Tyco is an American company
or do you think that it is a Bermuda company? I really don't
think we need more than a yes or no to that question.
Ms. CHAO. Why do you ask? I don't----
Mr. NEAL. Well, they employ thousands of people in America,
and I would think that you and the staff would have substantial
opportunity to conclude where the company is based.
Ms. CHAO. It depends on where it is incorporated.
Mr. NEAL. So, you believe that it is a Bermuda-based
company?
Ms. CHAO. I want to know why the question is----
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, would you ask the witness to answer
the question?
Ms. CHAO. I don't understand the purpose of the question.
Chairman THOMAS. Would the gentleman repeat the question?
Ms. CHAO. What is the point----
Mr. NEAL. I asked the Secretary, very politely, in fact,
whether or not she believed that Tyco was an American company
or a Bermuda company.
Ms. CHAO. I believe it is incorporated in Bermuda.
Mr. NEAL. Do you believe that it is an American company or
a Bermuda company?
Ms. CHAO. It is incorporated in Bermuda, if I am correct.
Chairman THOMAS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman THOMAS. The way you ask the question, the answer
was absolutely correct. It is incorporated in Bermuda.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman THOMAS. The interesting thing about U.S. law is
that the physical presence of the company----
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman THOMAS. The workers, the plants, and the
management are in the United States.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, could I redirect my time to the
witness?
Chairman THOMAS. You certainly can.
Mr. NEAL. Would you care to venture a guess, Madam
Secretary, as to whether or not it is a Bermuda company or an
American company?
Ms. CHAO. Tyco is just one example, and there are other
companies----
Mr. NEAL. There sure are. There sure are.
Ms. CHAO. Like Heinz.
Mr. NEAL. That is fine. I am entirely consistent on this.
Ms. CHAO. Of the 79 companies, 22 are in the United States,
57 are overseas.
Mr. NEAL. So, what is the answer? Do you think that it is
an American company or a Bermuda company?
Ms. CHAO. I am not a lawyer. It is incorporated----
Mr. NEAL. Oh, Madam Secretary, let me go to the next
question. That is a terrible answer, and you know what? The
members of the staff there----
Ms. CHAO. I don't understand the purpose of the question.
Mr. NEAL. The members of the staff there, Madam Secretary,
they should be doing their job. That is a terrible answer. I
think everybody would agree with that on this Committee. ``I am
not a lawyer,'' to answer that question.
Ms. CHAO. It is----
Mr. NEAL. Madam Secretary, let me ask you one more question
on another topic.
Ms. CHAO. Of course.
Mr. NEAL. Under the overtime rules that you have proposed,
is it your position, based upon those rules, that there are
some firefighters, nurses, and police that could be exempted
from the rules as proposed?
Ms. CHAO. The final rule is not out yet, so we don't have a
final, but that is not the case.
Mr. NEAL. You believe that they will not be included? They
will be able to still garner overtime?
Ms. CHAO. This rule does not impact them because this is a
white-collar regulation.
Mr. NEAL. Okay. So, there are in some fire service
operations white-collar employees. Do you believe that they
will be, again, exempt from the rule based on overtime
requirements?
Ms. CHAO. What is the question?
Mr. NEAL. Well, there are members of some fire service
operations where technically some employees----
Ms. CHAO. No, firefighters, first responders, police,
nurses, union members covered by collective bargaining
agreements are not covered.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman THOMAS. Does the gentlewoman from Washington wish
to inquire?
Ms. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the Secretary for being with us today, and a special
thanks too for coming to Washington State a few weeks ago. I
think it is important for folks to see that we do have a high
unemployment rate in Washington State. The last monthly number
was 7.3 percent, and it is something that concerns us all. We
appreciate very much your help in so many ways. For example, a
couple of years ago you secured for us a $15 million national
emergency grant. We have just received the final $5 million out
of that grant, and we have used this for very important support
for those who are looking for jobs, and I want to thank you.
As you know, Washington State was more severely impacted by
9/11 than most States. We lost over 20,000 aerospace workers in
the State of Washington, out of the 35,000 to 40,000 Boeing
folks who were let off, and a lot of it had to do with the
industry decline because of 9/11 and because of airlines not
flying as much, and therefore not ordering additional aircraft.
What I would like to hear, Madam Secretary, is your
thoughts on how the Department's 2005 fiscal year budget is
going to help States like my State, Washington State, as we
address the economic problems that we are involved in?
Ms. CHAO. Our budget as proposed and submitted to the
Congress, we are at about $104 million on top of existing
dollars for increased training and retraining. We also have
proposed $50 million for what are called Personal Reemployment
Accounts that will really empower workers to decide what
courses they want to access themselves and what training they
need. We have also added $500 million, as I mentioned, for the
President's new initiative on a 21st century workforce, $250
million of that goes to community colleges, who have proven so
nimble at responding to the needs of the marketplace in terms
of skills. We also have a $15 billion publicly funded workforce
development system in which people who need jobs, need
training, need advice, can access it. Of course, on top of that
we have UI benefits. We have income support programs as well,
and we also administer the TAA program, which helps people with
income support, training, transportation, relocation, and
expenses of health insurance, as well as wage insurance.
Ms. DUNN. I think that is a pretty good story to tell, and
we appreciate all the work you are doing, specifically for
folks like the ones in Washington State, who want to have jobs,
but because of the state of the economy in an area that is
recovering more slowly are not able to find those.
You mentioned a couple of things that are near and dear to
my heart, the community colleges. I think that the work that is
going on out of that $500 million proposal, of which 20 percent
will go to community colleges because of their ability to adapt
and to include people who need retraining is very important.
I'm also particularly interested in TAA. I remember a
couple of years ago in my Joint Economic Committee hearing,
Alan Greenspan talk about TAA maybe going to be eventually a
large part of the answer to some of the things that we call
outsourcing now, but job loss and manufacturing in other ways,
and through TAA many of the unemployment benefits, the job
training, being extended to workers who have been adversely
affected as a result of trade and foreign competition.
In the last several years the Department of Labor has
certified thousands of workers in my area of the country to be
eligible for TAA. I have heard recently talk among some folks
who are interested in expanding TAA eligibility to other
sectors like the software sector and the Information Technology
(IT) sector, and I am wondering if you have a position on this
suggestion, if this is something that would be of interest to
the Administration, and if it is something that we could work
toward, if there is an official Administration position or just
generally what your thoughts are on including IT and high-tech
workers in TAA assistance programs?
Ms. CHAO. Currently TAA does not envision service workers,
and when we administer the program we administer it as Congress
had intended. Obviously, if Congress has additional thoughts on
this, we will be more than glad to work with all of you and
consider what some of your thoughts are. We would have to take
a look at the eligibility requirements and perhaps some of the
resource allocation issues as well.
Chairman THOMAS. Thank the gentlewoman. Does the gentleman
from Washington wish to inquire?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I want to thank you, Madam Secretary, for
taking that cheerleading trip out to the Northwest, and I have
a couple questions about it. In light of the fact that this
report that has just come out on the 26th of February called
``Job Openings and Labor Turnover'' from December, you have
lost jobs in the economy every single month since June. When
you got out to Washington State and Oregon, I would like to
know what did the unemployed workers say to you about the lack
of an extension of the benefits? Did they say that was fine
with them, that they were hopeful, or what did they say to you
when you met with them?
Ms. CHAO. We talked about job opportunities and where there
are sectors of the economy in which hiring is going on, and we
also talked about sectors of the economy which are desperately
seeking workers.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, where did you tell the people in the
State of Washington to move to? Where did you tell them to go
get a job?
Ms. CHAO. In Washington State there is a tremendous need
for health care workers, for biotechnology workers or----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, if you were a computer programmer, you
should now go work in a hospital? Is that what you told them?
Ms. CHAO. We don't tell them anything. It is their choice,
and we have----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. That leads us to the second question, this
whole business about whether you believe in training or not.
The 2003 budget, if you take that and go to the 2005 budget,
this Administration has cut training funds by $750 million, so
anybody who says there is more money in for training is simply
playing with the numbers because if you adjust it for
inflation, that is what you have done.
You evaded Mr. Rangel, and you essentially filibustered Ms.
Dunn, but I am going to ask you again. Does the Administration
believe that service jobs should be covered under the TAA? You
have the economist for the country saying that outsourcing is a
good thing. Now, that means people are going to be left without
jobs in this country, and I want to know if the Administration
thinks they ought to be eligible for their TAA?
Ms. CHAO. I believe I answered the question, but I will--we
administer the law as passed by Congress.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Can it be a yes or a no?
Ms. CHAO. We administer laws as passed by Congress.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You have no interest in what we do.
Ms. CHAO. Oh, of course, of course.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You just sit down there and wait for us to
make a decision? The President of the United States is so
passive----
Ms. CHAO. It requires an act of Congress.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Wait a minute. You are presenting the
President of the United States as being a passive man who sits
down at 1600----
Ms. CHAO. That is your----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Pennsylvania and says, ``I wonder what the
Congress is going to do for us today.'' He has no interest in
whether or not we give that?
Ms. CHAO. That is certainly not true.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Nothing that he has told you, I can tell. I
will tell you why it is important. Because the Boeing Company
has decided to outsource all of their computer programming. I
have a personal interest. I have a brother who is 60 years old
and is going to be out of work with no health care benefits and
60 years old and no training money. He is not alone. I am not
pleading the case of my brother. I am saying there are
thousands of individuals in this country when your economist
says that outsourcing is a good thing, and then you come
through and talk about jobs in the Northwest, and you don't
talk to any unemployed workers about why you don't extend the
benefits. My brother won't even be eligible for extended
benefits because this Administration doesn't care about him or
all of his confreres at the Boeing Company who are getting laid
off. For anybody to say you put more training money in but you
will not give it to the people that you in fact know you are
making unemployed, is in my view misleading this Committee and
trying to mislead the public. You can go on all those trips you
want and go all over the country and wave the flag, but the
workers know that it is a sham.
When you won't sit up here and say that the President cares
about them and wants the Congress to act on a bill putting
service workers in to either a Republican or a Democrat, says
to me the President doesn't care. All he wants to do is extend
the tax benefits permanently. That is his plan, and his plan
has led to a reduction in jobs every month since June.
I yield back the balance of my time.
So, did Congress take up the initiative? Hell NO! Now? Hell NO!
More later, stay tuned.