and workforce protections will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. Today's hearing will examine the Biden Harris administration's use of common interest agreements to potentially
channel confidential investigative information to outside parties including private law firms and advocacy groups. The committee is pleased to welcome the Department of Labor or DO Inspector General Anthony DiPazto to discuss the
findings and recommendations of the Office of Inspector Generals or the OIG uh and their investigation into this matter. When do agencies investigate potential violations of federal law, businesses and workers are required to
turn over sensitive information, and they trust that the government will protect that information. However, in November of 2024, the committee uncovered an incident involving the Biden Harris administration's handling of an Orisa investigation that confirmed
what many in the employee benefits community had long suspected. DO was sharing confidential information with classaction law firms to support private lawsuits. The committee immediately requested that the DOI investigate this
matter. Initially, the committee's concerns focused on the Employee Benefit Security Administration's use of common interest agreements. The OIG subsequently expanded its review to examine similar practices and missteps within wage an hour and the office of
the solicitor. In June of 2026, the IG published its report finding that the Biden Harris DO shared confidential information with outside lawyers to potentially skew court cases, raising serious questions about fairness and
public trust. The report also found DO failed to protect confidential investigative information and couldn't even keep track of what was shared or with whom. In many cases, DO shared sensitive investigative information with
outside lawyers before lawsuits had even been filed. In other words, it shared information without written common interest agreements. The department lacked basic safeguards, failed to screen for conflicts of interest, and allowed different offices to operate
under different rules. The OIG's investigation and report were pro prompted by the Education and Workforce Committee, and I thank the chairman for leading those efforts. We found highly questionable activity by the Biden Harris DO and demanded answers. The OIG
has now confirmed serious failures. government should protect the interests of the American people, not give special interest preferential treatment. I look forward to hearing from the inspector general today about the OIG's important investigation and also his
recommendations for moving forward. With that, I yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Labor has essential responsibilities including uh protecting workers rights,
recovering unpaid wages and lost retirement benefits, helping families with improperly denied health care claims, and much much more. One legally permissible yet rarely used tool by the department during investigations and
litigation is called a common interest agreement. I understand today's hearing will focus on a recent inspector general report on such agreements. How rare are they? Well, at a hearing last year, one witness testified that
the department's Employee Benefits Security Administration, otherwise known as EPSA, only found 12 investigations where it where it entered into a common interest agreement over a 15-year period. At that very same time, EPSA
opened over 31,000 investigations. So, there's only 12 investigations out of the 31,000 investigations where this particular administration uh entered into a common interest agreement, which is the issue at hand of this of this
hearing. There were only seven common interest agreements identified at EPSA and 41 such agreements at the wage and hour division over the over the 2 and a half year scope of the inspector general's report. That represents an
incredibly small fraction of the thousands of investigations conducted by EPSA and wage an hour over the very same period. But we certainly appreciate the IG's work in identifying ways that the Department of Labor can improve its internal procedures and controls related
to the use of common interest agreements. The IG's report made eight process related recommendations and is my understanding that the Department of Labor agreed with them and is working on implementation. Now, this all seems very straightforward. However, based on the
hyperbolic title of today's hearing, committee Republicans regrettably remain obsessed with the former administration that left 18 months ago. Perhaps that's because committee Republicans don't want to look uh in the mirror and be accountable for their misguided agenda
that's failed working people. Actually, the Republicans agenda hasn't just failed working people, it's actually caused them harm. In the years since President Trump and the congressional Republicans passed their big ugly bill, Americans lives have gotten more
difficult and and way more expensive. Uh many continue to struggle to afford basic necessities such as groceries, housing, and gas, and workers wages are failing to keep up with inflation. And due to Republican cuts, over 8 million Americans have lost health care coverage
in the past year. And over four million people have lost access to food assistance. Now, instead of crafting an agenda that meets the moment and helps working people who are struggling with the high cost of living, committee Republicans have consistently chosen the wrong priorities. Now, here's just one
recent example. Many parts of the country have been experiencing relentless extreme heat this summer. OSHA has been working on a national rule to protect indoor and outdoor workers from this extreme heat. This is common sense and long overdue. Protecting
workers in our nation's fields, warehouses, and factories from excessive heat is something that we all should support. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Yesterday, committee Republicans advanced a bill that would kill the rule and ban OSHA from ever using a similar
one to protect workers from extreme heat. Mr. Chairman, this is our last subcommittee hearing before Congress heads out for the August recess. For those keeping track, it is the second one that committee Republicans convened this Congress, touching on a rarelyused
Department of Labor practice, rarely used. Yet, we're devoting all this time to uh to this obsession. Meanwhile, they've had zero hearings on the many urgent issues that working people in my district and across the district care
about. There's not one single hearing focused on raising the minimum wage. Not one single hearing focused on combating wage theft. Not one hearing focused on strengthening our child labor laws. Finally, at the start of his second
term, President Trump abruptly fired inspectors generals at many cabinet agencies, including the Department of Labor. This was just one of the many unprecedented actions he's taken. This is the first time that the inspector general has for the labor department has appeared before our committee since his
confirmation. We have several issues of interest, including the status of the investigation into former labor secretary for alleged misconduct and the department's unlawful elimination of the Orisa Advisory Council. I anticipate these and other topics will be raised
this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format
by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous materials noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. With that, we're going to turn to an introduction of our
witness today. Uh he is the honorable Anthony P. Dspazito, Inspector General of the US Department of Labor. We want to thank you for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I ask that you limit
your oral testimony to a threeminut summary of the written testimony which you have provided. The clock will countdown from three minutes as committee members may have many questions for you. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee practice, we will not cut off your
testimony until you reach the 5-minute mark. I would also like to remind you that you have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. And with that, Inspector Dpazto, you are recognized for your testimony. >> Well, thank you very much and good morning, uh, Chairman Wahlberg, Ranking
Member Scott, Chairman McKenzie, the entire committee. Thanks for having me back on the Hill. As Inspector General for the United States Department of Labor, my responsibility is to conduct independent oversight through audits and
investigations that protect taxpayer dollars, combat fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption, safeguard American workers, and strengthen the public trust. I am honored to serve as the department's ninth inspector general. My office
initiated this audit after Congress and acting secretary Keith Sonderling raised concerns about the department's use of common interest agreements. Common interest agreements are intended to allow parties with a shared interest. I
repeat, with a shared interest to exchange certain confidential information under limited circumstances. They were never intended to become a tool for the federal government to align itself with private plaintiff attorneys. Yet, under the previous administration,
[snorts] the use of these agreements left them with the potential to be weaponized, deployed without meaningful oversight, without adequate safeguards, and in a manner that blurred the line between the public interest and private litigation. Here is what my office
found. The Biden Harris Department of Labor had no departmentwide controls governing any of these common interest agreements. There were no written policies, no consistent approval processes, no centralized tracking. Some
agreements were in writing. Others amounted to a little more than a verbal handshake. In one case, an individual executed a common interest agreement without the authority to even do so. The department failed to adequately
safeguard sensitive and confidential information. The office of the solicitor entered into agreements without notifying investigators in the wage and hour division or the employee benefit security administration, leaving them completely unaware that privileged
information connected to their own work had been shared. When our auditors requested a complete inventory of these agreements, none existed. Agreements were scattered across emails, share drives, and case files. Officials
initially identified 45 agreements. Manual searches uncovered even more. That is not oversight. That is a system without accountability. Training and conflict of interest safeguards also fell short. Employees responsible for
approving these agreements received little or no training on the associated risks and the department was not consistently monitoring potential conflicts involving officials connected to outside organizations. Let me be very clear. Government attorneys represent
the United States of America, not private plaintiffs law firms. And under this administration, acting secretary Keith Sonderling agrees. The Department of Labor exists to protect workers and enforce federal law. It should never create the appearance that government
resources, privileged information, or taxpayer funded personnel are being used to benefit private attorneys or increase their legal fees. This hearing is not about politics. It's about public trust. It's about protecting American workers.
It's about ensuring that the Department of Labor works for the American people, not outside interests. That is why we issued eight recommendations to strengthen oversight, improve coordination, establish centralized tracking, enhance conflict of interest monitoring, and require formal
procedures and training. Under this administration, the department agreed with every single recommendation. Implementation is underway, and my office will continue to monitor its progress and work with department leadership to ensure that this never happens again. These findings underscore
why independent oversight matters. Weak controls erode the confidence in government, jeopardize confidential information, and ultimately fail the American worker. Our work to protect Americans continues along Vice President J. Dance's fraud task force as we tackle
fraud in every corner, including H1B visas that have led to wage theft, been exploited, encourage human trafficking, fund criminal enterprises, and take American jobs away from American workers. Finally, I want to recognize
the dedicated professionals of the Office of the Inspector General whose integrity and relentless work made these findings possible. They understand this is not a political discussion. It's about doing the American the right thing for the American people, the American taxpayers, and of course, the integrity
of the Department of Labor. Thank you for your opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering all of your questions. Under committee rule nine, we will now ask questions of the witness under the five-minute rule. And I will recognize myself first. Thank you, uh, Inspector
General Despazito, for that testimony and for the work that you're doing on behalf of the American people and taxpayers to make sure that all of our resources that are supposed to be going to workers and individuals are actually being protected and not diverted to law
firms or special interest groups or somebody else along the way. And we heard the downplaying of the [snorts] number of cases in relation to the overall number of cases that are looked into that somehow if there are only 12
cases that's somehow acceptable which is an outlandish outlandish uh statement because what we see is that when you have these cases that people become aware of it shakes confidence in the entire system and it makes it less likely that people are going to
cooperate with the government and go after the bad actors who are supposed to be the targets of these kind of investigations. So I would like to hear from you uh how the uh the work that the committee has done in contacting your office, how has that benefited or
changed the way that common interest agreements are going to be handled by EPSA? What is the your office doing uh when looking into wage and hour uh division and uh should they be audited? So tell us how it's starting to change the culture of these cases and how
they're being handled within the department. >> Well, thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chairman. Um, and like I mentioned, the the fact is is that the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, after this audit, thanks to the notification from this committee and at
the time, Chairwoman Fox, uh, made it very clear that there was a problem with common interest agreements. And um the issue is is whether it's one common interest agreement or 1 million common interest agreements, the fact is is that there was a potential uh for critical
information to be leaked to plaintiff's attorneys. And and the fact is is like I mentioned in my opening statement, um the people that work at the Department of Labor, uh they shouldn't be doing the work of plaintiff's attorneys who are then billing their clients. Um the the information should be gathered in the
correct manner. Uh and I know that the argument is going to be well under Orisa there is uh it's it's the legal opportunity of uh of the solicitor's office but the fact is is that there was no safeguards in place. Uh and my office
has issued um eight recommendations all of which have been agreed to by the department of labor and are currently being implemented by acting secretary Keith Sanderling. I know that one of the um the agencies are actually have their
common interest agreements on pause until uh all eight are implemented. So I think that the work that this committee did to sound the alarm with the potential of this information being utilized against the American worker and used for uh plaintiff's attorneys will
lead to change uh not only currently but in the future for the American people and for the Department of Labor. Well, that's important and we appreciate the eight recommendations you've offered and that they have been accepted by the Trump administration. I think that's critically important to tighten up the controls uh that were abused in the last
administration. Taking confidential information, sharing it with outside stakeholders uh who should not have been in receipt of that kind of uh confidential information. Uh it seems like an ethical breach uh pretty serious one that again should not be downplayed
by anybody. Uh your report also found uh that there was a wage and hour staff member who entered into an agreement on behalf of that division but lacked the authority to do so. Can you provide additional details about that finding? >> Sure. A uh a wage and hour division
staff member uh who was assigned as an investigator executed a an agreement that they did not have the authority to sign. Uh this happened because of no guardrails, the fact that nobody was watching, uh the fact that the common
interest agreements with the potential clients seemed uh much more important to the last administration than the actual uh ethical use of them. Um that's exactly why we recommended establishing clearly defined roles and
responsibilities for those who are going to sign or enter into these common interest agreements. Courts will often only find that the common interest protection applies to communications when council is either present, involved in, or directing such communications.
And by not involving the solicitor in any attempt to share information under a common interest agreement, the Department of Labor risks waving privilege protecting information shared, uh, if it even applies in the first place. I mean, really, what it comes down to is this is all pretty basic.
when there's no guardrails in place. Um these are the kind of things that happen and and this individual uh did not have uh any authority to enter into a common interest agreement with any parties uh and he should have or she should have never signed the agreement in the first place.
>> Well, thank you again for raising this issue uh and the recommendations that we can take to actually crack down on this kind of bad behavior. My time has expired, but I look forward to continuing this conversation, not only throughout this hearing, but also as we move forward, not only with the
safeguards that are going to be put in place, but those individuals and those actors that were party to these agreements, figuring out uh if they need to be investigated further because uh fixing the system is the most important thing, but also going after the individual bad actors that were beneficiaries of this is critically
important as well. Next, I will turn to uh the ranking member for his questions. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. dispute uh Dspazito for being here. Uh Mr. Dpazto, like unlike a cabinet secretary, the inspector general of a government agency is required by
law to be nonpartisan, apolitical, and independent. Um why is it important that an inspector general be non-political and independent? Well, first of all, I'm I'm aware of the the rules and regulations of the Inspector General's Act, and I think
that uh the independence in that act uh s not only uh outlines that the independence uh is clear when it comes to investigations that are within the department. I think that if you rewind back to the the beginning of the of the year and and my confirmation hearing, I
made it very clear uh I served an entire career in the NYPD. Never once did I respond to a 911 call or a complainant and ask them if they were a Democrat or Republican. Conducting audits and proper investigations uh can be done while still having uh your constitutional
rights to believe uh and and to uh live your democracy. >> So I I will note Mr. Despicito, your credibility with me is somewhat enhanced by the fact that you did investigate um the um actions of the uh the previous
secretary of labor um who was appointed by a Republican president. Um that you carry that uh that very sort of investigative police mindset um that's apolitical. Um but also you are aware at the beginning of the Trump
administration 17 inspector generals including uh the inspector general at labor were fired. >> I'm well aware >> you are aware that uh and the role of the inspector general is to be outside of politics. The firing of IG's on mass is an unprecedented politization of
their role. And while the Trump administration claims that they're combating waste, fraud, and abuse, I and my colleagues have a deep concern about the firing uh the very the firing is a very the very officials responsible for preventing fraud uh and inefficiency. I
will point out you are our former Republican member of Congress. Is that correct? How many terms did you serve? >> Sure am. One term. >> One term. Okay. Um uh I just want your commitment. Now, I will note you did say in your opening comments, you you gave made some
comments about the vice president. I' I've been a member of Congress and I've been a chairman a couple of terms of a committee. I've had IG's appear before me. I've never really heard an IG ever use language uh praising the efforts of the vice president administration. There's kind of more neutral tone. I
just want to point that out to you. I think that recognizing the fact that uh the president has signed an executive order to root out fraud in the United States of America where we're literally uh combing back billions of dollars into the treasury and putting people behind
bars for violating the public. That's all very well that's all I think that >> reclaiming my time, sir. It's all very very well and we don't have to be so defensive. There's no need to be so defensive. >> I'm not being defensive. I'm just stating the facts. There's never been a time in American history. Let me reclaim my time where an administration has
focused. Let me reclaim my time. >> Raining away from >> Mr. Chairman, I he took up 20 seconds of my time here. Uh I I reclaim my time 20 seconds ago. Now, can you commit to fulfilling the OIG's role as an independent office that prevents waste,
fraud, and abuse while improving the how the Department of Labor serves the American people as a fully fully independent of the goals of the president? >> I took the oath to serve as the inspector general, and I live that oath. Thank you. >> Thank you. It's a simple yes. Uh, you know, one office within the Department of Labor has particularly been
beneficial, uh, is the is EPSA. It's a watchdog for the American people. It helps people receive their hard-earned benefits. Now, what role does EPSA play in protecting workers essential benefits like healthcare? >> Well, the role of EPSA is to, as was
stated in my opening statement, to coordinate and investigate uh, and to to work on agreements litigating for the the the workers of the American. >> In fact, in fact, those people those employees that are covered um by these
health plans under EPSA, they can get help from EPSA uh if they have a dispute with an insurance company, right? Over Absolutely. Right. Um >> so, you know, employer sponsored plans covered by EPSA are required to report data on claims, payment policies, and practices. But in two 2016, the OIG
reported that EPSA lacks the ability to protect plan participants from claims because it does not have this the necessary information to do so. Uh and this because of this health plans are able to deny claims without explaining why. Currently the agency collects this information on just 3%
um of the of the claims. Uh are you familiar with the IG 2016 report on improving uh claims data reporting? >> I have not read the report from 2016. >> Okay. So, this harm is not imaginary. EPSA administrators have gotten insurance claims approved for mothers
who are facing cancer. They have helped families who fear losing a loved one because their insurance will not pay for their life-saving care. Um, do you agree with your predecessor's assessment that the Department of Labor should revise the 1975 loophole that allow insurers
not to disclose claim information? >> I'd have to read the entire statute. >> Okay. I I would look forward to hearing that. Meanwhile, before I yield back, um I just want to tell everybody out there who's covered by an EPA plan, if you have a health care claim that's been denied or you get your insurance through
your employer, you can call 1866444 EPSA EBCA or 3272 or go online to aska.dol.gov for help. It's imperative that public servants at EPSA have all the information that they need to fight on your behalf. That's what I asked the
secretary today. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. And I applaud the sier sucker. >> Thank you. Next, we'll go to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Wahberg. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's good to see you back, Inspector General.
>> Thank you, Chairman. >> Um, in its review of the Biden DO, uh, the OIG identified roughly 48 common interest agreements. However, your report found that, and I quote, so
did not track or maintain a centralized system or database for common interest agreements or shared information. And continuing the quote, neither EPSA nor WHD tracked or monitored common interest
agreements. Given the report's identification of these uh I call it deficiencies uh could there be additional common interest agreements which you were not able to identify and how confident are you that there were not additional agreements?
>> Well, thank you Mr. Chairman and absolutely there could uh be additional agreements that we were not aware of because as you mentioned the Department of Labor under the last administration simply wasn't tracking them. Uh and that's really the problem. There was no
protocols or policies in place to track these common interest agreements. Uh it's a significant risk of not having internal controls. If information was shared outside of the common interest agreement framework entirely, uh we
wouldn't know because the case files don't exist or they were taken with someone when they when they left the office. Uh and again the absence of these robust controls uh and formal guardrails creates an environment where
improper or even nefarious sharing could absolutely occur. Oops. No harm or foul. Uh your report includes an example of an individual from a non-governmental entity that entered into a common interest agreement with DO in April of
2023. This person, interestingly enough, served as a senior counsel to then acting secretary of labor Julie Sue for about eight months before returning to the same non-governmental entity. Can you provide the committee with more
information about that person and the non-governmental entity you cited in your example? >> Uh, absolutely, Mr. chairman and and quite frankly uh that agreement is the epitome of what it is that we're discussing and why we put or made those
eight recommendations to the Secretary of Labor. Um, it's the exact kind of blind spot that we're flagging thanks to the work of this committee and why uh we have recommended that staff participate in these agreements be required to sign
an affidavit affirming that they will abide by postmployment restrictions. The [snorts] individual uh that um was involved in this agreement uh goes by the name of Munir Ahmad. Uh and as you mentioned, Mr. chairman. He
served at the time as senior counselor to then acting secretary Julie Sue. The non-governmental entity that he was sharing the information with was the Yale Law School Worker and immigrant
rights. Now, shockingly or not shockingly, depending on how you look at it, Mr. Munir Hammad is now as of this morning on their website is a professor at Yale Law with his focus and oversees
the Yale Law School worker and immigrant rights division. >> Interesting outcomes. Appreciate your work on that. It's also my understanding that many of the cases in which information was provided to outside parties remain open enforcement
actions. If DO shares non-public information about a company with a law or advocacy group like this gentleman and these cases without following a unified procedure. Could you discuss whether DO should alert the company that it has shared this information?
>> Well, thank you chairman. I think that um that's less of a call by the inspector general and more of a policy decision by the secretary of labor. But what I will say is that uh I think it's important for the eight recommendations to be implemented uh so that there are
disclosures in place that we can refer back to. The concern that we have of of notifying [snorts] um of notifying anyone of any of these uh count of law firms or um any of the entities is that
if there is not uh information that's being shared incorrectly as part of the agreement, it could tip off a potential investigation. But I think that with the eight uh recommendations put in place by uh the Secretary of Labor, I believe
that uh we have a real opportunity to change the way that these agreements are handled in the future uh and so that they could actually do the work of protecting American workers and that not lining the pockets of plaintiffs attorneys. >> Thank you. My time has expired. I wish you well,
>> chairman. Great to see you. >> Thank you. Next, we go to Mr. Growthman. Uh could you just get give us give me in general the motives behind these agreements? >> Well, I mean >> legitimate and otherwise. I'll put it
that way. I think the the motives have always been that or as stated is that it's when the Department of Labor and attorney's offices could be beneficial to sharing
information that one or the other has uh and makes it more expedient than perhaps going through subpoenas or using the FOYA mechanism. >> Okay. Do you notice any patterns [snorts] between the the the ones that
we we're talking about today uh the eight common interest agreements that I guess kind of brings this topic to our attention? I think that the the the patterns are the fact that they were entered into uh with with law firms or
non-government entities uh that eventually seen uh relationships between the individuals who were signing them uh and the entity and the entities on the other side of it. Much like I mentioned to the chairman, when you have
an individual signing a common interest agreement for Yale Law School worker and immigration rights and then later becomes the professor overseeing the Yale law school social worker and immigration rights. >> So you think it's something that you kind of, you know, one hand washes the
other and you set set yourself up perhaps for something in the future? >> I think it's interesting and I think that that's why this committee made the notification to the inspector general's office to conduct the audit. Okay. Is it possible the Biden Harris's uh Department of Labor's assistance to the
plaintiff's attorneys extended beyond secret sharing agreements to assisting with briefs or practicing for oral arguments in court? >> So, the Department of Labor told us directly that it doesn't provide that kind of assistance in matters where it isn't a party. Though, uh we had no way
to independently verify that since again, none of these resources were tracked by the administration. Uh really the value uh the value for the plaintiff's attorneys lies in information that they probably otherwise couldn't access. Um we found no no
evidence that uh the do attorneys were assisting with briefs or practicing arguments but there is no question that the the some of the agreements um were executed to avoid foyer and discovery.
>> Okay. Is each secretary responsible for establishing guidelines for common interest agreements? And can you further discuss whether there was evidence that um you further discuss whether there is evidence that there was non-public information shared at the direction of
the leadership, >> Department of Labor, uh either the assistant secretaries in charge of those divisions or the solicitor of labor uh to work in coordination with the secretary of labor to come up with those policies and implement them. Um, but I think that the the real issue and I I
just want to quickly refer to one of our investigative files is that there was no guardrails in place and that the people who were executing these common interest agreements weren't even sure as to what a common interest agreement was. Uh, this was a question that was asked to
someone who was interviewed uh if common agree agreements were always in writing. And again, the answer was there's an that's an interesting question of what is a common interest agreement? It doesn't create rights. It reasserts commonality of interest. I suppose some
people in certain situations might say that because the commonality is clear. We do not need to recite it. We can just go ahead and talk without entering into one. But there might be agreements as part of that oral agreements not to um not to use information for certain
purposes. Try to, but sometimes they're verbal. That just shows you that there was no policies or procedures in place. And the individuals who were actually executing and signing these common interest agreements didn't seem to understand them either. >> Okay. And it means that there were people maybe entering into common
interest agreements, but there's no evidence in writing of that. Right. >> Right. Because we don't have any of the files. >> Right. Um just in general, what's the propriety of a government agency to sign to go along with providing an outside party information like this? So, I think uh the Department of Labor has the legal
authority to share this information and it doesn't matter who asks first. Uh a common interest still has to exist. Uh being asked really isn't the problem. The problem is that the Department of Labor had no criteria for deciding when to say yes, when to say no, and there
was no real oversight in pro in in uh place. And without that, the risk of improper sharing remained high through that throughout the administration. and that's why uh the current secretary is implementing the eight recommendations. >> Thank you very much and thanks for coming over.
>> Thank you sir. Great to see you as always. >> Thank you. Next we'll go to Mr. Mesmer. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. Espazito for being here today. The June OIG report says the Biden Harris administration clearly used questionable practices related to common interest
agreements. Uh your office has confirmed uh serious failures of accountability at the Biden Harris Department of Labor which led to the distinct possibility that enforcement information was used to advantage plaintiffs attorneys in litigation. Clearly the these tactics must never be repeated in the future. Uh
that is why today I will be introducing the ethical investigations and integrity act which would establish protocols before the do may share any confidential information with outside attorneys as part of any as part of a potential civil action related to any law enforced by
the wage and hour division. This legislation applies many of the same reforms that were included in HR 2958, the balance the scales act for practices under Orisa, and applies them to laws enforced by the wage and hour division. Uh, can you discuss whether the tactics
outlined in your report, including information sharing with outside counsel by WHD, should be restricted? >> Well, thank you, sir, for the question. And, uh, first and foremost, with regards to the legislation, uh, our office would be happy to provide any technical assistance that you need with
that. Um the report's findings do not indicate um a definitive need to restrict the use of common interest agreements. Rather, the the report highlights the importance for establishing the appropriate guard rails, the oversight, and the internal
controls to help ensure that these agreements are used consistently, appropriately, and in accordance with departmental policies and of legal requirements. >> Thank you. Um the OIG's report found the officer of the solicitor's regional
offices had different approaches in utilizing common interest interest agreements including the use of written versus oral agreements and regional offices have varying opinions regarding who signed common interest agreements. Can you provide more information about
which regions were particularly lax in in their approach and to the extent extent of information that was shared with outside entities? >> Sure. So what I can tell you is is that the pattern was real. U for example, the solicitor uh in our San Francisco office
allowed oral common interest agreements and did not document anything related to the agreements that were being entered. Others used written agreements exclusively and the signatory practices varied from region to region throughout
the United States of America. That inconsistency as reflected in our uh report reflects a mismanagement uh and it also reflects a failure of the management that was in place uh and it underscores the need for stronger
controls. Uh and with regards to your question about uh the regions, I just want to read there was a question asked to one of someone being investigated and asked if he knows what what other offices in labor use common interest agreements and this is the response. I
quote, uh, I can say that the two offices I have worked in, the plans benefit security division and the New York regional solicitors offices use them. I also know as a matter of public record that the San Francisco regional
solicitor's office has used them fairly extensively and other offices I know as a result of responses to FOYA has used them. Okay. Thank you. And appreciate your your testimony today and I my office will be glad to reach out to you for for help on the bill.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. And next we'll go to Mr. Fine. [snorts] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see you today. Congratulations on the role and thank you for for doing what you're doing. Um, I'm curious what you describe, the conduct you describe is very troubling and I want to get into motives in your estimation in a few
minutes, but my my first question is, are former Labor Department officials associated with the Biden Harris administration or frankly Democratic members of Congress, have any of them stated that they share your concern about what was clearly inappropriate conduct or is this a situation where
only one group of people is troubled and the other group seems to turn their head? The only concerns that I've heard is the fact that um from from the committee and and others on your side of the aisle that um there was a problem, a
systemic problem within the common interest agreements and that is why the audit was conducted um and why there have been recommendations given to the department. Uh I don't agree with the premise that just because it was only a few um that there should that should it
should be >> that you've been able to uncover even able to uncover. I mean, right? You know, where there's one, there's probably more, but it's not a broad, it's not generally accepted by everyone. This is a problem. So, my next question gets to motives. Why do you think this was done? Um, is it incomp? I can come
up with a few alternatives. It's sort of incompetence, selfdeing or sort of helping sort of criminal kind of kickbacks to your buddies like why why this is conduct that never should have happened. So, why did it happen? What what do you what's your estimation
on the motives involved? >> Well, I I would say that um based on the audit and the investigation and the individuals that were uh part of the investigation, I'll go back to you using the uh example that I gave to the
chairman with uh Mr. Rene Ahmad who was special counsel to Julie Sue uh and signed off on a common interest agreement with uh the Yale school Yale law school worker and immigration rights and then within 6 months uh was working to
>> so Mr. Ahmad so let me understand this Mr. Ahmad um cuts a deal with a future employer and then 6 months later is working for that employer. Is would that be illegal or is that is that just unethical sleeag behavior? I mean what
what what is is this just something we uncover? Can we hold people like Mr. Ahmad accountable for that? I think that there should be accountability, but what comes first is making sure that these departments and the work that you guys are doing in this uh in this committee uh that those recommendations are
implemented immediately and that this doesn't happen again. But uh to chairman McKenzie's point, I think that there uh is an opportunity to go back and conduct further investigations into these common interest agreements to see uh if there was some sort of quid proquo.
>> Is anybody who did any of we've got the example of Mr. Ahmad who did something sleazy and then ended up with a job with the group he did the sleaziness for. Okay. Um are there people who did this sort of behavior which you've now found is not appropriate who still work for the Department of Labor and if so have
they been held accountable for for what they did? >> I do not know of anyone who was mentioned in this investigation that still currently works at the Department of Labor. And so I understand that the people who did this, were they political appointees or were they generally career? So political appointees you'd
expect to generally leave, right? We've got President Trump coming in, the the Biden people would leave, but the staff people you wouldn't think leave. So were the people who did this staff or political appointees? Well, I know that uh Mr. Ahmad was without a doubt a
political appointee serving as counselor to acting secretary Julie Sue. Um and obviously the or not obvious I shouldn't say that but the assistant secretaries in charge of the uh agencies that uh were affected by this uh those assistant
secretaries would be appointed or nominated by the president uh and and probably went through Senate confirmation hearing. >> So so these law firms that got this information that they frankly never should have happened. Remember let's understand the Biden Harris administration is giving information to
lawyers so they can go make money. Let's understand what happened here. Do we believe these these information sharing which never should have happened was it sanctioned by Biden Harris political leadership >> that wasn't uncovered in the in the audit. Uh the audit was specific to the
uh the past and present uh I put it in quotes leadership of the Department of Labor. >> So look, I'd conclude by saying this. Weaponization of government is real. Sometimes it gets a lot of attention, sometimes it doesn't. But this is one of these examples where we can see nefarious actors who are looking out for
an agenda not for the American people doing things that they never should have done. So I applaud you for uncovering this and I hope you stay at it because where there's one rotten egg there usually are many many more. So keep up the good work and I yield back. >> Good to see you. >> Thank you. Next we'll go to Mr. Scott,
ranking member of the full committee. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Spiel. Good to see you again. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Ranking member, >> you have um talked about the independence of independence. Can we count on you to respond to questions posed to you by myself as a ranking
member of the committee or subcommittee members? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Uh we've asked a question about the Orisa advisory committee. Um it's not functioning. Is the office of attorney general, inspector general
aware of this? And if so, what have you done? >> Uh, well, we are in receipt of your letter. Um, I have uh made a notification to the acting secretary of labor. Obviously, as you know, he just went through his confirmation pro process. Um, and from what I was told,
he is working on uh putting policy and procedures in place uh for Orisa. >> Thank you. Um, another question we asked, it was asked of the secretary. there wouldn't an inspector general when we asked the question and that is according to public um reports
uh companies owned by Elon Musk are being investigated at the time by OSHA and NLRB. Um when Doge was going through the Department of Labor, did they have access to the investigatory files
of these investigations of his companies? I was not the inspector general at the time uh when Doge was president in the department of labor. >> Okay. And in your investigations of the former secretary, our interest is going
forward and have you put in place safeguards to make sure that such abuses don't take place in the future? >> So, uh Mr. Ranking member, there are some recommendations that have preliminarily been made to the department. Uh but when the final report
is issued, uh there will certainly be a number of recommendations that our office will make to the Department of Labor to uh make sure that any of the allegations or accusations that were made uh against the former secretary
that we could avoid that happening again. >> Thank you. Um you've talked about the the common interest agreements can be valuable. you according to your report you have paused them you haven't stopped them is that right
>> I have not paused them I've spoken to uh some of the assistant secretaries uh within the agencies that uh this has been a part of uh who have said that they are putting a pause on them until uh the until the eight recommendations
made by the inspector general's office are implemented in full >> but that um suggests that they will continue after that report. Now, you have gone into great detail about the problems that there were no procedures or controls under the uh Biden
administration. Can we find the procedures and controls in previous administrations in writing? The audit that was conducted by the Department of Labor Inspector General focused on a time frame within the Biden
Harris administration uh as it was requested by at the time Chairwoman Fox. Uh so the the audit that was conducted and the investigation that was conducted would only uh provide information into that time frame. >> Are you aware of any procedures or
controls in previous administrations when they were using the common interest agreements? I am not aware but I will say that uh from reviewing the audit and the investigation uh there were not complaints in previous information of uh
critical information being shared by the department with plaintiff's attorneys. >> But you're not aware of any procedures or or controls? I only started at the Department of Labor in January 2026 and I can only uh give you the proper answer
to what we found while conducting this audit and investigation. Now, >> you've had a back and forth over an employee who was at the Department of Labor and then got a job at a place that was involved in a common
interest agreement. Uh, what safeguards are there to prevent employees at the Department of Labor from getting jobs at any entity that they may have had oversight responsibilities on >> currently, >> right? >> I believe that
I'm pretty confident that any political appointee or at least those confirmed by the Senate um fall into some restrictions of employment following their service >> permanent. I don't believe it's permanent. I think it's similar to members of Congress when
you're leaving the Hill. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Well, thank you uh Inspector General Diaspito for joining us here today. We appreciate your testimony on this important topic. We are now going to move to closing remarks and I will
start by recognizing the ranking member for his closing statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again, thank you to the witness for joining us today. Uh this subcommittee is charged with important responsibilities including ensuring that workers can come home at the end of the day healthy,
whole, and fairly paid. Amidst the cost living crisis in this country, Congress needs to step up and make life easier for uh working Americans. Unfortunately, today's hearing marked yet another missed opportunity to offer solutions to real problems affecting workers and our
families. This was the second hearing this Congress on a legal yet rarely used labor department practice of using common interest agreements. The IG report made uh process focused recommendations and I repeat process
focused recommendations and that the labor department is currently implementing them. This is rather straightforward stuff. We've heard a lot of talk about the Biden administration that they haven't been in power for at least 18 months. Perhaps committee Republicans are focusing too much on the former administration because they do
not have a good story to tell as we prepare to head home for the August recess work period. Our constituents have been telling us that the economy isn't working for them. Yet, Republicans have responded by making things even harder by enacting legislation that caused over 8 million folks to lose
their healthc care coverage in the past year and caused over 4 million people to lose access to food assistance. That's certainly not a record that I'd want to talk about either. I hope that we can return from the August district work period with a renewed focused uh with a
renewed focus and address urgent issues such as raising the minimum wage, improving workers rights, and strengthening child labor laws. These uh these that focus will actually help the American people. Thank you, and
I yield back the balance of my time. >> Thank you. This is by my count the 15th hearing that this subcommittee has held during this Congress and we have discussed important issues such as wage laws uh FICA which is the federal
employees compensation act and how we can protect our injured federal workers and get them safely and healthfully u back to a state where they can return to work. We have held two hearings on OSHA,
one hearing on EMA, a hearing focusing on innovative approaches to expanding paid leave things uh have al uh other hearings have also included ways that we can pro provide increased access to health care providers across this country. This subcommittee and all of
our members in a bipartisan fashion have done a great job of discussing important issues for the American worker and this hearing is no different agreements whether it was 12 or 48 or some unknown number because we didn't have a proper tracking system in place in the last
administration shake the confidence that people the American people have in their department of labor to go out and do the work on their behalf to make sure that they are in safe healthy work environment to a point where they can have a safe and secure retirement as
well. So making sure that we have the proper safeguards in place is critically important at the department. And then also as we talked about holding those bad actors accountable is another critically important step. And so I would like to thank the inspector general again for being here today to
participate in this important hearing. And as this hearing has shown, during previous the previous administration, DO failed to protect confidential investigative information. It did not screen for conflicts of interests by DO
personnel and shared sensitive information with outside lawyers before lawsuits even began. That's not how government should operate. And Americans deserve to have full confidence that their Department of Labor and their government will safeguard their sensitive information. And so I would
again like to thank uh the OIG uh all of the employees there uh and the inspector general himself for their report and their recommendations uh on how we can better improve the operations at the Department of uh labor and make
muchneeded reforms as we move forward. With that, I'd like to thank everybody again and this meeting stands adjourned.