announcer: eugene scalia testified before the senate health education labor committee on his nomination to serve as labor secretary. he touched on a number of topics with lawmakers, including equal protection under law for the lgbtq community. this hearing is two hours and 45 minutes.

>> good morning. >> good morning.

>> the committee will come to order. today we're considering the nomination of eugene scalia. to serve as united states secretary of labor. let me say before i begin my pening statement that we welcome secretary chao. good to see you and we welcome mr. scalia's family. we'll give him a chance to introduce all of them a little later. there's so many of them and i won't -- the scalias are a productive family, apparently, so we'll -- we'll -- it won't come off any of your allotted time for your statement nd i would say to the family members that the confirmation hearings aren't necessarily a family exercise. i was before this committee

myself more than 30 years ago to be nominated for education secretary and was grilled pretty heavily, i thought with my family sitting right behind me. i was accustomed to it, but they weren't. but they got over it before very long. so we welcome you here and we're glad you're here. yesterday i received a letter from senator murray asking me to delay's today's hearings. as i think the committee members know, i do my best to do what senator murray suggests that i do. we work cooperatively even when we disagree. but i'm not going to agree to that and i want to carefully explain why. we've already delayed the hearing one week at senator murray's request and let me go over the nomination process just briefly. n july 18, two months ago,

president trump said he would nominate eugene scalia as the united states secretary of labor. and then on august 27th, the committee received mr. scalia's ethics paperwork from the government including his financial disclosure, his ethics agreement, and based on these documents, it was determination he was compliant. concerning governing conflicts of interest, unquote. then on the same day, three weeks ago, august 27, the committee also received his committee paperwork which is extensive and is additional background information. so all of that required paperwork has been before the committee for 23 days, more than three weeks. and since that day, august 27, mr. scalia has offered to meet with every member of this

committee and has met with most of us. now to make sure i'm being exactly fair in the way i schedule these confirmation hearings, i check closely to compare how the committee handled president obama's nominations and compared them with the way we handle president trump's. this is what i found. let's take the example of tom perez who was president obama's second secretary of labor. the committee received the last of mr. perez's paperwork 10 days before his hearing, or take the example of john king, president obama's second secretary of education, the committee received the last of mr. king's paperwork six days before his hearings. so by comparison, mr. scalia had all of his paperwork in 23 days before the hearing. and i also think it's reasonable to vote on mr. scalia next tuesday. this has been a thorough process. senators have known for two months that the president has

selected, nominated mr. calia. as of today, we've had all of his paperwork for 23 days. today senators will have the opportunity to have two rounds of questions. any senator should be able to ask any additional question that a senator wishes to ask, that a senator did not ask when that person met personally with mr. scalia. and if senators still have questions, they can submit those by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow and mr. scalia will answer them. before the vote on tuesday. now, i imagine the democrats on this committee disagree with mr. scalia. and i disagreed with john king on many education matters. but when president obama's education secretary stepped down in his last year of office, i ent to the president and i said, mr. president, i think we eed to have a confirmed senate

nominee in an important position like u.s. education secretary. if you will please nominate john king with whom i disagree, i said if you'll nominate him, even though we disagree, we'll consider and confirm him promptly. and we did. within 32 days after president obama nominated john king and within -- the senate had confirmed him. i also voted, by the way, for cloture on the senate floor for both of these nominees. even though i didn't support their nominations. i did this because i believe it's important that we have a confirmed and accountable cabinet member for presidents. that's important to the senate so we have a chance to interview nd deal with our cabinet

members and it's important to the country for the president to be able to have his choice of a cabinet member promptly considered and confirmed. so as a matter of fairness, after having a hearing ten days after receiving the last of mr. perez's paperwork and six days after receiving mr. king's paperwork was good enough for president obama, why is it not appropriate to have a hearing 23 days or three weeks after we received mr. scalia's paperwork? it would be hard for me as chairman to justify treating president trump's nominees worse than we treated president obama's nominees. as for today's hearing. senator murray and i will each have an opening statement and then secretary chao will introduce mr. scalia. we welcome her. after his testimony, senators will each have five minutes of questions and we'll have two rounds of questions so senators can have time to ask them. i know as is often the case, there are other meetings and hearings going on this morning, so i've asked mr. scalia to stay for the two rounds. last week, a washington times

headline red jobs report shows strong economy, growing wages, low unemployment rate. wages are growing at an annual rate of 3.2%. african-american unemployment ell to 5.5% to a record low of 4.4 to african-american women. overall, unemployment is at a 50-year low. businesses and workers need a secretary of labor who will steer the department with a steady hand. believe mr. scalia has those skills. his broad experience in both the public and private sector, a partner in the washington office crutcher, dunn and where he spent the majority of his career dealing with his issues, 2002 and 2003, he was solicitor of the department of labor as the department's chief lawyer, he led initiatives to protect workers to improve enforcement of workforce safety laws. for example, he continued a case started by the clinton

administration to ensure that a poultry factory was paying workers what they were owed. the department ultimately announced a $10 million settlement for workers. in 1992 he left the firm to erve as special assistant to william barr in the george h.w. bush administration. he graduated with distinction from the university of virginia in 1985, university of chicago law school where he was editor in chief of law review. he's been a guest lecturer on unemployment law at chicago law school, adjunct professor at the university of the district of columbia. he and his wife have seven children. he's all together well qualified for this job. it's important for the department to create an environment to help employers and employees succeed in today's apidly changing workplace.

one step the trump administration has taken to help he 700,000 americans who own and run their own franchises is to -- is involved with what we call the joint employer tandard. n the obama years in 2015, the national labor relations board issued a decision overturning more than 30 years of precedent creating a new standard. that decision meant that indirect or unexercised control ver employees' working conditions could make a franchiser joint employees. the department of labor itself issued a guidance broadening the nterpretation of joint employer. that has led to a lot of confusion. one judge said federal courts have adopted a dizzying world of multifactored test for determining joint mployment.

the administration has attempted to eliminate this. june 2017, secretary acosta withdrew the obama labor guidance. in june of this year, the omment period closed for a new rule which we hope will bring stability and then a second way the administration has sought to create more certainty for employees and employers has been to raise the salary threshold for overtime pay in a reasonable way. in 2014 the obama administration more than doubled that threshold. there was bipartisan opposition from congress. the department has proposed a much more reasonable rule, the department's proposal would require input from workers and employees prior to future changes. i'm glad to see these steps. as i mentioned earlier, the senate confirmed john king as united states secretary of education about a month after

president obama said he wanted r. king to serve as secretary. in this case, it's been about two months since president trump announced that he would nominate r. scalia to be the next labor secretary and the committee had has all of mr. scalia's paperwork and had an opportunity to meet with him for the past three weeks. the committee considered president obama's cabinet nominees promptly and with respect. it was embarrassing then and it is now for well qualified americans to be nominated by the president of the united states, any president, for an important position and then say to them in effect you are innocent until nominated or drag things out for a long period of time. mr. scalia is supported by a number of trade organization and is the committee has received letters of support from women he has mentored from career attorneys whom he worked with

while he was solicitor from an hispanic immigrant who he epresented on a pro bono basis and from one of senator ted kennedy's former senior counsels n the judiciary committee. i ask consent that those letters and 17 additional letters of support be committed into the ecord. the committee will vote on tuesday on mr. scalia's nomination and i look forward to the full senate confirming him soon. senator murray. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. secretary chao, it is good to see you. thank you for joining us today to introduce the nominee. mr. scalia, i appreciate you and your family being here today. i look forward to you introducing your apparently very large family behind you. i know that will take a while, but we welcome all of you as well. mr. chairman, i do want to start by expressing my frustration

with this rushed process and i have asked repeatedly to delay his confirmation hearing because i do believe that every nominee's background should be reviewed carefully and thoroughly, especially for a role this important. moving from a formal nomination that came on september 11th to confirmation in less than two weeks as we have in this case, is deeply concerning. members have not been given enough time to review mr. scalia's background and i have repeatedly asked for more time and in fact we did not get answers to follow-up questions until late last night. so i want to be clear, i do not consider this nominee's vet complete or sufficient and i will be asking questions and gathering information about your record and i expect thorough answers and i'm sure you will give them. thank you. the chairman has said there's going to be a markup next tuesday and i really do urge the chairman to move the markup so everyone really does have more time to consider this nominee's

very long, complex record. why? because workers and families across the country are counting on us to take our vetting responsibility seriously, especially since president trump clearly won't. his first nominee was a millionaire fast food ceo who disparaged his own workers and was forced to withdraw from consideration. his second pick served as a yes man for an anti-worker agenda before resigning president trump's third pick, is an elite corporate lawyer who has spent his career fighting for corporations and against workers. i oppose mr. scalia's nomination to the department of labor back in 2001. 18 years later, his record defending corporations has gotten longer. meanwhile the need for someone ho will stand up to worker and

family and stand up to president trump on their behalf has only become more urgent. because we have seen time and again that president trump will not hesitate to throw working families under the bus to help corporations and billionaires and the powerfully connected get even further. when he worked with republicans to move a tax cut. -- for corporations and the weal thy, a move that some republicans want to pay for by cutting medicare, medicaid and social security. from rolling back a rule ensuring workers receive their overtime pay, to blocking democrats' efforts to raise the inimum wage and ensure equal pay, to seizing every opportunity to undermine workers rights to organize and join a union so they can advocate for higher pay and a safer workplace. the trump administration has consistently sided with corporations over workers. now, instead of nominating someone who understands the challenges working people will

face, president trump has chosen a powerful corporate lawyer who has devoted his career to protecting big corporations and ceos from accountability and attacking workers' rights and protections. and economic security. instead of nominating a secretary of labor, president trump has nominated a secretary of corporate interest. if there's one consistent pattern in mr. scalia's long career, it's hostility to the very workers he would be charged with protecting and the very laws he would be charged with enforcing if he ould be confirmed. like when he threw billions of dollars of workers retirement savings into jeopardy by suing to strike down the fiduciary rule. that is a common sense rule that protected worker's retirement savings by simply requiring financial advisors to put their clients' interest ahead of their own.

and mr. scalia's made a career of striking down laws for big businesses looking to hack away at the safeguards and protections meant to avoid another economic crash, to fighting against protections for workers health and safety. when the department was working on a rule requiring employers to make accommodations to help prevent and address one of the most commonplace workplace injuries, mr. scalia dismissed the health concerns of hundreds of thousands of workers as, quote, junk science and crusaded on behalf of corporate clients to undermine and overturn that rule. he hasn't fought against rules safety but rkers' also those to protect workers wages from being stolen by employers. democrats have been pushing to raise the minimum wage to $15, to end the lower wage for tipped workers and workers with disability, to close the pay gap

and make sure workers are not cheated out of their hard-earned pay. republicans continue to block our efforts to pay workers more, so i believe we need a secretary who cares about giving workers a raise, not one who criticized president obama's decision to increase the minimum wage for workers who are unfederal contracts. not one who fought to help corporate clients steal employees' tips and get out of paying overtime wages and we need someone who will hold companies accountable. not let them off the hook at every opportunity. the last time mr. scalia served in the department of labor, he restricted protections that prevent retaliation against whistleblowers so severely he garnered bipartisan criticism for being openly hostile to whistleblowers. when it comes to accountability for discrimination, mr. scalia's record is equally unacceptable. in one case, he defended a company that discriminated against a job applicant because f her hairstyle.

in another, which mr. he argued that employers should be able to discriminate against people with disabilities based on perceptions about what they can do and successfully undermined the landmark protections in the americans with disabilities act. when it comes to accountability for workplace harassment, his record got worse. while our nation is grappling with this epidemic, mr. scalia is working to help get businesses off the hook. 30 women have been fighting to hold ford accountable for sexual harassment and assault they allege they experienced in the workplace, everything from unwanted touching to assault. mr. scalia has been fighting to get their case thrown out of court. he argued some of the survivors .hould get their case dismissed

our nation needs a secretary of labor who will prioritize addressing the epidemic of workplace harassment not someone who thinks the bar for what qualifies as harassment should be higher or that the standard of accountability should be lower. and these are all just a few examples of the larger alarming pattern of his career. his nomination offers a straight forward test for each of us. if you care about workers and families, his record is absolutely to me disqualifying for secretary of labor. but if like president trump you want someone who run up the score board for corporations and billionaires at the expense of working families, his anti-worker record is exactly what you're looking for. people are getting more and more tired of president trump's anti-worker agenda, the last thing they want to see from this administration is one more person using their power to look out for those at the top. so i hope everyone who claims to

care about working families watches this hearing closely, looks at mr. scalia's record thoroughly and thinks long and hard about whether the workers they represent really want them to fight for someone who will not fight for them. thank you, mr. hairman. > thank you, senator murray. we'll welcome the nominee, mr. scalia. the secretary currently serves as the united states transportation secretary. secretary, welcome. secretary chao: thank you. chairman alexander, ranking member murray, before introducing today's nominee, please let me acknowledge senator johnny isakson who recently announced his etirement. his leadership especially under the pension protection act has greatly benefited workers and you will be dearly missed. i am pleased to be here to introduce eugene scalia who i

have known for decades as the nominee to be the 28th secretary of labor. i worked closely with him when i as secretary of labor. i can attest to his keen intellect, personal integrity and commitment to protecting our nations workers. there is a quorum of scalia members. let me especially mention marine scalia. she has been a strong guiding influence in her family. she is a strong new englander who made sure gene read a biography of samuel adams. to emphasize the important of character and dedication in public service. this is one of the ways his parents instilled a respect for public service, the founding principles of our country, and the importance of using one's talents to make a

difference. -- for others. this is ideals and backgrounds are important to gene's success as a respected cons lor and advisor throughout his government service. and as a formidable attorney and dedicated volunteer during his many years in private practice. he has served three previous cabinet officers including me with distinction. in addition to lecturing at his alma mater, the university chicago school of law, gene has donated his time as a visiting professor at the university of the district of columbia's david clark school of law to help develop and support the next generation of young leaders. he helped support a law camp for high school students organized by the national hispanic bar foundation and somehow he found time to volunteer as a public

member of the administrative conference of the united states. as a former solicitor at the u.s. department of labor, gene knows very well the issues at he department. during his tenure, he did a stellar job of leading the department's attorneys, both career and noncareer, and was widely respected for his fairness, his ability, and his integrity. in private practice, gene volunteered his time to represent on pro bono basises, many, many workers fighting unfair dismissal and discrimination in the workforce. when i was secretary of labor and he was solicitor, gene layed a critical role in the department's numerous enforcement actions, vindicating the rights of american workers under our nation's employment laws. he was a leader in our work to pdate 40-year-old overtime

regulations to better protect our nation's workers. gene's work to protect overtime is why he gained the support of the 13,000 member strong sergeants benevolent association of new york which is able to secure $20 million in unpaid overtime compensation for their members because of the overtime regulations that he helped to craft. gene understands that the mission of the u.s. department of labor is to protect and promote our country's most valuable resource, the american workforce. he also recognizes that because of the needs and composition of the american workforce and how it's continually changing, the department must also be forward-looking, responsive and imble.

gene is one of the nation's leading experts on labor and employment laws. and the issues at the forefront of a rapidly evolving workplace and workforce. he understands what it takes to rotect workers and the importance of strong, relevant job training programs to empower workers with the skills that they need to succeed in an increasing competitive workplace. i want to thank the committee for allowing me this time to introduce the president's nominee to be the next united states secretary of labor, eugene scalia, thank you. thank you. >> thank you, secretary chao. we know that you have a busy schedule, when that schedule requires you to leave, you're excused. we appreciate you coming. it's good to have you before the committee. mr. scalia, we invite you to

give your opening remarks and invite you also to introduce your family. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ranking member murray. if i could begin by introducing first my wonderful wife trish seated next to my daughter isabella, my daughter megan, ack, bridgett, my oldest son nino, and certainly not to be forgotten is my 10-year-old daughter, erin. beside her, my deeply understanding parents-in-law susan and chris larson. oh, and my son, luke. welcome. i'm very grateful to my brother for joining and i -- next to matthew, my formidable mother,

marine scalia. my brother john. my sister-in-law adele, brother chris, and i -- my sister katharine is here as well with her husband, i believe bill eenan. my sister mary claire her husband, michael murray. my -- and my baby sister meg with her husband john bryce. and, trish, did i miss anybody? i thank them all for coming. thank you for your patience and thank you for allowing me to introduce them not on my five-minute clock for my opening statement. [laughter] chairman alexander and ranking member murray, thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this committee. it's an honor to be here and an honor to have been nominated to serve as secretary of labor.

i'm deeply grateful to the president for this nomination and for his trust and confidence. i thank elaine for that instruction. a great chao was secretary of labor. she established clear priorities and a smooth operating structure. if i'm confirmed, her management will be a model for me. the labor department is a venerable agency with an important mission, enforcing the workers protections enacted by congress, offering programs that help prepare americans for a lifetime of productive work while also helping supply the skilled workforce needed by our usinesses. and providing support to workers who have fallen on hard time, loss of work, loss of retirement benefits, or workplace injury or illness. this is work that i valued when i served previously as solicitor, the department's

third-ranking official. then as i was coming to the department from the private sector where i advised businesses regarding employment matters. but once at the department, i had new clients, new responsibilities and above all, i had a public trust. i am proud with the actions i took before as solicitor to further the department's mission. that included helping to resolve a labor dispute at the west coast ports that threatened to cripple the nation's economy. my goal was to act with favor neither toward the company nor toward the union, but to help them resolve the dispute. focused our enforcement fforts on low wage and immigrant workers, encouraged increased use of an osha tool and took an unprecedented legal action to protect a whistleblower blower. i took these actions because i believe they were right, they

furthered the department's mission and because i believe in law and order. but there was more too. the most affecting part of the job for me was encountering individual workers in sometimes tragic circumstances and recognizing that a capacity that we had to respond. the construction workers who died in trenching accidents. the 12 miners in alabama who gave their lives trying to rescue others. migrant workers who sacrifice by their families was preyed upon by others. the labor department is a big agency with many programs, components and acronyms. but if confirmed, i will aim to remain mindful every day of the individual men and women like those to whom our efforts ultimately are targeted. back in the private sector, much of my work has been in the ublic eye, but there's been an

important part of my job that went largely unseen. that included helping clients address workplace misconduct, including retaliation and arassment. i've advised clients to fire or take other serious action against executives and other managers who in my judgment had engaged in harassment or other misconduct. i have had direct and forceful conversations with clients telling them to take steps that sometimes they wished they did not have to. something that became important to me at my law firm was supporting young lawyers who were trying to balance the demands of their jobs with their roles as young parents. in recent years, many of the young lawyers i worked with were on a part-time work schedule so

they could spend more times with their families. shortly before the president announced he would nominate me, i organized a program for our summer interns to hear from men and women at the firm who were trying to strike that balance. i've had the good fortune to pursue a demanding career while balancing family life. it became a mission to support women in the law to do the same. i look forward to your questions his morning. and to a dialogue i want to continue. i enjoy exchanging ideas with people who see things differently than i do and i'm betting i'll be getting some of hat today. that's good. i learn from it. nd it is partly through this dialogue with you that i hope to justify the president's confidence and to be the best possible secretary of labor, should by confirmed. -- i be confirmed. >> thank you, mr. scalia. and welcome to member families. we'll now begin a five-minute ound of questions.

i would appreciate, senators, the idea is that the questions and answers can be completed within five minutes if mr. scalia doesn't have time to answer a question, i'll give him more time if he needs it to answer that question and we'll have two rounds of questions to make sure that all senators have a chance to ask the questions that they would like. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for accommodating y schedule as i'm managing the markup of a bill in appropriations this morning. mr. scalia, before moving onto important programs at the dol, including the h 2 b program hat's important to the economy of maine, i want to follow up and ask you about the perception

of some that you will not prioritize the health, safety and economic well-being of working people. we've heard that this morning. from your time as solicitor, what specific examples can you provide us of when you acted to protect workers in wage and hour cases? >> senator collins, thank you for the question and for focusing on that central mission of the department. one of the first actions that i took as solicitor when i was at the labor department before, actually, the chairman referred to briefly in his opening remarks, there was a possible case, an investigation that had been at the department for about two years when i came in to the solicitor position concerning what are called dawning and doffing practices.

-- in the poultry industry. whether to pay employees for putting on cumbersome gear. the clinton administration has overseen an investigation but had not been prepared to go forward with the case. when i came into the solicitor's office, that case had been around for about two years. i very quickly in the job sat down, looked at the statute, regulations, met with the career folks and decided, yes, this time should be paid. we obtained a $10 million settlement with one of the companies involved. it was one of the largest settlements at the time in the history of the wage and hour division. and then, we sued the other employer in a case that was ultimately won under the secretary. she commended ited a very important action by the department a very ommended it as

important action by the department. but i should yield some time back to you. >> thank you. in your work in the private sector, do you have examples of where you represented employees and obviously the bulk of your practice has been representing employers and my related question is was that pro bono work or were you hired to do so? >> i did pro bono work for a number of different employees in my time at the firm. just two or three examples, one, again, chairman alexander referred to, it was a young hispanic woman who had a hearing disability who believed that she had been subjected to iscrimination in her workplace due to her ethnicity and that condition and i represented her, was able to work out an agreement with her employer to enable her to continue to do the work she wanted to do. she's submitted a letter to the committee about that representation. 'll mention one other, i did

this pro bono, this was somebody who was fairly senior in an organization, reported and pressed on the subject of some financial conduct that he thought was improper. he was asked to leave this institution and i represented him in connection with that and with his feeling that he was being treated improperly because he had blown the whistle on financial improprieties. here are others. >> turning to the department's role in the h-2-b program which is important to maine's tourism industry. i represent a state with 1.3 illion people. we have 36 million tourism visits in a year. so, obviously, the workforce is not adequate to handle that. s a result we see restaurants, bed and breakfasts, inns, hotels curtailing their regulars which hurts their regular employees. the department received 96,400

pplications on january 1st and that's nearly triple the number of h-2-b visas. if confirmed will you work with congress to make sure that there are enough visas including opportunities for returning workers, for those employers who have no choice but to rely on a seasonal workforce to be able to oirpt. -- operate. >> chairman, if i could have just a moment to respond to that question? senator collins, one of the privileges of being a nominee is the opportunity to meet with you all, with members of this committee, members of the senate and to learn, and i have learned from you and from some of your

other colleagues about some of the challenges that program presents and how critical it is to businesses and the employees that benefit from them as well. i regard that program and ensuring as best we can that it functions properly to be an important priority, if i'm confirmed. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator collins. senator murray. >> thank you, mr. chairman. earlier this month the census ureau released data that the gender pay gap is alive and ell. and it's even worse for women of color. yet, just a day after that data was released, the trump administration took steps to protect companies and sweep pay discrimination under the rug by rolling back the back paid data ollection at the equal employment opportunity

commission. so we couldn't collect the data and the secretary of labor's job is to protect those workers and fight for their rights and speak out on their behalf. so i wanted to ask you today a few straight forward yes-or-no questions. do you accept the census bureau's data that shows women re only paid 82 cents for what paid? y dollar men are >> i don't know that i've seen hat particular survey. but i am familiar with data suggesting that the figure is about the point that you've identified. i think there's some data that puts it perhaps slightly lower. i'm aware of that. >> i'm the lead sponsor of the paycheck fairness act. the bill that would close that pay gap. the house passed it earlier this year. would you support passage of the paycheck fairness act? >> i support fairness in pay and fair working conditions for women. it's something that in my work

at my law firm was important to me. and in advising clients -- >> but you won't commit to supporting that bill. >> i will commit two thinks. -- things. i can commit to providing my resources the senate might find helpful in deliberating that legislation and if it becomes law which is of course your decision, the senate's decision, if it becomes law, i certainly promise to vigorously enforce it. >> i just want everybody to know if these historic trends continue, it's going to be 75 years before that gap gets any etter. with just over 2 1/2 years in office, president trump's administration has ruled out a range of policies that are do -- designed to reduce workers wages and protect corporations who are engaging in what we call wage threat. the department of labor instituted the so-called paid program. it's a wage theft amnesty program that allows employers to audit themselves. they proposed to rescind the overtime rule and replace it

with a far weaker rule. and of course the house has threatened to veto the house passed raise the wage act which ould raise the wages of 30 million workers. can you commit if you are confirmed you will end the paid rogram, yes or no? >> i cannot commit that. i can commit to review it. but i would also like to nderscore how the economy that we have in substantial part because of this president's policies is delivering virtually unprecedented benefits to -- >> i have very little time. a couple of important questions and i want to know yes or no can you commit to placing the overtime rule on hold, yes or

no? >> senator, i can commit to review carefully the ongoing rule makings that are at the department. one of my responsibilities will be to look at them with a fair and open mind. but i don't feel it would be appropriate for me to commit -- >> can you commit to the joint -- abandoning the current administration's on joint employer, yes or no? >> respectfully, no i can't commit, because i respect the notice and comment process established by congress and would want to see what the public say about it and help guide the agency making the right decision. >> can you commit to encouraging the president to withdraw his veto threat on the minimum wage ill? >> again, ranking member murray, if i'm so fortunate as to be confirmed, that is an area in which i'd like to be able to provide support to the congress and the president who ultimately themselves will have to make the decision what the proper wage s. we're then ready to work with

you. > thank you. and i have a very long question next, so i will retain my 20 seconds for my next round. >> you certainly have that prerogative, senator murray. senator murkowski. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and i apologize for kind of jumping the line, but i too have to go into the same appropriations markup. mr. scalia, welcome. thank you for your willingness to step forward here. i understand that senator collins asked a question related to the h2b visas and as you and i have had discussions, this is a key and critical issue in my tate as we work to address the just dramatic seasonality that we have within our fisheries the lack of available workers, and the need to find a permanent fix, not a band-aid fix that we ave. we've been struggling with, made a little bit of headway. but again seeking your

ommitment that you will work with us as other coastal states that have such significant interests in their seafood processing industry? >> yes. as i mentioned to senator collins, i learned from my meetings with you and others who spoke to me about this program and the challenges that it can present in particularly seasonal industries that sometimes are vital to a community, not just to the workers or a particular ompany, but a community. nd if i am confirmed, i do genuinely look forward both to focusing on ways we can ensure that this program fulfills its mission and communicating with you and continue to work with you to do our best to implement the program. >> we look forward to that. we had 43 million salmon coming into bristol bay this season, we do not have 43 million

people. e'll go into that later. i wanted to ask you a little bit more about the industry recognized apprenticeship programs, in developing standards in addition to the registered apprenticeship model hat has been in place. i do know the registered apprenticeships haven't been used widely in some states and some employers consider the process to be burdensome, time consuming. n our state we've got many registered apprenticeships that are training employees in health care, advanced manufacturing, viation and maritime we have heard from some of our unions up north that they are concerned that the training will ot be as rigorous as the

registered aprenticeships. some of the issues they have raised our concerns about safety on the job site being compromised, they do support keeping the construction trades out of the framework. i have been concerned that some employers may see it as a way to create tax payer funded training programs that will fit their immediate needs, but perhaps will not provide the employees with the high quality and portable skills that i think we recognize are need and respected -- needed and respected within he industry. your thoughts a little bit more on the department's efforts and whether or not you think that the construction trades should be included in that effort at all? >> senator, thank you for raising it. it's an important subject, and happily i think one as to which there's consensus, even across the aisle on certain basics.

i think that people interested in our workforce and people interested in education too recognize the value that apprenticeship programs can have for workers, that they can provide benefits that may not be available in traditional educational settings. and obviously they are valuable to americans' business productivity, they can serve as one critical way of filling the skills gap. senator, you're referring to an ongoing rule making at the labor epartment, which is seeking to expand apprenticeship opportunities. i think again there's consensus to an extent that more apprenticeships would be a good thing. i recognize that some are concerned that it might be approached in a way that undermines existing successful programs or that doesn't really provide the rigor needed to protect the interests of workers.

i think those are the important considerations that need careful attention as the labor department moves forward. and again, if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, i know that is one of the very important things that will be on my plate and what the public has to say in that notice and comment process is going to be important to me in striking the right balance. >> i appreciate that and look forward to working with you. i do have other questions but i'll submit them for the record and i appreciate this. >> thank you, senator murkowski. senator casey. >> thank you, mr. mr. scalia, good to see you here and see your family. thanks for taking the time to talk yesterday. talk. it and we had a good conversation. i have to start by saying i'm skeptical of your nomination based upon your record as a lawyer and even the work at the department of labor in that period of time you were there.

when i compare that record with the mission of the department, i'm just reading from the epartment's website, the mission in summary form is to and develop the welfare of wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the united states. those number one. number two, improve working conditions. number three, advance opportunities for profitable employment. number four, ensure work related benefits and rights. so i have real concerns. let me start with a reference from your opening statement. one group of americans you referenced were coal miners. i think you referenced alabama iners. i come from a state that has a long coal mining tradition. at this point, we've got real concerns about what used to be called in the old, old days, miners' asthma, black lung. n fact, i'm holding here a

letter from two labor organizations, united mine workers and steel workers, sent to the department that you hope to lead in june, raising questions about and asking for a new standard with regard t respirable crystalline ilica. this was made in the request, quote, one in five miners with 25 years or more of experience are suffering from black lung. in many of these miners, the disease has advanced to the pmf stage, progressive massive fibrosis, the worst stage of black lung caused by the inhalation of coal and silica dust. i guess the basic question i have for you, and this is referenced also in the letter where the -- both the head of the mine workers, mr. roberts, and head of the steel

orkers says msha meaning the part of labor that does the regulation should consider the osha promulgating a new rule that is as if not more protective of miners. currently our nation provides less protection from silica of miners than to any other group of workers. do you agree with that statement? >> senator casey, i enjoyed our meeting yesterday too and appreciate your taking the time. i also genuinely share your interest in the mine safety and health administration. i mentioned it in my opening because the importance of the labor department to conditions in that industries is especially great. there's not another agency that has an agency dedicated to it. when i was there it really did

come home to me, particularly in connection with that alabama disaster. how important a role could e. i helped put together an emergency standard to deal with the some of the problems that had caused that accident with respect to pmf particularly. i am aware that there is concern that new mining techniques are causing an increase in this. and i've reviewed some materials possibly that letter. it is something that i would want to understand better. >> just want to cut you off. e have limited time. just want to ask you a very simple question. sked you do you agree. do you agree with the standard should be in a sense twice as worse for the coal miner as opposed to any other worker? and i think that is just yes or o? >> senator, i don't know what the exact standards are. i agree that this is an issue that i would want to look at and was brought to my attention. it's an important one.

if i'm confirmed i would hope to get a chance -- >> if you're confirmed i'd ask you to do that. finally, more time later, but i wanted to ask you a question about a part of the department of labor that has the obligation to do enforcement. i would argue that enforcement of our trade agreements has been lacking under several administrations going back many, any years. but the proposal by the administration now to cut the bureau of labor affairs, which is the entity that does trade enforcement, to cut it by 78% from roughly 86 million to a little more than 18 million, a $67.5 million cut. does that make any sense to you? do you agree with a cut of that dimension where funding has been pretty level for many years? >> senator, i do believe that fairness in trade agreements and particularly with respect to

working conditions has been a priority for this president. that particular program is one that if i'm confirmed i would commit to take a look at and evaluate whether it would be able to continue to perform its mission. >> i've heard no good rationale for a 78% cut in an office that does trade enforcement. thank you. >> sure. senator casey. senator isakson. >> i appreciate the time you gave me last week in conversation. i enjoyed it a lot. congratulation on your family. the chicken you in industry in georgia. if anybody has sympathy for a job and t is a tough the stuff they wear is a tremendously important. because when they go home at night, the first thing they want

to do is get hosed off. and i appreciate you did for the chicken workers. i wasn't aware of it. i knew they had a good lawyer. i didn't know it was you. nobody brags about the lawyer. the results are clear. you made both sides happy which is even harder. i've listened to a lot of things today. you've been asked many yes and o questions. to where there are many yes or no questions. you can't answer a lot of questions yes and no. >> that was not a question. >> no harassment whatsoever, believe me. i am reminded about a lot of cases in my history up here like e ergonomics. they took questions and began to apply in the application of a rule which ultimately was to d

be -- was to be determined by the department of labor. no groicery bag would weighwereo go up or down in some cases and it was implied because of an arbitrary mathematical formula rather than doing what is right. i want to ask you a question. can you cite a case or two where as a lawyer who deals with negotiating these things, if you are on the attack were being attacked, can you think of some cases other than the chicken case you have talked about, where you have been involved in a resolution that was allowed the flexibility of the enforcement of the rule, a benefit to the employer and the employee at the same time which is ultimately the way those rules should be go? mr. scalia: senator, if i could say first, it was a privilege to sit and speak with you. i do want to echo secretary chao in thanking you for your service.

the poultry case was interesting to me in part because when i came before this committee before, i was asked by senator and authorized that important litigation, so thank you. i think that achieving the kind of win-win that you've described is something that you seek for in litigation at times, but i would point particularly to some of the advice and counsel work that i've done for clients, where it's as i said in my opening, a part you don't see necessarily, but i did spend a fair amount of my time as a

private practice lawyer telling clients what their obligations were, helping them meet them by putting together anti-discrimination policies or policies to help workers get accommodation under the a.d.a., and then as i mentioned at times pushing clients pretty hard to do what the law and sometimes decency indicated they needed to do. so that is one area where i was proud i was able to try to accomplish. sen. isakson: that's exactly what i was talking about. that is so much of the stuff that is a result of your work, happens in the backrooms, is never seen in the courtroom. the important thing is you put together an adversary and an advocate, but they come to a common ground. that is the type of thing we need to have. i've got just 40 seconds. i want to take one more question if i can. i want to thank your reminding me to thank secretary chao. the kind remarks she had to me about the pension protection act. i'm getting ready to enjoy a pension one of these days.

i'm glad we protected it when i wasn't here so it wasn't self-interest at the time. my last question will be about the joint employment. senator murray is a wonderful lady and works with me on workforce development. the act we worked on, it is for workers. the labor department enjoys so much -- we won't talk about that. that is a perfect bipartisan example of how we can get things done. i do want to talk about the joint employer rule just to give you a thought. the statement was made that about how important the joint employment rule is to the future of employment and the future of workers in the united states of america. i don't know if that is a fair statement to make or not. i know this. the application of the joint employer rule to the franchise industry alone which is most of american small business will put , them in the history books in terms of employers, pure and simple. and it's because of the application of that, as fair as it may sound, is absolutely impossible for somebody to make a living and run a business and support their workers to do. i hope when joint employer is finally ruled on, we won't look

at it as an absolute yes or no solution to a problem, which is a workers rights, but instead understand that there are millions and millions and millions of americans who are employed today by franchise operators and others who would not be employed joint employer were the rule of the united states of america. that's my little speech. i yield that for another day. mr. chairman i want to yield the , rest of my time to you because i'm not going to be able to stay for a second round. >> ok thank you, senator , isakson. senator smith. sen. smith: i think it might be senator baldwin's turn. >> didn't see her come in. senator baldwin. excuse me. sen. baldwin: thank you. first of all, thank you for meeting with me earlier this week, and i want to welcome you, mr. scalia, and your family to the health committee. mr. scalia, your history and

record on worker safety is of concern to me and is not what i would be looking for as -- in our next secretary of labor. specifically on behalf of united parcel service, ups, you opposed rules that would have required employers to pay for protective equipment for workers that they needed to stay safe on the job. you represented seaworld in a well-known case when they contested monetary fines and three citations, including a willful citation. earlier this year, i met with a former nurse and a constituent of mine by the name of patricia moon updike. on june 24, 2015, while helping a patient, she was kicked in the

throat, nearly collapsing her trachea. the assault led to multiple surgeries to save her life, and it sadly resulted in the loss of her ability to work as a nurse, which was her dream job since she was nine years old. violence is now the third leading cause of workplace deaths. the obama administration issued a proposal similar to a bill that i've introduced call the -- introduced called the prevention of workplace violence in health care and social assistance that would protect health care and social services workers, like patricia, my constituent, protect them from violent attacks. but osha, under this administration, has dragged its feet and still hasn't finalized this proposal.

mr. scalia, will you commit to prioritizing this proposal and make sure it is finalized, yes or no? mr. scalia: first, senator, if i could say, i did generally enjoy our meeting and i appreciated your time. so -- >> did you say generally or genuinely? >> [laughter] mr. scalia: i said genuinely and in full. >> [laughter] and with respect to the work that i did, if i could just respond briefly, i did handle certain cases for clients. it was my job in my firm, and i had a duty actually to do that vigorously as a lawyer. when i was at the labor department before, i was ever mindful that i had a new set of responsibilities and even a higher set of responsibilities. the most important thing to me

as a practitioner has been fidelity to my obligations and to the law. there was a letter submitted by about 13 career folks i worked with at the labor department about how i discharged those responsibilities while i was there. workplace violence happens. there are times when the employer is on notice and should be taking steps. i think there is a role for osha in that context. there is a balance to be struck, obviously, for those instances when it's just purely personally motivated, and one wouldn't expect to hold the employer responsible. but i have been briefed on this issue. i know it is important to you. and if i'm confirmed, i would like to look at it more closely, and i would genuinely like to speak to you about it further. sen. baldwin: i appreciate that, and i would note in terms of patricia's case that she was providing medical care to a youth at a juvenile detention

facility, and this is the type of context where we see social workers and nurses, and i think it's -- i hate to see the agency dragging its feet on implementation of something so vital. mr. scalia: i've seen the hazards in that environment too. sen. baldwin: according to the bureau of labor statistics, more than 5000 workers were killed on the job in 2017, and almost 3 million workers were injured or got sick on the job. now osha data shows worker safety enforcement activity is down and the number of osha inspectors under this administration is at record lows. mr. scalia, will you commit to supporting increasing the number of osha inspectors so that osha can fulfill its mission and keep workers safe? mr. scalia: if i could respond briefly, mr. chairman, any

workplace fatality or serious injury is too many, but the number had actually been down in the last couple of years. we can be thankful for that. but you are correct, the number of osha inspectors, my understanding is lower than , secretary acosta for example wanted it to be, and i would commit to you to take a look at steps that might be necessary to get the number of inspectors up to an appropriate level. sen. baldwin: mr. scalia, we -- and i too have appropriations to follow. >> [indiscernible] sen. baldwin: okay. very good. >> senator, thank you. [indiscernible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. scalia, it's good to see you. i enjoyed our conversation together. our young people are told they need to go to college in order to get a good job, and in many

cases we find young people getting a college degree and not finding a good job that actually requires a college degree. almost about a third are working in jobs that don't require college degree. we as a nation i think have not been terribly effective in educating people in alternative career paths that have greater economic potential for them and more rewarding opportunities for them. some discussion of providing free college to everybody would just exacerbate the problem. i wonder is there something that you think is important to be done in your administration to help educate people and encourage paths other than just for your college, paths that may yield greater economic prosperity and opportunity? mr. scalia: senator, i enjoyed our meeting as well, and appreciate the importance of that very question. i was an english major in college. i thought for awhile that that was a background everybody should enjoy. but the truth is --

sen. romney: i suffer the same problem, yes. >> [laughter] mr. scalia: the truth is that it doesn't always best equip one for the american workforce, and there are other ways that can be invaluable to people entering the workforce and to filling the skills gap that we have in our economy. this president has convened an interagency group that has included the department of labor as well as the department of education to look among other things as apprenticeships as an alternative way of educating people. but educating them in a way that is more directly targeted toward ensuring they have skills and talents that will be used for them for a lifetime of work. so i think those programs are one valuable way. i think the attention brought to the issue by commissions such as the president's are another. sen. romney: thank you.

i presume you are fully committed to putting the interests of american workers first, and consistent with that where our american interests and the interests of our farmers and ranchers are also involved, that you will commit -- i'd hope you'd commit to endeavor to see if we can't make our h2a visa program more efficient and streamlined for the benefit of our ranchers and farmers. i'm not asking for a specific recommendation, but to see if we can't make it a program that fully affect -- protects the interests of american workers first, at the same time provides for the interests of our farmers and ranchers. mr. scalia: senator, the labor department programs that supply extra workers to businesses that for example have particularly high seasonal demands or for other reasons are unable to attract american workers to

their positions are a central role of the department. it is genuinely an area where i think there's something for everybody to be pleased with. it's an opportunity for workers. it's an opportunity for companies to bring in workers who might not otherwise be available. it is important in supervising that interface, intersection, between worker and company, that the labor department be user friendly. that's something that doesn't always come easy from the government. i've heard from you and others about ways we might fall short. and if i'm confirmed, that's high on my list of areas that because of its importance really to everybody, i want to look at closely and see if there's more we can do. sen. romney: thank you. you have been characterized as being anti-union by some, and that's also a malady i share, and the accusation, not the

reality. i fully believe that unions play an important role in our society, have helped provide greater safety for our workers, greater employment opportunities, higher wages, and believe that unions play a very important role going forward. what are your thoughts about the role of american labor and american labor unions? our labor laws were written, signed by dwight eisenhower. so it's been a long time since we've had legislation in this regard. what are your thoughts about the role of labor, and you have 21 seconds? [laughter] mr. scalia: it's an important role that i've praised in a number of contexts. i've talked in articles about how labor unions can be among the most effective advocates you will see for workplace safety and health. i've written about that, seen it in a number of contexts, and i've seen unions work effectively also to address

discrimination in the workplace in work that i have done, and i've praised them for that. i've said as well that it's fundamental to our system that workers have the ability to decide whether to form a union, and i've said, i've written, that there are some workplaces where the best thing you could have for achieving the best terms and conditions of employment will be a labor union. they play an important role. mr. chairman: thank you, senator romney. sen. romney: mr. chairman, if i'm unable to be here for the second round, i yield my minutes to you, sir. mr. chairman: thank you very much, senator romney. and senator smith. sen. smith: thank you, mr. chair and ranking member murray, and thank you very much, mr. scalia, and thanks for your willingness to serve our country. i appreciated the chance to visit when you when you came to my office. we touched briefly on the issue of pensions. i would like to follow up on that. last year right after i was sworn into the senate, one of

the first visits i made was to duluth, minnesota to talk with a group of participants in the central states pension fund. it is a multiemployer pension fund, and as you know, that pension fund and more than 100 others are projected to collapse in the next two decades, leaving at least 22,000 minnesotans and maybe as many as a million people across the country without their retirement savings. and folks are scared. i'll never forget the conversation i had with a woman named vicki who was talking to me about what was going to happen, and she said tina, i don't have a plan b. my plan b is living under a bridge. and it really helped me to understand how important this is, and also i came to understand how this issue affects businesses as well. because they paid in. they face, businesses face millions in costs if these plans fail. one business owner told me his business, which he has spent 30 years building, is effectively worthless because of this

pension issue. so i'd like to ask a couple of questions about this. first, i assume you believe in the union's right to collectively bargain for pensions and benefits and better working conditions. mr. scalia: i do, senator. sen. smith: do you believe that the current situation is the fault of the workers in these plans? mr. scalia: senator, you're referring to the challenges facing, for example, the central states plan? sen. smith: correct. mr. scalia: senator, if i could answer i guess a little bit more broadly, the -- when we think of the labor department, we often think, or i think many people do, the role in the workplace right now, when the person is in the plant, safety conditions, wage conditions, very important. but pensions are another very central part of what the labor department does. and when i was at the labor department, we had to deal with

the collapse of enron and the impact that that had on the retirees or people who were planning on their retirement. it was financially, a monumental catastrophe, but that broke down into i think tens of thousands of individual men and women who were severely affected by that loss. sen. smith: through no fault of their own. mr. scalia: no fault of their own. with respect to the central states particularly, i know as i said in our meeting, which i enjoyed too. sen. smith: generally. >> [laughter] mr. scalia: genuinely, and in full. that's an historic, important plan. i can't claim that i know all of the things that have led to the problems it faces now, but it's no solution to blame it now on the workers. sen. smith: right. nor would you agree, nor the businesses who paid in as well? both parties did what they were supposed to do, which is to

save. mr. scalia: i think there's been a confluence of factors, senator that has led to the problems, , and i'm not steeped enough to know what they are, but i do agree with you that something does need to be done. i think there's bipartisan recognition of that. if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, it's something i would want to work with people on because everybody recognizes the need to negotiate out some legislative solution. sen. smith: that gets to my follow-up. i want to thank chair alexander who served with me on the select committee on pensions last year. even though we weren't able to come to a resolution, i think we did achieve some good education there. so you know i support the butch , lewis act which would provide a long-term, low-interest loan to these troubled pension plans. i think congress does need to act urgently. i think maybe you and i would be in agreement on that. even the chamber of commerce says this is an urgent issue. so would you agree we need to take urgent action on this?

mr. scalia: senator, i would agree that we do need to take action, that it needs to be a priority both for the workers that are affected and also for the solvency of the pbgc. that is the federal -- sen. smith: which is the other issue. mr. scalia: right. that is the agency the secretary of labor has responsibility for that in part ensures pension plans and would face a very serious shortfall if we can't find a solution here. sen. smith: and would you agree that we ought to enact a program of long-term, low-interest loans to help the troubled pensions, as the chamber of commerce has recommended? mr. scalia: just because the chamber of commerce says it doesn't mean i believe it's right, senator. >> [laughter] mr. scalia: i would be interested in looking at the different approaches to be taken and finding one that helps workers and also helps taxpayers in the pbgc. sen. smith: as you and i discussed when we met together this is an important, urgent , issue. i appreciate your comments. thank you. mr. chairman: thank you, senator

smith. senator cassidy. sen. cassidy: hey, mr. scalia, nice to see you. i don't read many economists, but there is one from france who has a nice quote about unintended consequences. he said the difference between a bad economist and a good economist is the bad economist really looks at the primary effect if you will whereas the good economist looks at secondary. earlier it came up minimum wage of $15 an hour -- i say this as a prelude to my question. i'm struck because there's the foundation for economic education polled a bunch of economists, 35% of whom were democrat, some republican -- the rest independent. republicans are underrepresented among economists, but 74% of them thought that raising the minimum wage to $15 an was a bad hour idea. the article quotes paul krugman. any econ 101 student tells you a higher wage reduces quantity of

labor demanded, leaving unemployment. two they give their reasons why so many opposed. 69% vehemently opposed. minimum wages reduce employment, reduce the earnings of low paid workers, makes some low-paid workers better off at the expense of others, younger workers who are less skilled are less likely to be employed, lowering future earnings. i could go on. now that said, that is a related to this question. have you seen other policies which there is an unintended prove consequence -- on the face of it, it sounded great. why wouldn't we all do it, but then you look at the secondary effect. they're negative. you'll have to make those judgments as the secretary of labor. it's not about any particular policy, just kind of your experience and if you will your method of analysis. mr. scalia: yes. i think that unfortunately, the

great majority of the problems that the labor department faces involve some tradeoff, where the central mission is to protect workers, and also it has this very important role of training workers and supplying the workforce that american businesses and ultimately american consumers want availability there. -- available there. but some of those actions, if we're not thoughtful about how we go about them, can have adverse consequences by hurting the businesses that supply the jobs, sometimes hurting other workers, because one group benefits, but another is set back. and so i think that we always need to think, as you're saying, like the good economists, and consider not just the initial first order of facts, but what are the downstream consequences of this?

and that i think is something that often is helpfully addressed in the rule making process that we have. ongoing of different labor department rule makings have been brought up in this hearing. as i mentioned to some of your colleagues in these discussions that process of hearing from the , public about what they think of a proposal and what effects it's going to have is a really important way of looking far down the road. sen. smith: so it's not so much a yes or no answer, it is the more nuance in which we come up with something on what do we learn from the comments to come up with something in which we evaluate secondary effects and make the maximal good for the maximum number of people. mr. scalia: that's exactly right, senator. sen. cassidy: i'm reassured that is your approach. now i'm going to ask something a little more arcane that is peculiar to louisiana involving sugar and cotton. usda defines the commodity if you will of sugar and cotton as refined sugar -- or raw sugar, i'm sorry, and cotton which has

been ginned. but so far, i gather labor is defining the commodity as cotton which has been picked, not ginned, still has all of the things you need to get rid of and sugarcane itself. , now this as an impact on whether or not my guys can get h2a's to go and drive their trucks. if there sugarcane for itself for example is the final product, it's h2b. if it is recognize this is merely an agricultural product that has to be processed through a commodity, it's an h2a issue. although i am begging an answer, it actually seems like the answer, which is most apparent, even upon secondary analysis. so that said, would you please consider this, because right now, those drivers are being considered as h2b's? they are having a difficult time getting them, they are having a difficult time getting their product out of the field, into where it needs to be processed. and the difficulty of that means that there's going to be some product left in the field which is bad for the consumers,

bad for the farmers, et cetera. so if i could have your commitment, i would appreciate that. mr. scalia: i will consider that, senator. that is something that i certainly will look at if i am confirmed. sen. cassidy: thank you. mr. chairman: you're helped by the expiration of his time. sen. cassidy: i would like to say i'll be unable to stay for the second round. i yield my five minutes of questioning to the chair. mr. chairman: thank you. thank you, senator cassidy. senator murphy. sen. murphy thank you very much. : thank you for being here with us today. as i mentioned to you in our private meeting, i have probably voted for more of this administration's nominees than many of my colleagues. i've come to the conclusion as long as nominees are qualified and they are in the conservative mainstream, i think they are worthy of the senate's support. but as i also mentioned to you, my question i am attempting to answer is whether you are indeed qualified and that might seem , silly given your decades of experience in the area of employment law.

but your entire body of work, at least in the private sector, as senator murray mentioned, as -- has been devoted to representing employers against workers, has been devoted to trying to stop workplace protections from being adopted. now i have plenty of friends who work for big companies and work in employment law, and many of them are fine people, but i don't know that i would select them to be the one representative in the federal government in the cabinet who's supposed to speak for workers. you might make a fine secretary of commerce in a republican administration, but i just don't know that your experiences are qualifications to be the sole representative of workers. and so i put that on the record as the struggle that i am having. and i ask you a question in means of trying to seek out the values that you are going to bring to this job. way back in 1985, you wrote an

article entitled "trivializing the issues behind gay rights." in it you said i do not think we should treat it as equally acceptable or desirable as the traditional family life. you concluded the article by saying "i'm not sure how i stand on the basic issue of gay rights." i appreciate your honesty at the end of that article. my worry is that your views have not necessarily matured as the country's have, given the fact that earlier this year, you joined the board of a group called ethics and public policy -- the ethics and public policy center in oregon which advocates a lot of time to arguing and advocating against the civil rights of lgbtq individuals. so let me just ask you to answer the question that you posed at the end of the article. have your views changed since 1985 on the issues of rights for individuals in that community?

have your views changed since 1985 on the issues of rights for individuals in that community? i'm not asking whether you'll follow the law. i'm sure you will, but it's a question of the priorities you're going to have in this position. have your views changed since since you wrote that article? mr. scalia: senator, thank you for the time that you made to meet with me earlier this week. and with respect to my qualifications, generally for the job, i appreciate your positive words about the background that i had as a longtime labor employment lawyer. you said it's approaching three decades concentrating in the field. yes, often i have represented business, but i believe that this committee has the good fortune of my past tenure at the labor department, which showed how effectively i am able to recognize the new clients, the new obligations that i have in my capacity to discharge those

responsibilities very vigorously. there was a reference earlier to the issue of ergonomics. it is true i opposed, by this congress ultimately upheld -- repealed the rule, but once i was at the department i worked closely with some of those same lawyers. one of them, the lawyer who had the lead on it, wrote a letter, joint letter, from former career -- joined that letter, saying it was a good, evenhanded job here. with respect to the article, you're talking about an article i wrote when i was in college in 1985, about 35 years ago, and yes, i certainly have changed in how i view any number of things since i was in college.

and i think we've all matured, one would hope, since those days. and i would certainly enforce the law in this area and respect the decisions of the supreme court. sen. smith: how have your views changed on this specific issue? you referenced that they were not equal of the same treatment, those different lifestyles. has that changed? mr. scalia: i wouldn't write those words today. i would not write those words today, in part because i now have friends and colleagues to whom they would cause pain. i would not want to do that. and then finally, if i could just say you referred to an organization, i went on their board in march, and it's a respected organizations that been praised by paul ryan, the speaker of the house, by george will, charles hammer, gene kirkpatrick, that organization with which i've had brief involvement says nothing about what my views might be on any number of different issues.

mr. chairman: thank you, senator murphy. senator scott. sen. scott: good morning. i do want to start off by echoing my support for the department's recent efforts on joint employer and overtime. i knows that been mentioned a few times. johnny spent some time on it as well. i am appreciative of the current direction. i think it's incredibly responsible actions on the part of the department. i want to start the conversation off with the topic i think is really important for our workforce and frankly it's going to be a topic of discussion for however long you are the secretary of labor, and i hope that that begins sooner than later. experts say that about $2 trillion of current payroll could be automated. the minimum wage increase, only in my opinion, accelerates automation of the payroll. if we see a greater acceleration

towards automation, what we see are the first rung in the ladder of economic success and mobility being pulled away. response to that is that low skill folks have fewer opportunities to get engaged in the workforce, the consequence of that is longer terms of unemployment and a debilitating impact on communities of color and in rural america as well. what are your comments on the notion that there is a relationship or a correlation between a higher minimum wage and lower opportunities to enter the workforce?

mr. scalia: senator, it's an important potential tradeoff that one has to keep in mind as one thinks about what the proper wage for a national minimum wage or for local wage might be. different legislative bodies in different different locals have reached different conclusions about where to set a wage. as you're pointing out, every time you set the wage, i think people on all sides recognize that if a wages that mandated is too high, there will be adverse impacts that actually hurt some of the workers that are meant to be helped. i think that needs to be considered. on the other hand, obviously the workers' interests more broadly need to be considered too. we have a longstanding federal

policy of having a federal minimum wage, and it's the labor department's obligation to enforce that. sen. scott: i would note that in new york city when they increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour, that from january 2018 to january 2019, there was a loss of about 6,500 jobs in restaurants which was the large largest reduction since the 2001 recession. so the impact, i think, could be measured in the loss of jobs. as a kid who grew up in impofb -- impoverished areas of south carolina, my first thought the minimum wage was 3.35, and at that time, you could pay folks $2.55 and encourage more employment opportunities for kids. i'm not advocating that position, but i do think it's important for us to recognize the powerful impact that the minimum wage increases will have on those folks looking for employment and currently fewer than 3% makes the minimum wage. on apprenticeship programs, which i think are incredibly helpful. i think germany has a great model for apprenticeships. i'm looking forward to the day where america is the model for

apprenticeships. in south carolina we have tackled that in a very powerful way, a big shout-out to carolina who has truly taken the responsibility seriously and we've changed the trajectory of apprenticeships in our state by an incredible number. we are now 50% over our 2020 goals. i have legislation cosponsored by some of my friends on the other side that provides tax credits to encourage more utilization of apprenticeship programs by reducing the costs of the programs. any quick thoughts with my 30 seconds left? mr. scalia: sure. you mentioned german apprenticeship programs when we met and it's something i am interested in learning more about if i'm confirmed. and with respect to south carolina programs, i had dinner recently with a friend who's been very interested in apprenticeship programs. and by the way, she has no south carolina ties,

but she called out south carolina as a state that really stands out. sen. scott: she's very educated. [laughter] mr. scalia: a perceptive person. sen. scott: in my few last seconds, mr. chairman, if you would allow, the gig economy is something we should have a conversation about, perhaps a hearing, and what the impact that will have on employment and the necessity of having portability and the benefit structure of that economy. i will tell you the only way to truly understand and appreciate the success we've made in south carolina with apprenticeship programs is perhaps to come visit south carolina. i would invite you to spend some time throughout the state, charleston being the number one tourist destination the nation has today, perhaps four times in the last four years, but because my time is running out, mr. chairman -- mr. chairman: it's run out.

sen. scott: i am unable to remain for my second round of questions but would like to yield my time to you if necessary. mr. chairman: thank you, senator scott. mr. scalia: if i can say, i promise to visit south carolina tomorrow for back-to-school day at my daughter's college. sen. scott: very good, sir. mr. chairman: thank you, senator scott. senator kaine. sen. kaine: thank you, mr. chair. and mr. scalia, congratulations on the nomination from the president. i noticed in the dialogue with senator murphy, if you go back and read the transcript your answers don't use the terms lgbt, your answers wouldn't enlighten anyone about the discussion. when he asked about the change in your view you said i would not write those words today. it would cause painful visuals. that makes me wanted to follow up. i think know the answer. you do believe lgbtq individuals are allowed equal protection. correct? mr. scalia: that is what is the supreme court has ordained. sen. kaine: but -- you believe it personally? i know what the supreme court has said. i'm asking about your personal belief.

lgbtq americans are entitled to equal protection of the law. mr. scalia: i do. and if i could finish, in the article, it was from college, 1985. mr. scalia: 35 years ago. sen. kaine: but i'm not asking about the article. i'm asking about your beliefs today. let me follow up. do you believe it is wrong for an employer to terminate someone based upon their sexual orientation or gender identity? mr. scalia: i do believe it's wrong. i think most of my clients had policies against that. certainly my firm did. and it's something that would not have been tolerated by me or my firm or most of my clients. sen. kaine: thank you for that answer. that's important. should you be confirmed -- this is important in virginia -- could you commit to requiring that mining companies who violated worker protections and are delinquent in paying the penalties assessed against them for that would be held

accountable and not be able to open new mines until they square the account and pay the penalties to workers that they've been assessed? mr. scalia: senator kaine, i'm familiar with black jewel, which is a company that had operations in virginia, west virginia, kentucky and wisconsin, went into bankruptcy and has left thousands of workers in those states in the lurch. that's a serious problem. the labor department has authority called the hot goods authority that enables it to seize goods of product of companies that have defaulted on their wage obligations. sen. kaine: how about the issue of opening new mines, getting permission to open new mines when there are penalties that have been assessed and are delinquent and haven't been paid to the workers for violations? mr. scalia: i don't know what the law provides on that.

if there are existing laws that prohibit the opening of new mines if they're unsatisfied pension obligations, that is one that certainly the department would enforce vigorously. sen. kaine: thank you. let me ask you this. in cases of wage theft, the trump administration is engaged in a practice when there are wage theft findings, they order backpay but not liquidated damages and often the back pay does not include interest, which means in cases where wage theft has been found, workers get the pay but much later and essentially have made an interest-free loan to the company that has violated the wage theft laws. should you be confirmed as secretary of labor, would you make sure that people are made whole, including interest or other calculations that would be necessary to truly make them whole in instances of wage theft? mr. scalia: senator, wage theft is obviously a violation of the

law. when i was solicitor, i sought to vigorously enforce the wage hour requirements. i mentioned a couple of the cases that i brought, certainly at least one instance, one that was innovative to defend rights. there can be circumstances though where you can get more for workers by offering a cooperative program with the government to satisfy obligations that a company has. you see those kinds of cooperative programs across agencies. the justice department, for example -- sen. kaine: let me touch on another topic. do you believe workers with disability should be paid a sub minimum wage under the fair standards act or should be paid a minimum wage in the same way as other workers? mr. scalia: section 14c, as i believe you know, senator, authorizes a different wage and potentially a lower wage. i know that it's important both to you and to senator hassan, and that is a law that the department is charged with

administering. sen. kaine: and it was put into law in 1938 when the expectations for individuals with disabilities were vastly different than they are today. do you have a personal opinion about whether workers with disabilities should be paid a seven minimum wage or a different wage than other workers? sen. kaine: as you say it's a long standing provision. if congress were to change it, the labor department would change its approach. with respect to the issue more generally, what i can say is i recognize that there are strongly held views on both sides. i think that there are people on both sides of this issue that many of them really do think that their approach is one that is in the interest of people with disabilities. so that is a discussion to be

had. if i'm confirmed i would be honored to be a part of it. that is another area where i think there are opportunities for consensus. bipartisanship. but it's a hard issue. sen. kaine: thank you, thank you, mr. chair. mr. chairman: thank you, senator kaine. senator murray and i are going to go vote in the appropriations committee. senator enzi has agreed to preside. we'll be back shortly. i will stay for a second round of questions until senators have a chance to ask the questions if they would like to. senator enzi. sen. enzi: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank mr. scalia for being willing to take this job. as we go through confirmation hearings, i often wonder why. of course, i've gotten to ask you that personally, and appreciated your answer and appreciated all the public service that you've done. i was here for your 2001 confirmation and enjoyed your

answers then and enjoyed the conversation we had the other day in my office, and i've got to say, you've got the biggest family attending in the 22 1/2 years i've been here. and you've also got the highest percentage that have stayed for the questions. mr. scalia: i see that isabella left, the 5-year-old. sen. enzi: she was probably the one understanding the questions, too. i appreciated senator murray's comments about pay gap. it's something that i've been concerned about for a long time, but i'm an accountant. you have to settle for the accountant's questions. and if anybody isn't being paid the same thing for the same job in the same company, i'll help get an attorney that will prosecute on it. that's what the law is. it isn't everybody's going to get the same wage that's doing the same job regardless of what company they work for. and the other person might work for.

and some of the most fascinating hearings that i've been at here have been ones where people were -- had gone into nontraditional jobs -- i remember having a young lady sitting where you're sitting and talking about how she had always wanted to be a brick mason and she was and she got to build some flower boxes and then she got to build some patios and then she got to build some fountains, and at the present time she was hanging marble on new york skyscrapers at high altitudes, and we asked her what her pay was. i can tell you that she exceeds anything that we make. so if we can get more into the nontraditional jobs and have them trained then we don't have to worry about the minimum wage as much because minimum wage is minimum skills. when you first hire somebody, you don't know what their capabilities are. you have to spend a lot of time training them for the work that

they're doing, and when you increase the minimum wage, it increases everybody's salary. i mean, you can't put the lowest one up above the next one in skill level, so it escalates everything. and that's good provided the business can afford to do that, that they have the economy to do that. i've got to say that the tax cuts and jobs act did help the economy a little bit. it blossomed the economy. mr. scalia: yes, sir. sen. kaine: and i had a little bit of a role in that. and so i -- i get a little upset anybody mentions the $1.5 trillion deficit. that was as if that bill would make no difference in the economy. that's how that scored. we all that it would make some difference and it has made a difference.

last year, there was more revenue coming into this country from taxes than there had been any previous year, and now this year, we're beating last year. of course, some of the overseas money is starting to come in. so there are a number of things that pay into these -- play into these things and one of them, of course, is job training, and the last two states in the nation to get a job core training center were new hampshire and wyoming. we both have job training centers now, and i think they're making a difference. so what are your ideas and priorities for what you'd like to accomplish in terms of job training? and does the job core fit into your vision of such training? mr. scalia: senator, briefly on the subject of the economy and the minimum wage, yes, we've been talking today about the minimum wage a bit, but as you know, there are other factors that sometimes are even more important to the well-being of

american workers and how well jobs pay. right now, we're -- in part because of the act that you mentioned we are looking at virtually record low unemployment, record low unemployment for african-americans, hispanics, we're looking at more than a year of 3% wage growth and people at the lower end of the wage scale are enjoying some of the biggest benefits. so it is important to enforce the minimum wage law but we shouldn't lose sight of the changes that we've seen in our economy as part -- partly as a result of this president's policies. with respect to job core, that is an important responsibility of the department of labour. you and i spoke about a new center that you have near the wind river range and i think, again, that is a number of -- one of a number of different

ways that the labor department helps workers, but also helps america's productivity by matching interested, willing workers with businesses that have the kinds -- that have the need for the kinds of talents that they're bringing. sen. enzi: thank you. and wyoming had some people that invented something called climb wyoming, which is for single moms to get nontraditional jobs, and they're driving -- driving trucks and managing warehouses. and the programs are being copied by a number of other states now. my time is expired and -- senator rosen. sen. rosen: thank you. thank you, senator enzi, and thank you, mr. scalia, for your willingness to serve and meeting with me yesterday. mr. scalia: my pleasure. sen. rosen: i enjoyed meeting with you, as well. i want to talk a little bit about nevada and nevada's test site where we're responsible for the partial integrity of our nuclear arsenal. so the department of energy employs occupational illness compensation program. what it does is provide services to former energy employees like nevada's nuclear test site workers and compensation for work-related illnesses developed as a result of an exposure to radiation and toxic substances. these hardworking americans have sacrificed and served our

country by working at test sites and other locations that are essential to defending our nation from attack. so i have a deeper question, so i'm just going to ask this yes or no. are you aware of this program at the department of labor? mr. scalia: i am. i think it used to go by the name of -- sen. rosen: it's a hard acronym. mr. scalia: i couldn't spell that acronym, but i think i can pronounce it, but it was a program that was having some problems when i was at the department before. i don't know how it's doing now -- sen. rosen: well, let me finish and i'm going to ask a question about working on it and maybe making it better. so i understand from our home health care workers in nevada that changes implemented by the department earlier this year have made it harder for former atomic and energy workers to get their claims processed and to access the benefits to help them

afford their health care because of these -- because of their prior working conditions. so what i really want to do is ask you if you'll commit to looking at this program, working to streamline the claims, the approval process and

specifically, implementing an electronic claim so that energy workers, many of them who are so sick, they're aging, they have chronic pain, they really need to get the care that they need. mr. scalia: senator, i am not familiar with the particular problem that you're referring to, but i would be interested in reviewing it, studying it more, and if i'm confirmed and working with you to address it. i do recognize that there are some labor department programs that are not as attuned as they could be to changes in our economy and changes in how people communicate, how they access and submit information. there are other program areas where we would benefit and i think have tried to benefit by greater reliance on electronic communications. sen. rosen: i look forward to streamlining that for you to benefit their care. i want to move on quickly to workforce and apresenceprenticeships. i know they've been touched on here before. registered apprenticeships very popular. across the country, very popular. in nevada, as i mentioned in our meeting yesterday, we have more than $20 billion of construction projects just in the southern nevada area alone. our carpenters, our electricians have very robust training programs, and so what we need to work on are those nationally recognized credentials. apprenticeships strengthen our economy, we know they create pathways to good-paying careers

and meet our country's demand in middle skilled jobs. so for all those reasons, it's troubling to mean that the administration is not supporting the registered apprenticeship programs. the president only requested $160 million for the office of apprenticeship, only a small increase, and we need to help our businesses develop these skills so we can continue to grow our communities. the department has failed to properly staff the program. six state office apprenticeship positions are vacant, including one in nevada. these vacancies in the employment and training administration's regional offices and of course, and job corps. so if confirmed will you commit to properly staffing, to increasing the staffing and to working on promoting these registered apprenticeships that will really build our nation's economy? mr. scalia: senator, the apprenticeship programs are, i think, very important to our president. he's made it an area of emphasis. there has been interagency interest within the executive branch in looking at ways to improve apprenticeship programs, and as you're noting there is an

ongoing rule making. sen. rosen: there is a vacancy in nevada. i have $24 billion in construction projects. i need some more apprenticeship programs. mr. scalia: i can commit -- if i'm confirmed, senator, to take a look at that because this administration is interested and supportive of these programs, and if there's a vacancy causing a shortfall there, that's something if i'm confirmed, i'd like to take a look at and see if we can address it. sen. rosen: thank you. sen. enzi: i'll yield the chair back to the chairman and also yield any additional time in case i don't make it back. >> thank you, senator enzi, and thank you for chairing the committee. senator hassan, are you ready? >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you to ranking member murray as well. thank you, mr. scalia, for being here today. congratulations on your nomination. mr. scalia: thank you. sen. hassan: thank you for

meeting with me earlier this week. i just want to thank your family, too. public service is a family affair and a family commitment and i'm grateful for your family's commitment to public service. i wanted to just start on the issue again of the rights of workers with disabilities. we've had a little bit of a discussion about it. throughout your career in a number of cases you have represented companies that denied workers with disabilities needed accommodations. in a letter to senator ted kennedy during your nomination to be the labor department solicitor in 2001, you named one particular disability case, eeoc versus u.p.s. as in the top five most important legal issues you had worked on. this case was ultimately used to narrow the american with disabilities act and its protections for workers with disabilities by permitting employers to limit employment eligibility based on a perceived disability and how it affects prospective workers activity. i will note in the discussion about 14c that you just had with

senator kaine, that's a little bit of what we're trying to get at. new hampshire was the first state in the country to repeal the subminimum wage for people with disabilities. which i'll note we did because the business community came forward and said this was not right or fair. it was, again, about prejudging people with their disabilities and their capacity, something i think we have been trying to change over time. so in the case of your private law practice and the u.p.s. case that i just cited, i know that you were representing your client as a lawyer, but today i'd like to know your personal views, because i think that's relevant should you become secretary of labor. do you believe that workers with disabilities are entitled to accommodations in the workplace? and if so, can you provide an example of the kind of accomodation you think they're entitled to? mr. scalia: senator, i appreciate how important these issues are to you and the work

that you've done, including with respect to 14c, and if i'm confirmed i would welcome the opportunity to speak with you about it further because as i think we discussed, i see this as an area where people across the aisle historically have found ways to work together. as you know, the americans with disabilities act was signed by president george h.w. bush. with respect to accommodations, of course the law does require workplace accommodations and i think that they are a good thing for the workers and for business as well. there are a range of different things, as you know, that can be appropriate accommodations. for example, you see accommodations for people who need a wheelchair to get about to work more productively in the workplace. at times there can be accommodations to help people who have hearing problems to function fully in the workplace. there's a range of things.

and i would like to talk briefly about that eeoc case you mentioned, but i want to emphasize, too, i have spent a fair amount of time with clients explaining to them both the legal obligations they have under the ada but also ways that they can satisfy them. because a lot of managers, shop-level managers think i can't do that. that's impossible. or we've never done that. so let's move on just a second because i'm limited in time and i appreciate that answer. i also want to touch on the issue of disability claims in terms of systemic discrimination because you have also argued that such claims brought by a class of workers with disability are not suitable for class action because each case requires individual proof, and you mentioned in your answer to senator collins that you had represented clients pro bono who needed representation when they

felt that their disability was impacting their treatment in the workplace. i would like to make sure that clients don't have to go finding a lawyer who will be willing to represent them pro bone know. -- pro bono. if there is systemic discrimination, i would like the department of labor and its leadership to really move to eliminate a system of discrimination. so can you give me your thoughts on not in your past representing clients but about the role of investigations concerning systemic disability discrimination? mr. scalia: this is an area that is the responsibility of the eeoc to a great extent, as you know.

i do think that in areas where it's difficult for one reason or another for individuals to come together and bring a class action, there may be a greater demand on the federal government to step in. when i was at the labor department before, an area of emphasis for me was low wage and immigrant workers. i met with my staff to work on ways to change those programs to better address those conditions because i believed those were people among those most likely to be victimized and least likely to address it. i think in circumstances where class actions are harder to bring because of the supreme court's rulings and because of the rules that govern them, there may be a greater demand on the government. and as you know at the labor department we have what we have is an office dedicated to helping with research and in some circumstances outreach and education on accommodating people with disabilities. sen. hassan: thank you. i notice you're well over time. thank you for your indulgence,

mr. chair, and thank you, mr. scalia. >> thank you, senator hassan. senator jones? sen. jones: thank you, mr. scalia, for being here, your willingness to serve and also for the visit yesterday. i would like to revisit a couple of questions asked by senator murphy and senator kaine regarding protections for lgbtq individuals in this country, because, quite frankly, i think we're kind of dancing around the heart of the matter. right now there are three supreme court cases in front of the court that will be heard in october concerning discrimination in the workplace for lgbtq individuals. the eeoc said the civil rights act of 1964 guarantees protections from workplace discrimination for lgbtq individuals. the trump administration, as i understand it, has taken a different approach and said that you cannot read the '64 act to apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation. what is your position? we're not here as a judge, like your dad was. what is your position with regard to the civil rights act and whether or not it can protect those lgbtq employees

from discrimination based on their sexual orientation? mr. scalia: senator, this is an area where, as i think you're suggesting, to a significant extent the supreme court has stepped in and spoken and establish certain parameters. then when it relightsates -- relates particularly to the labor department, president obama amended the order regarding discrimination to the lgbtq and president trump has reaffirmed his commitment to that. that is a law that i would have, if i'm confirmed, responsibility for enforcing and that i would not hesitate to do so. with respect to the cases that are now in the supreme court, i think that the department of justice has taken one position. i don't know currently what position is being staked out by the eeoc, but i don't believe that the department of labor has been called to present its views

in it because it's not a statute administered by the department. again, focussing on the statutes administered by the department and the executive order, as i said back in that college piece, prejudice is abhorrent. i agree with that. it's not something that i've tolerated in my workplace. and i would vigorously enforce the laws and my responsibility as secretary if i were confirmed in that important area. sen. jones: well, i appreciate that. i am concerned, though, that from a private sector that these cases not go the way that i think they should go then lgbtq folks are going to be without any real enforcement and under the law. what i'm concerned about, if you couple that with the administration's proposed religious exemption rules, which i believe gives folks under --

using federal tax dollars the right to discriminate folks, what do you believe -- what is your view on that issue and the religious exemption right now? times have changed a lot. we've had the overfell decision, but we've also had hobby lobby, and i think people can hide behind that. i'm all about religious freedom. i really am. but i don't want that religious freedom to be used to discriminate against people in the workplace, and i'm afraid that the proposed rule with the department of labor and the administration is going to do just that. and so how do you reconcile those two? mr. scalia: senator, i think your question began by asking about the cases in the supreme court, and, you know, we'll see what the court decides. precisely who to protect from discrimination in the workplace

or elsewhere often ultimately is a decision to be made by congress. or states and locales. and the executive branch and the department of labor can provide a role in helping members of congress make that decision and then if the supreme court doesn't address these issues in a way that members of this committee or members of the senate think is appropriate and legislation is enacted then, again, that's an important role for us to make sure it's enforced. with regard to the rule making that you mentioned, this is, senator, an ongoing rule making within the labor department concerning federal contractors who are religious organizations. and as i understand it, it seeks to update the existing rule to protect religious rights in a man more similar to the way that's done under the law enacted by congress, title vii. i read a letter i believe

submitted by the committee earlier this week. if confirmed, i'm going to take a careful look at that rule making to make sure that we get that balance right between our interest in protecting religious liberty on the one hand and on the other hand not discriminating improperly on other grounds. sen. jones: all right. i would like to add that i appreciate congress' role. unfortunately, the way the senate of the united states is operating right now, we don't do anything unless the administration expresses a willingness to sign it and sign on, so i would urge if you are confirmed to help regard and make sure that protections for lgbtq people are across the board private and public. thank you so much.

>> we have completed one round of questions. i will stay in case senators have a second round of questions. let me ask a few and then i'll turn to senator murray and then we'll see what other senators may come back. there have been a number of allusions to your representation of clients and the clients' views. you've practiced law for a prominent law firm for a long time. you've probably represented some clients who were pretty good people or my experience with law practice is people who are in real trouble, and we have a very good lawyer over here, trial lawyer, defense lawyer, senator jones.

he's probably represented some real scoundrels in his day. [laughter] that's mostly politicians. sen. jones: they've needed a really good lawyer. sen. alexander: if i'm not mistaken when he was elected to the united states senate, he was the president of the national trial lawyers or something. sen. jones: national association of former u.s. attorneys. sen. alexander: but he's such a good prosecutor that people in trouble, i'll bet, have come to him to get out of trouble. one of my earliest lessons in united states history was about john adams who was president of the united states. before he was president of the united states he was a lawyer in boston. if i remember right, he represented a british colonist who had murdered or killed a

british soldier. which had to be a very unpopular thing to do in the midst of the american revolution. i wonder if president adams' representation of a british soldier who had killed an american colonist -- i wonder if you'd want to reflect on that story in american history and talk about your representation of so many clients over a period of time and the difference between your views as secretary of labor and what your views might be as a very effective advocate. mr. scalia: yes, with respect to john adams, you know, i should say i was blessed with an extraordinary father but with an extraordinary mother, too. who's boston irish and loved john adams. and i lived in virginia and she didn't care much for george washington or thomas jefferson, but i learned a lot about john adams and samuel adams. and other things, by the way. as i say, my mom was boston irish. i remember growing up as a kid and my mom telling me there used to be signs when she was a kid "no irish." that was part of my

upbringing, my mother irish, telling me about the kind of blatant, shameless, overt discrimination that she witnessed as a kid. but, yeah, i learned about john adams and that story which you've mentioned, chairman acts alexander, is one of the great stories in american history. the boston massacre was a terrible event. it was a seminal event in the american revolution and john adams did a deeply unpopular thing of representing these british soldiers and getting their acquittal. it's a wonderful story about the bar, about lawyers and their obligations, sometimes their obligation to do things that they disagree with. i'm proud to have had the representations that i've had in the business world. and have represent my clients zealously, but you're absolutely

right that i am not necessarily my clients. i will seek to defend them, to vindicate their rights, but that doesn't mean that i necessarily think that what they did was proper or that i -- sen. alexander: well, i would assume that some of your clients came to you because they were in trouble, is that right? i mean, you don't just have a lawyer to lunch at x hundred dollars an hour when everything's going fine. mr. scalia: sadly they weren't coming just because they liked me. and as i've suggested earlier, part of that relationship with

my clients is there's what's -- what i'm doing in court and defending their rights and addressing what their rights are under the law, but on the other hand there can be a separate conversation sometimes with the client where i know and maybe they know that there was something done that was wrong and we need to find a way to fix that. that's part of my responsibility, and a part of my job that i cherish. then finally, of course, i've had the united states government as a client before. this would be my fourth time in government. including as the principal law enforcement officer for the department of labor, and of the clients that you can have, that's the most important, that's the weightiest and gravest responsibility. it meant a great deal to me when i was solicitor. and if i were confirmed i would certainly be so mindful of the special duties that come when you're representing the united states government and when you're looking out for people who lack the means to care for themselves. sen. alexander: thank you for your answer. we'll now begin a second round of questions and i'll go in a minute to senator murray. i've noticed over the last several years and really been concerned, and this is not a republican or democrat issue, if you're an effective lawyer,

you're going to be representing a lot of people. you don't start out by representing people whose views agree with yours. there are certain ethical responsibilities lawyers have, but you represent people who have a right to be heard, to get justice before the bar, and in our society we need to remember the story of john adams and the british soldier whom he represented. that's an important part of our system of justice in this country. everyone's entitled to a fair hearing and very effective advocacy now because of supreme court rulings. i don't like to see nominees or lawyers who aren't nominees criticized for effectively representing people who have

different views than someone else. senator murray, your turn. sen. murray: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. scalia, back in 2001 when you appeared before this committee for your nomination as solicitor, i asked you a question about the pervasive problem of workplace harassment, and, unfortunately, little has improved over the last 18 years. over the past two years of the me too movement, countless women and men have come forward to share their stories, and i've heard from domestic workers and hotel housekeepers and fast food workers and many others about the harassment they've faced in their workplace and how much they feared coming forward. and i believe we have to do better. earlier this year i introduced

the be heard in the workplace act to help prevent and address workplace harassment and ensure that all workers are treated fairly and with dignity. now, as i mentioned in my opening remarks, you have represented corporations that defended against allegations of rampant harassment. the ford motor company against more than 30 female workers alleging sexual harassment and retaliation at the chicago assembly plant. women there reported unwanted touching, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and attempted rape. so many women never speak out about harassment in the workplace because they're afraid of being fired. so i'm really glad those women did speak out and speak up about their experience in the workplace, and i wanted to ask you, do you agree that the laws and regulations on the books today are too weak to actually adequately protect workers from harassment and discrimination at work? mr. scalia: madam ranking

member, we spoke yesterday when we met about sexual harassment in the workplace. i know what an important issue it is to you, and i have, as you mentioned, spent a number of years in the field of labor and employment among other things dealing with issues of harassment. i was struck and disappointed, too, as the me too movement took off with the extent of mistreatment that we learned about at different workplaces. so it is and continues to be a problem. it's one that in my practice i have helped clients try to address, helped them improve their discrimination policies, help them improve their policies regarding respecting whistle-blowers or those who have reported a potential

harassment. as i said in my opening, i've had some very difficult conversations with clients where they've wanted to -- sen. murray: i appreciate that experience, and you did speak to it, but i just wanted to ask, in that experience do you think our laws are strong enough to protect workers or do you agree that we need to strengthen our laws so that they have protections in place today? mr. scalia: honestly, senator, i think that we do have some strong, important protections in place. i think that education on those protections sometimes is needed. i do believe that it is important to have vigorous enforcement of the rights of women and others against harassment, and then if the congress were to conclude that even more tools were needed and the labor department were to be -- to become involved in that, i would certainly -- sen. murray: but you would not lead any efforts or speak out in any efforts to do that, which really concerns me because in my experience the current system is very --

mr. scalia: if i could just respond to that briefly, senator. if i were confirmed, i would view my job as following congress' lead and if new laws were enacted, to enforce them, but as secretary there are things that i could do and will look into doing. sen. murray: i'll just say, many of your general answers have been i'll follow the law. obviously we expect any secretary to do that. often times our secretaries need to step up and say our laws are not effective enough or encourage legislation. i hope you would think about that as well. i only have a few seconds left. i wanted to ask you about the fiduciary rule because a lot of our economy has really shifted from traditional pension where the risk is on the employer for retirement plans in 401(k)s where workers face all the risk. yet, these savers who needed

help figuring out their investments are surprised to learn that professional advisers today are under no obligation to put the needs of savers and their families first and that costs families billions of dollars annually. so the obama administration worked to help retirement savers get investment advice that was free from conflicts of interest. you have been an outspoken critic of that common sense protection. you've called it a regulatory godzilla. even after several courts upheld the decision, you've fought to get it overturned. so i just want to ask you a simple question. do you think families who are seeking professional investment advice about their retirement savings deserve advice that is in their best interest? mr. scalia: i do think that they should be able to seek that advice.

sen. murray: and know when they get it it's in their interests and not the person advising them? mr. scalia: i think that should be available and informed of the nature of the advice they're receiving and if there are conflicts. this is a case as chairman and i were discussing earlier, i was retained by clients to address a rule that was -- it was a controversial rule. thankfully the securities and exchange commission has now stepped in and itself adopted what's called a best interest standard with respect to broker dealers who are folks that ordinarily are regulated directly by the s.e.c. again, having worked at the department before, i'm very mindful of the special role the department has in protecting pensions and workers' retirements. sen. murray: you've had a lot of work done on this in overturning the rule. would you recuse yourself from

participating in dol's revised judiciary rule? rule?ised judiciary mr. scalia: as you know there are federal ethics rules that will govern what matters that i can work on when i'm at the department where there might have been some prior connection on my part or the part of my firm or a client. so in the case of the fiduciary rule i would seek guidance from the designated agency ethics official that the department of labor regarding what my ability to participate would be. sen. murray: and one final on this. you're obviously being nominated to lead the department of labor, which congress explicitly selected to oversee retirement investment advice. in the wake of a higher level of protection for retirement savings than investments overseen by the s.e.c. yet, you have suggested that the department of labor should allow the s.e.c. to oversee the fiduciary rule. that's ironic considering you spent a significant amount of

your career attacking the sec rules. if you're confirmed secretary of labor, do you intend to cede authority to the s.e.c.? mr. scalia: if confirmed, i would not cede responsibility to the s.e.c. i engaged in some vigorous actions as solicitor to help protect the right of retirees to their pensions. i mentioned the enron pension plans, and actions that i took there. i worked particularly closely, actually, with some of the lawyers in that office at the labor department and know how important that that mission of the department is. i will say that labor department's mission, although very important, is focused on employment retirement savings, and one of the concerns that was raised by the fiduciary rule is

that they were actually treading on the s.e.c.'s jurisdiction. so i think part of what is necessary in the government is making sure that there is the proper balance between the different regulatory authorities, and i would want to if i'm confirmed work with the sec if necessary to strike that balance correctly. sen. murray: thank you. thank you for the additional time. i would ask for unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to enter 16 letters into the record expressing concern or opposition to confirmation. sen. alexander: as so ordered. as a courtesy to the witness we are going to take a five-minute break before we proceed with a second round of questions. i'll be glad to stay here as long as senators would like. the committee is in recess for five minutes.

sen. alexander: thank you, senator murray. we'll continue with our second round of questions. senator casey? sen. casey: mr. chairman, thanks very much. mr. scalia, i know you've had a long morning and just have a couple of follow-up questions. i'll try to be brief in the interest rate of time for our colleagues as well. senator kaine had asked you about employment of americans with disabilities, and i won't -- i'll follow up with you later, but i was hopeful that maybe that's something that if you were to be confirmed that you could work together with us on. the particular issue is

competitive integrated employment. i have the leading bill on this in the senate and i hope we can talk more about that. also on the question of disability claims and what happens in the workplace, obviously department of labor plays a big role in that. the united parcels service case that senator baldwin referred to and others, i have real concerns about how you might approach issues that were involved in a case like that, which did narrow the protections for workers under the americans with disabilities act. so i'll be following up with you on that. i wanted to ask you in particular, and i'm going back to the issue of what happens to one category of workers, coal miners. the black lung disability trust fund is running out of money to cover the cost of both health and disability benefits for coal miners with black lung disease.

the department of labor administers claims filed under the black lung benefits act. and i'd ask you just a simple question, do you believe that coal companies that benefit from the hard labor of those miners should be responsible for paying the health and disability benefits for those miners that develop black lung disease, which is unfortunately on the rise now? mr. scalia: senator casey, i share your hope that if i'm so lucky as to be confirmed that the ability for folks with disabilities to participate more fully in the workplace is something that we might work together on. i think as we discussed earlier, there are reasons for people of sort of all stripes of views and beliefs to want to help and work together and make that happen, and so i'd welcome the chance to contribute to that. i feel i should respond briefly on the eeoc case that's been

mentioned a couple of times. that was a matter i was handling that was a matter i was handling for a client. i wasn't, that i can recall, personally seeking to make any significant change with respect to the americans with disabilities act. the federal government had brought this case against my client. it was seeking to force u.p.s. to hire drivers for somewhat heavy trucks, who had vision out of only one eye, and u.p.s. had some safety concerns and there were federal rules saying that to drive a good sized truck it was important to have vision out of both eyes. and so i was just defending them in the case, but i wasn't seeking to make any significant change in the law. finally, with respect to coal miners, i confess that i would need to study more fully the

exact parameters of the obligations that coal companies currently have to their workers, but my understanding is that they are currently obligated to make contributions to the fund. sen. casey: it's a lot smaller. that's why the trust fund has run out of money. i would say on both issues, and i know we're short on time, i realize that as a lawyer in private practice you have clients that you represent and you've got to represent them zealously. but you're going to be wearing a different hat if you're confirmed. just to say, well, i hope we can work together on that or i can't comment on a bill or i can't -- you can be in this position an advocate, in both your advocacy, your point of view, your attitude about these issues matters, and i would hope -- i would hope that if you're

confirmed, that you would act like a champion, not just business as usual. and the reason i mentioned the ada, it's about more than a quarter of a century old and there are two problems of it. number one, we haven't achieved the goals of the americans with disabilities act. nowhere close, in large measure. and number two is, there are constant hits that are taking place over time that are undermining the goals of the act . so we need champions in both parties, in both branches. that's all i'd say and i know i'm out of time but thank you. sen. alexander: thank you, senator casey. senator murphy? sen. murphy: i thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity for a second round. i wholeheartedly agree with senator casey. obviously, your chief responsibility is to enforce and implement the law, but good secretaries are also advocates for change in the law when they

think that we can do better, and you obviously will have a lot of decisions to make about priorities when you get there. one area of law in which the prior secretary was an advocate on was the issue of mental health parity. this is the law that requires our insurance companies to treat mental health coverage just like they treat coverage for all sorts of other conditions. the president's commission, president trump's commission on combatting drug addiction and the opioid crisis, called on the department to aggressively enforce the mental health parity and addiction act and it suggested additional authorities be given to the department of labor, which secretary acosta agreed with, in fact, asked this committee for more additional audit abilities and civil monetary penalty authority for violations of the law. maybe i won't ask you to, you know, weigh in specifically on those recommendations, but i think we were really making some

progress until secretary acosta's departure in trying to get this congress to give the department more authority, and i just want to get your confirmation that you will be, you know, an active participant in the work that the department of labor can do to combat the drug addiction crisis and the mental health crisis in this country. you have an active role to play to make sure that insurance companies don't continue to be part of the problem. mr. scalia: i would welcome that opportunity. senator, i had a good conversation, among others, with senator smith, too, about these issues. and speaking to her, i think i mentioned that as i look at people that i know that are struggling with medical problems often these days, it's not i broke my leg on the job or something of that nature, although that still happens. it is difficulties with substance abuse or depression or the like.

and i agree that it's very important that we not slight the needs that people have in that area, or treat them as less worthy of attention than other kinds of illness or injury. and then, with respect to opioids, particularly, it's a national crisis. i'm well aware of the role that the labor department can play. i think it's been doing some good things. i had some good conversations as i was getting briefed by personnel at the department. some good conversations about some programs that are in the works and that's an area that, again, there's room for consensus and cooperation because there are ways to help these people with opioid addiction better than we're doing, and i think the labor department has made some strides in its workers' compensation program, but also there's -- business wants to help because

this is one of the reasons we have a skills gap right now. sen. murphy: well, you know, we just all know that when you go to access a mental health benefit or an addiction benefit, you go through all sorts of hoops that you do not have to go through if you're getting reimbursement for an orthopedic procedure. and that's a violation of the law and the department of labor can help us clarify that. second, mr. scalia, the eastern connecticut manufacturing pipeline initiative is an example of these innovative efforts that are happening all around the country. we're trying to make sure that we're ready for all of the new defense jobs that we're funding. we have a defense industrial based workforce crisis in this country. you don't have a lot of experience in workforce development, but that's a big part of your job, and it's vital that the department of labor, the department of defense and state and local governments partner together to make sure that as we're building more

submarines and more ships, more land-based military vehicles, that we have the workforce to fill those roles. and there's just no way to do that without the department of labor playing an active role. we couldn't have gotten that partnership off the ground in connecticut, which has had a 92% job placement rate without the department of labor. secretary acosta came to connecticut, spent a day looking at the partnership, i think was very impressed by it. i would invite you to do the same, but i would also love to know that this will be a focus of yours because it will be a crisis in this country if we can't meet that workforce need. mr. scalia: i welcome the chance to visit, senator, if i'm confirmed, and i'm deeply appreciative, and even more so, having come through this process now of the role the department of labor does play in sustaining programs like what you just described. sen. alexander: thank you, senator murphy. i was thinking of calling on senator murray, but thank you, senator murphy. senator murray, do you have any

other comments or questions you'd like to make? sen. murray: mr. chairman, i think there were several members of our side who wanted to come back with additional questions but were unable to, so i know that they will have questions they'll submit for the record. i will, as well, on a number of topics i want to get additional information from the nominee and i would really seriously hope we get those back in a timely fashion so we can all have the information we need in moving this forward. so, thank you again. thank you, mr. scalia, for being here. thank you to your very large family for sitting behind you for a very long time. mr. scalia: thank you so much. sen. alexander: thank you, senator murray. i want to thank my colleagues for conducting a confirmation hearing that included vigorous questioning of the nominee, which one would expect for someone from -- who's been nominated by any president for secretary of labor. there are probably no set of issues about which we have more different opinions politically than on labor issues, but with

treating the nominee with the kind of respect that a presidential nominee should have. so, i thank my colleagues for that. i thank senator murray and her staff and our staff for the professional way they've conducted the various discussions we have in connection with the nomination. mr. scalia, it's been two months since the president made known his intent to nominate mr. scalia. we've had all of his records sent for three weeks. we will -- we've had good questions today. and we'll vote next tuesday. i won't have any further questions except to make a couple of comments. one is, there are opportunities senator murphy indicated,

despite our political differences, to get some pretty good results. we often do it on the committee. senator murphy has been a part of that with mental health parity. i hope you will take those opportunities seriously. senator murray and i are regularly looking for areas of agreement where we can move ahead. we can't do anything in the senate unless we have bipartisan agreement. and sometimes we get it and usually when we do, we're in the middle of it. so, i would encourage you to continue your visits with democratic, as well as republican members of this committee, and identify areas where the administration and members of the committee could work on. for my part, i hope you'll take a look at association health plans. we have big differences on obamacare. but one thing is clear, that people who make more than $50,000 a year in tennessee, they're paying through the nose for their health insurance. and the association health plans are a help for that. there's a rule that secretary acosta put out that was stopped by federal court, but the

independent agency that reviews health insurance estimated that this kind of coverage could help as many as three or four million americans reduce their insurance premiums by about a third. now, a third of a $20,000 a year insurance bill is a lot of money. it's several thousand dollars. and this is not junk insurance. this is insurance of the kind the big companies have. it's insurance that includes preexisting condition and those sorts of benefits. so the whole point of it is, if it's good enough for ibm, why isn't it good enough for the small business? and i would encourage you, as a tactic, not to try and push the envelope as far as you can and get overruled by the courts. my piano teacher used to tell me at a recital play it a little slower than you can play it.

so, if you can get a rule or enforcement out there that's clearly within the law, go ahead and take that opportunity because there are lots of people in las vegas, for example, in small business who are already signed up. there are many in tennessee who would like to sign up. and i'd like to see association health plans go as far as they can within the law. same for the overtime rule. we need changes in the overtime threshold. it just needs to be done in a reasonable way. there was bipartisan concern about the earlier decision. so, i hope that you will enforce that and come up with that in a way that is within the law. may not go as far as somebody would like, for example, people at the office of management and budget. they might want to push you a little further. you don't need to go that far. from my point of view, i'd like to see you play it a little slower than you can play and get a rule on overtime and association health plan and

enforcement of those areas that's clearly within the law and actually helps people. the questions for the record will be due at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. hearing record will remain open for 10 days. members may submit additional information for the record at that time if they would like. mr. scalia, i thank you for being here today and answering all the questions the senators had. we would expect the answers to their additional questions to be here by the time we vote on next tuesday. the committee will stand adjourned. mr. scalia: thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019]

>> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, we'll

discuss the house oversight committee's investigation of president trump with arizona republican congressman paul gosar. and also with virginia democratic congressman, gerald connolly. watching c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> live friday on the c-span networks, the house returns at 9:00 a.m. eastern to take up legislation on forced arbitration. on c-span. and at 6:30 p.m., we'll have the white house state dinner for australia's prime minister scott morrison. on c-span2 at 12:30, global youth activists hold a climate rally to demand lawmakers take address climate change. -- held a news

conference to block california from setting its own fuel economy standards. california reached agreements with several automakers that were stricter than federal regulations. this is 30 minutes. >> thank you all so much for being here. here. administrator andrew wheeler and i are so pleased to announce a major step forward in president trump's plan to help ensure that more americans have access to safer, more affordable, cleaner new cars that meet their families' needs. two and a half years ago, president trump spoke with autoworkers in michigan and said that we would review and revise the last administration's unattainable fuel economy regulations. making cars more expensive and impeding safety because consumers were being priced out of newer, safer vehicles