    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      FROM EXCLUDED TO ESSENTIAL: TRACING
                      THE RACIST EXCLUSION OF FARMWORKERS,
                      DOMESTIC WORKERS, AND TIPPED WORKERS
                       FROM THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                     of the

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                  HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 3, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-10

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-532PDF              WASHINGTON : 2022

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

                 ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona            VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
    JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut              Ranking Member
    GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      JOE WILSON, South Carolina
      Northern Mariana Islands           GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    MARK TAKANO, California              ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
    ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina        RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
    MARK De SAULNIER, California         JIM BANKS, Indiana
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          JAMES COMER, Kentucky
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
    JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
    LUCY Mc BATH, Georgia                MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
    JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            BURGESS OWENS, Utah
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 BOB GOOD, Virginia
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                LISA C. Mc CLAIN, Michigan
    HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan           DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
    TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico   MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
    MONDAIRE JONES, New York             VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
    KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina     SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
    FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana              MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
    JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Vice-Chair  MICHELLE STEEL, California
    MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                Vacancy
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
    JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
    KWEISI MFUME, Maryland

                       Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
                      Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman

    MARK TAKANO, California              FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania,
    DONALD NORCROSS,New Jersey             Ranking Member
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
    HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan           BURGESS OWENS, Utah
    MONDAIRE JONES, New York             BOB GOOD, Virginia
    JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky            MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  MICHELLE STEEL, California
                                         VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (ex
                                             officio)
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on May 3, 2021......................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
          Protections................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Keller, Hon. Fred, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce
          Protections................................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5

    Statement of Witnesses:
        DeCamp, Paul, Member, Epstein Becker & Green, PC.............    36
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
        Dixon, Rebecca JD, MA, Executive Director, National
          Employment Law Center......................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Romero, Teresa, President, United Farm Workers...............    52
            Prepared statement of....................................    54
        Yoon, Haeyoung, JD, Senior Policy Director, National Domestic
          Workers Alliance...........................................    61
            Prepared statement of....................................    64

    Additional Submissions:
        Chairwoman Adams:
            Prepared statement from Oxfam America....................    97
            Article: ``Why millions of workers in the US are denied
              basic protections'', Oxfam America.....................    99
            Fact Sheet: ``Why the US needs a $15 minimum wage'', EPI/
              NELP...................................................   104
            Letter from Farmworker Justice...........................   115
            Article: ``Tipping Is a Legacy of Slavery'', The New York
              Times,
              February 5, 2021.......................................   119
            Article: ``The Racist History of Tipping'', Politico,
              July 17, 2019..........................................   123
            Article: ``The Restaurant Industry Ran a Private Poll on
              the
              Minimum Wage. It Did Not Go Well for Them'', The
              Intercept, April 17, 2018..............................   127
        Mr. Keller:
            Letter from the National Restaurant Association dated May
              3, 2021................................................   136
            Letter from American Hort dated May 3, 2021..............   137
            Letter from the American Farm Bureau dated April 30, 2021   141
            Letter from Joshua Chaisson, President, Restaurant
              Workers of America.....................................   144
            Letter from Valerie Torres, Secretary, Restaurant Workers
              of
              America................................................   146
            Letter from Valerie J. Graham dated May 3, 2021..........   150
        Omar, Hon. Ilhan, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of
          Minnesota
            Fact Sheet: ``One Fair Wage: Women Fare Better in States
              with Equal Treatment for Tipped Workers'', National
              Women's Law Center.....................................   152
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Chairwoman Adams

            Ms. Omar.................................................   164
        Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
            Ms. Dixon................................................   157
            Ms. Romero...............................................   165
            Ms. Yoon.................................................   171

                      FROM EXCLUDED TO ESSENTIAL: TRACING

                      THE RACIST EXCLUSION OF FARMWORKERS,

                      DOMESTIC WORKERS, AND TIPPED WORKERS

                       FROM THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

                                  ----------

                              Monday, May 3, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
                              Committee on Education and Labor,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., via
    Zoom, Hon. Alma Adams (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee)
    presiding.
        Present: Representatives Adams, Takano, Norcross, Jayapal,
    Omar, Stevens, Jones, Yarmuth, Keller, Stefanik, Owens, Good,
    Cawthorn, and Steel.
        Staff present: Rashage Green, Director of Education Policy;
    Christian Haines, General Counsel; Sheila Havenner, Director of
    Information Technology; Eli Hovland, Policy Associate; Eunice
    Ikene, Labor Policy Associate; Ariel Jona, Policy Associate;
    Richard Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore, Staff
    Assistant; Mariah Mowbray, Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff
    Director; Udochi Onwubiko, Labor Policy Counsel; Kayla
    Pennebecker, Staff Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff
    Director; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information
    Technology; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; Courtney
    Butcher, Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions;
    Rob Green, Minority Director of Workforce Policy; Georgie
    Littlefair, Minority Legislative Assistant; John Martin,
    Minority, Minority Workplace Policy Counsel; Hannah Matesic,
    Minority Director of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority
    Communications Director; and John Witherspoon, Minority
    Professional Staff Member.
        Chairwoman Adams. Good afternoon. I'd like to call the
    Subcommittee on Workforce Protections to order. Today we are
    gathered to examine the racist origins of denying farm workers,
    domestic workers and tipped workers full protection under the
    Fair Labor Standards Act and to chart a path forward, a path
    toward finally addressing these inequities.
        The Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA is one of our Nation's
    most significant labor laws, first passed in 1978 it created
    the Federal minimum wage, set limits on work hours and banned
    oppressive child labor. Yet after more than 80 years the FLSA
    still includes aspects of our Nation's history of slavery and
    racial discrimination by expressly denying farm workers,
    domestic workers and tipped workers the full protections of
    basic wage and hour protections.
        Following the abolition of slavery, black Americans, the
    majority of whom lived in the south were concentrated in
    agricultural and domestic jobs with little to no pay in order
    to preserve the profitable return that had been built on the
    backs of slaves.
        By the time President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed what
    would become the FLSA he knew that certain lawmakers who held
    the levers of power in Congress were committed to denying black
    workers the wage protections that could lead to their economic
    and social freedom.
        Roosevelt acquiesced to the demands of these lawmakers by
    excluding specific occupations that were over-represented by
    black works from the labor protection. Thus, to ensure its
    passage and to allow employers to underpay black Americans, the
    FLSA excluded agricultural and domestic workers. In other
    words, by excluding jobs held by black and brown workers from
    basic worker protections, the FLSA inserted institutional
    racism into a Federal wage an hour law.
        And these exclusions robbed workers of color of economic
    security over the next three decades. I know this because I've
    lived it. In fact, my mother and grandmother were domestic
    workers. They cleaned other people's houses, so I would not
    have to, so that I could focus on going to school, getting a
    good education and security a future I desired.
        Unfortunately, I saw first-hand how impossible it was for
    them to make ends meet and how impossible it was for them to
    cover basic necessities, let alone live comfortably. Throughout
    the 1960s and 70s Congress took limited steps to expand FLSA
    protection, responding to the demands of the 1963 march on
    Washington for jobs and freedom.
        The attention brought to the issue by the 1965 California
    Great Strike and the advocacy work from Civil Rights groups,
    women's organization and labor unions, expanding coverage to
    industries with high concentrations of black workers, including
    agriculture, hotels and restaurants, helped narrow the racial
    gap, wage gap and significantly boost the wages for millions of
    workers.
        Similarly, the tipped minimum wage is also wounded in
    denying black workers economic security. Post-Civil War
    formerly enslaved black workers were denied wages and
    hospitality jobs and instead worked for tips. And while tipped
    workers were originally excluded entirely from the FLSA, later
    amended extending coverage to these workers codified the
    practice of allowing employees to rely on consumer's tips to
    subsidize wages.
        And while there's been important progress, some racist FLSA
    exclusions are still on the books and continue to prevent
    people of color who remain over-represented in these jobs from
    getting the pay they deserve.
        Today farm workers will do not have overtime protection,
    live-in domestic workers still don't have overtime protections,
    and tipped workers are still not guaranteed the Federal minimum
    wage, but today's hearing is not just about reviewing the
    history of the American labor laws, it's about recognizing the
    multi-generation's struggle of black workers and workers of
    color, and confronting our country's legacy of racism so that
    we can forge a more equitable future.
        And many of my Committee colleagues have spearheaded
    efforts to correct these decades-old inequities, including
    Representative Grijalva's Fairness for Farmworkers Act, which
    would phaseout overtime exemptions for agriculture workers.
    Representative Jayapal's Domestic Workers Bills of Rights,
    which among other things would eliminate the overtime exemption
    for live-in domestic workers.
        And Chairman Scott raised the Wage Act, which would
    gradually phaseout the tipped minimum wage. We know that
    several states have extended these key protections to workers
    and their economies have continued to thrive.n
        And of course no one could speak more authoritatively on
    institutional racism than the people who experience it each
    day, so I'm grateful that we're joined by three women of color
    to help guide our discussion, and I want to thank them for
    being with us.
        [The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]

         Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
                             Workforce Protections

        Today, we are gathered to examine the racist origins of denying
    farmworkers, domestic workers, and tipped workers full protections
    under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to chart a path toward finally
    addressing these inequities.
        The Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, is one of our Nation's most
    significant labor laws. First passed in 1938, it created the Federal
    minimum wage, set limits on work hours, and banned oppressive child
    labor. Yet, after more than 80 years, the FLSA still includes aspects
    of our Nation's history of slavery and racial discrimination by
    expressly denying farmworkers, domestic workers, and tipped workers the
    full protections of basic wage and hour protections.
        Following the abolition of slavery, Black Americans, a majority of
    whom lived in the South, were concentrated in agricultural and domestic
    jobs--with little to no pay--in order to preserve the profitable
    economy that had been built on the backs of slaves.
        By the time President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed what would
    become the FLSA, he knew that certain lawmakers who held the levers of
    power in Congress were committed to denying Black workers the wage
    protections that could lead to their economic and social freedom.
    Roosevelt acquiesced to the demands of these lawmakers by excluding
    specific occupations that were overrepresented by Black workers from
    labor protections.
        Thus, to ensure its passage and allow employers to underpay Black
    Americans, the FLSA excluded agricultural and domestic workers.
        In other words, by excluding jobs held by Black and Brown workers
    from basic worker protections, the FLSA, inserted institutional racism
    into Federal wage and hour law.
        And these exclusions robbed workers of color of economic security
    over the next three decades. I know this because I have lived it. In
    fact, my mother and grandmother were domestic workers. They cleaned
    other peoples' houses so I would not have to--so I could focus on going
    to school, getting a good education and securing a future I desired.
    Unfortunately, I saw first-hand how impossible it was for them to make
    ends meet and how impossible it was for them to cover basic
    necessities, let alone live comfortably.
        Throughout the 1960s and 70s, Congress took limited steps to expand
    FLSA protections, responding to the demands of the 1963 March on
    Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the attention brought to the issue by
    the 1965 California grape strike, and the advocacy work from civil
    rights groups, women's organizations, and labor unions.
        Expanding coverage to industries with high concentrations of Black
    workers, including agriculture, hotels, and restaurants, helped narrow
    the racial wage gap and significantly boosted wages for millions of
    workers.
        Similarly, the tipped minimum wage is also rooted in denying Black
    workers economic security. Post-Civil War, formerly enslaved Black
    workers were denied wages in hospitality jobs and, instead, worked for
    tips. And while tipped workers were initially excluded entirely from
    the FLSA, later amendments extending coverage to these workers codified
    the practice of allowing employers to rely on consumers' tips to
    subsidize wages.
        While there has been important progress, some racist FLSA
    exclusions are still on the books and continue to prevent people of
    color, who remain overrepresented in these jobs, from getting the pay
    they deserve.
        Today, farmworkers still do not have overtime protections. Live-in
    domestic workers still do not have overtime protections. And tipped
    workers are still not guaranteed the full Federal minimum wage.
        But today's hearing is not just about reviewing the history of
    American labor law. It's about recognizing the multi-generational
    struggle of Black workers and workers of color and confronting our
    country's legacy of racism so that we can forge a more equitable
    future.
        Many of my Committee colleagues have spearheaded efforts to correct
    these decades-old inequities, including:

       Representative Grijalva's Fairness for Farm Workers Act,
            which would phaseout overtime exemptions for agricultural
            workers;
       Representative Jayapal's Domestic Workers Bill of Rights
            Act, which, among other things, would eliminate the overtime
            exemption for live-in domestic workers; and
       Chairman Scott's Raise the Wage Act, which would gradually
            phaseout the tipped minimum wage.

        We know that several states have extended these key protections to
    workers and their economies have continued to thrive.
        Of course, no one can speak more authoritatively on institutional
    racism than the people who experience it each day. I am grateful we are
    joined by three women of color to help guide our discussion. And I want
    to thank them for being with us.
                                     ______

        Chairwoman Adams. I'd like right now to recognize the
    Ranking Member Keller for the purpose of making an opening
    statement. Mr. Keller?
        Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be with everyone this morning. As the foundation
    of our Nation's wage and hour protections, the Fair Labor
    Standards Act, FLSA, affects nearly every workplace across the
    country. However, our world looks very different now than it
    did 83 years ago when the FLSA became law.
        The nature of work in the United States and by extension,
    the American workforce has also changed. These changes matter
    and have very real implications for today's workforce. This
    fundamental transformation in the workplace has brought about
    technological advances that are enabling a diverse population
    to balance professional and personal needs in ways that were
    unheard of in the 1930's.
        While these developments are encouraging, unfortunately
    there is a rapidly growing disconnect between Federal standards
    and the needs of a vast majority of working Americans in the
    21st Century. Committee Republicans have long championed
    necessary updates to labor and employment policies that help
    American workers and business owners compete in a global
    economy.
        We stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner to modernize
    the FLSA to meet the--ever-evolving needs of a workforce that
    increasingly desires flexibility, choice, and mobility.
    Unfortunately, the misguided proposals before us today fail to
    address the needs of the modern workforce and will ultimately
    harm the very individuals my colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle claim to help.
        A radical mandated wage policy, and one size fits all
    regulations will lead to fewer employment opportunities, less
    economic freedom, restricted hours for workers, and more
    aggressive use of automation. All while threatening our
    economic recovery from COVID-19.
        Congress can either consider policies which incentivize job
    creators to continue employing American workers and create new
    pathways for innovation and entrepreneurship where we can
    double down on out of date policies resulting in unemployment.
        As states continue to relax COVID-19 restrictions, and
    businesses continue to reopen safely, now is the time to
    consider pro-growth policies that reflect the needs of our
    modern economy and workforce, and create more economic freedom
    and independence.
        Unfortunately, today's hearing will not help further
    productive discussion about how we can foster an environment to
    create better, higher paying jobs without costly one-size-fits-
    all government mandates that ignore industry-specific needs,
    and the resources available to small business owners.
        I would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us
    today, and Madam Chair I yield back.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Keller follows:]

        Statement of Hon. Fred Keller, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
                             Workforce Protections

        As the foundation of our Nation's wage and hour protections, the
    Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) affects nearly every workplace across
    the country.
        However, our world looks very different now than it did 83 years
    ago when the FLSA became law.
        The nature of work in the United States and by extension, the
    American workforce, has also changed.
        These changes matter and have very real implications for today's
    workforce.
        This fundamental transformation in the workplace has brought about
    technological advances that are enabling a diverse population to
    balance professional and personal needs in ways that were unheard of in
    the 1930s.
        While these developments are encouraging, unfortunately there is a
    rapidly growing disconnect between Federal standards and the needs of a
    vast majority of working Americans in the 21st century.
        Committee Republicans have long championed necessary updates to
    labor and employment policies that help American workers and business
    owners compete in the global economy.
        We stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner to modernize the FLSA
    to meet the ever-evolving needs of a workforce that increasingly
    desires flexibility, choice, and mobility.
        Unfortunately, the misguided proposals before us today fail to
    address the needs of the modern workforce and will ultimately harm the
    very individuals my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to
    help.
        A radical, mandated wage policy and one-size-fits-all regulations
    will lead to fewer employment opportunities, less economic freedom,
    restricted hours for workers, and more aggressive use of automation,
    all while threatening our economic recovery from COVID-19.
        Congress can either consider policies which incentivize job
    creators to continue employing American workers and create new pathways
    for innovation and entrepreneurship, or we can double-down on out-of-
    date policies resulting in unemployment.
        As states continue to relax COVID-19 restrictions and businesses
    continue to reopen safely, now is the time to consider pro-growth
    policies that reflect the needs of our modern economy and workforce and
    create more economic freedom and independence.
        Unfortunately, today's hearing will not help further productive
    discussion about how we can foster an environment to create better,
    higher-paying jobs without costly, one-size-fits-all government
    mandates that ignore industry-specific needs and the resources
    available to small business owners.
                                     ______

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much and let me just go
    back to something that I should have done from the beginning. I
    do want to note that we do have a quorum, and I do want to note
    for the Subcommittee that Mr. Grijalva of Arizona is permitted
    to participate in the hearing today with the understanding that
    his questions will come only after Members of the Subcommittee
    on Workforce Protections on both sides.
        This is a remote hearing. Microphones will be kept muted as
    a general rule to avoid unnecessary background noise, and
    witnesses will be responsible for unmuting themselves when
    they're recognized to speak, or when they wish to seek
    recognition and I ask the Members also to identify themselves
    before they speak.
        Members please keep your cameras on while in the
    proceedings and you will be considered present in the
    proceeding when you're visible on the camera. The only
    exception to this is that if you're experiencing difficulty you
    need to inform the Committee Staff of the difficulty.
        And if any Member experiences technical difficulties during
    the hearing you should stay connected on the platform, and let
    us know. Should the Chair experience technical difficulty or
    need to step away Mr. Takano or another Majority Member is
    hereby authorized to assume the gavel in the Chair's absence.
        This is an entirely remote hearing. Members should also
    expect to adhere to social distancing and safe health
    guidelines, including the use of masks and hand sanitizers.
    While the roll call is not necessary to establish a quorum and
    official proceedings conducted remotely, the Committee has made
    it a practice whenever there's an official proceeding with
    remote participation for the Clerk to call the roll to make it
    clear who's present.
        Members should say their names before announcing that they
    are present. At this time, I would like for the Clerk to call
    the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairwoman Adams?
        Chairwoman Adams. Present.
        The Clerk. Mr. Takano?
        Mr. Takano. Mr. Takano is present.
        The Clerk. Mr. Norcross?
        Mr. Norcross. Present.
        The Clerk. Ms. Jayapal?
        Ms. Jayapal. Jayapal is present.
        The Clerk. Ms. Omar?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Ms. Stevens?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Mr. Jones?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Mr. Yarmuth?
        Mr. Yarmuth. Yarmuth is present.
        The Clerk. Chairman Scott?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Ranking Member Keller?
        Mr. Keller. Present.
        The Clerk. Ms. Stefanik?
        Ms. Stefanik. Stefanik present.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller-Meeks?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Mr. Owens?
        Mr. Owens. Owens present.
        The Clerk. Mr. Good.
        Mr. Good. Good present.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cawthorn?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Steel?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Foxx?
        [No response]
        The Clerk. Chairwoman Adams that concludes the roll call.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much and let me also say
    any Members who wish to insert written statements into the
    record may do so by submitting them to the Clerk electronically
    in Microsoft Word by 5 p.m. on the 17th of May.
        I want to now introduce the witnesses. First of all, Ms.
    Rebecca Dixon is Executive Director of the National Employment
    Law Project. As Executive Director Ms. Dixon leads NELP's work
    to build and contribute to a strong worker's rights movement
    that dismantles structural racism, eliminates economic
    inequality, and builds worker power.
        Mr. Paul DeCamp is a Member of the first Epstein Becker and
    Green. In 2006 and 2007 Mr. DeCamp served as the Administrator
    of the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, and
    now frequently represents employers in complex wage and hour
    class and mass actions and mass actions in government
    investigations.
        Ms. Teresa Romero, President of United Farmworkers, the
    Nation's largest farm workers union. USW's mission is to help
    protect the rights and interests of farm workers by creating a
    safe and just food supply.
        Ms. Romero is the first Latino and first immigrant woman to
    become President of a national union in the United States.
        Ms. Haeyoung Yoon is Senior Policy Director at the National
    Domestic Workers Alliance, the NDWA works to raise and
    strengthen industry standards to ensure that domestic workers
    achieve economic security and opportunity, and have
    protections, respect and dignity in the workplace.
        We appreciate the witnesses for being here today and
    participating, look forward to your testimony. But I want to
    remind the witnesses that we've read your written statements,
    and they will appear in full in the hearing record. Pursuant to
    Committee Rule 8(d) and the Committee's practice, each of you
    is asked to limit your oral presentation to a five-minute
    summary of your written statement.
        But before you begin your testimony please remember unmute
    your microphone. And during your testimony, staff will be
    keeping track of the time and a timer will sound when time is
    up. So please be attentive to the time and wrap up when your
    time is over and remute your microphone.
        If you experience technical difficulties during your
    testimony or later in the hearing, you should stay connected on
    the platform, make sure you are muted and use your phone to
    immediately call the Committee's IT director, whose number was
    provided to you in advance.
        So we are going to let all the witnesses make their
    presentations before we move to Member questions, and when
    answering a question, please remember to unmute your mic.
        The witnesses are aware of their responsibility to provide
    accurate information to the Subcommittee, and therefore we will
    proceed with their testimony.
        I'd like to first recognize Ms. Dixon. Ms. Dixon you have
    five minutes.

      STATEMENT OF MS. REBECCA DIXON, JD, MA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                     NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER

        Ms. Dixon. Good afternoon Chair Adams, Ranking Member
    Keller and Members of the Committee. I am deeply appreciative
    of the opportunity to testify today. I am here today to talk to
    you about how slavery and the continued racism, exploitation
    and subjugation left in the wake of slavery has directed the
    passage of the original Fair Labor Standards Act and lives on
    in exclusions that are still in place today.
        Congress can act to address this historic wrong and make a
    material difference in the lives of millions of working
    families immediately. At the time of this passage in 1938 the
    agrarian southern political economy depended on the
    exploitation and subordination of black labor.
        The southern states held the balance of power in Congress,
    and were unified in their opposition to including black people
    in new laws that guaranteed wages, rights, benefits, or
    protections. As a result, Congress used sectors of work
    dominated by black workers and other workers of color,
    including farm labor, tipped and domestic work as a proxy for
    race, in order to exclude black workers in particular from the
    FLSA's protections.
        This exclusion depressed black workers? wages, effects
    still present today in persistent generational wage and wealth
    caps. The color line of who worked in which jobs, known as
    occupational segregation, continues today with nearly 9 in 10
    current occupations being classified as racially segregated,
    even after accounting for education.
        After years of pressure from civil rights and farmworker
    advocates, in 1966 Congress rectified some of the FLSA's racist
    exclusions, extending some protections to industries heavily
    populated by black workers such as agriculture. But these
    amendments continue to exclude most agriculture workers from
    vital overtime protections.
        In 1974, Congress extended FLSA coverage to many domestic
    workers in private household service, but not live-in domestic
    workers, casual care workers, or others that were providing
    companionship services.
        The remainder of my remarks will focus on the FLSA's
    subminimum wage for tipped workers. The tipped minimum wage is
    a legacy of slavery. It was a practice that was proliferated in
    the U.S. after emancipation among restaurants and hospitality
    industries which hired ``newly freed black people? and used
    tipping instead of paying them.
        Years later when the FLSA was adopted, it excluded workers
    in most tipped applications from its protections. For tipped
    workers, the 1966 FLSA amendment expanded minimum wage
    protections, but allowed employers to pay a lower wage to
    tipped workers with tips making up the difference.
        This is a rare improvement in the FLSA that has lost ground
    over the years as a subminimum wage has been frozen at $2.13
    since 1991, even as the minimum wage has increased. As a
    result, approximately 3.1 million workers in a wide array of
    occupations are subjected to lower base wages for the work they
    perform leading to higher property rates and precarity for
    those who work for tips.
        One of the reasons for this is the high rates of labor law
    violations such as not topping workers up. Nationwide tipped
    workers rates of labor law violations are extremely high.
    Nationwide tipped workers have a high poverty rate that is
    nearly twice that of non-tipped workers, eliminating the
    subminimum wage advances equity, promotes economic security as
    evidenced by analysis from one fair wage states where tipped
    workers receive the full minimum wage on top of tips.
        In those states the property rate for tipped workers was 42
    percent lower than national averages, and the gender wage gap
    shrank by one-third. As a final matter, let's talk about
    businesses and the impact of the one fair wage.
        Evidence from the seven one fair wage states points to
    businesses not just surviving but thriving. An analysis
    covering 2011 to 2019 finds that the restaurant industry was
    stronger and grew faster in one fair wage states, than in
    states with a lower tipped wage.
        Congress has the obligation and opportunity to right the
    wrongs that we are discussing today. Joining together with
    workers who are organizing and demanding better wages in the
    laws that have exclusion and inequity at their core. Congress
    should pass the Raise the Wage Act of 2021, the Domestic
    Worker's Bill of Rights, and the Fairness for Farmworkers Act.
        Each of these will put us on the path toward more equitable
    and just treatment of millions of workers who have been
    excluded from these protections of the FLSA for far too long.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dixon follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Rebecca Dixon

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Vassar. Apologies. I believe Chair Adams is currently
    off the platform. Hold on one second please. We're working to
    get this together.
        Mr. Takano. Mr. DeCamp we'll now hear from you for five
    minutes.

     STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL DeCAMP, MEMBER, EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN,
                                   PC

        Mr. DeCamp. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Adams, Ranking
    Member Keller and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing to address
    the treatment of farm workers, domestic workers and tipped
    workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
        My testimony today will focus on the Subcommittee's
    consideration of three bills: H.R. 603, H.R. 1080, and H.R.
    3760. I'm here today to express my opposition to these bills.
        Given the Subcommittee's stated interest in examining the
    origins of those portions of the FLSA relating to agriculture,
    domestic service and tipped employment, as set forth in my
    written testimony, a detailed discussion of the pertinent
    statutory language, followed by an analysis of these bills.
        I will focus my remarks today on the policy and legal
    reasons why I encouraged the Subcommittee to reject each bill.
    First, the proposal in H.R. 603 to more than double the Federal
    minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 an hour will cost people
    their jobs.
        The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly
    determined this kind of sharp increase would hurt more people
    than it would lift out of poverty. Earlier this year the CBO
    considered H.R. 603, it concluded that while the number of
    individuals in poverty would decline by roughly 900,000,
    employment would drop by 1.4 million if the Federal minimum
    wage increased to $15.00 as people either lose their jobs or
    drop out of the workforce entirely.
        CBO has noted that the hardships caused by these steep
    minimum wage increases fall most heavily on young, less
    educated workers with the resulting loss of earnings
    concentrated among families within the lowest income quintile.
        CBO has also pointed out that as the cost of employing low-
    wage workers rises, employers shift their hiring preferences,
    opting for employees with more skill or experience, or
    investing in machines to replace workers.
        While much of the public debate about $15.00 an hour,
    posits a sole breadwinner struggling to lift the family out of
    poverty. The reality is that most individuals who earn minimum
    wage are young and are not supporting families. According to
    the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 1.5 percent of all
    hourly workers in the United States earn at or below minimum
    wage, and fully 48 percent of those individuals are under age
    25.
        7 out of 10 of them are in service industries, mostly in
    food service, often earning significant tip income. In
    addition, it is important to keep in mind that although a
    minimum wage of $15.00 might not have much effect on employment
    in certain high wage cities.
        In many parts of the country, particularly in rural areas
    and in the south, the economic conditions simply cannot sustain
    these kinds of wage levels, and it is important to remember
    that minimum wage workers cluster in industries such as
    restaurants, hotels and movie theaters, which have been
    especially hard hit by COVID-19.
        The hospitality industry has lost nearly 4 million jobs,
    and more than 100,000 restaurants have closed. Now is not the
    time to make things even more difficult for these businesses to
    keep their doors open. If they fail, workers lose jobs.
        With regard to the proposal to eliminate the tip credit,
    the key thing to keep in mind is that 97 percent of tipped
    workers prefer the current structure of tipping over no tip
    options. They earn on average $14.32 an hour in total
    compensation.
        Indeed, several restaurants that shifted to a no tip
    approach ended up switching back to tipping after their wait
    staff quit. Tipped workers are simply better off with the tip
    credit than without it.
        Turning to H.R. 1080 it is important to understand the
    economic consequences of eliminating nearly all of the FLSA's
    agricultural exemptions. The nature of agricultural work,
    especially harvesting, requires long hours during a relatively
    short season, thus rendering the jobs generally unsuited for
    overtime.
        Some farmers may try to cut worker's hours leading to lower
    earnings per worker, but finding extra farm workers is no easy
    task, and most farmers would end up seeing a dramatic increase
    in labor costs leading to higher food prices for consumers.
        At the same time American farmers would be at a distinct
    competitive disadvantage with respect to non-U.S. agricultural
    producers. In addition, smaller, independent farming operations
    and family farms would likely suffer the most, as they are less
    able to absorb higher costs than larger, more robustly financed
    corporate farms.
        Finally, my opposition to H.R. 3760 today centers mainly on
    its likely unconstitutionality. The bill intrudes into people's
    homes and imposes on individuals sweeping legal obligations
    untethered to legitimate Federal interests.
        It is far from clear that Congress has authority under the
    commerce clause to regulate purely local employment within a
    private residence, particularly given the current configuration
    of the Supreme Court.
        This concludes my prepared remarks. I welcome any questions
    the Members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. DeCamp follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Paul DeCamp

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. Next, we'll hear from Ms.
    Romero and again I want to apologize for my internet issue that
    I had a moment ago. Ms. Romero?

     STATEMENT OF MS. TERESA ROMERO, PRESIDENT, UNITED FARM WORKERS

        Ms. Romero. Thank you. Chair Adams, Ranking Member Keller,
    and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today. My name is Teresa Romero, and
    I am the President of the United Farm Workers. Today I'm
    testifying on behalf of the United Farm Workers and the UFW
    Foundation.
        Farm workers workday in and day out to plant and harvest
    the crops and care for the livestock we all rely on for our
    food. The COVID pandemic has underscored the critically
    important work of farm workers. The pandemic also has
    highlighted the vulnerability of farm workers due to the
    discriminatory exclusion from key protections other workers
    enjoy, such as overtime pay.
        The history of agriculture in the United States is a
    history of racism. During the ``New Deal'' period, President
    Roosevelt and his allies compromised with southern Congressmen
    to exclude work traditionally associated with black workers. By
    excluding farm workers and domestic workers from FLSA, Congress
    sought to preserve an economic system that exploited black
    people.
        Members of Congress at the time were explicit, they did not
    believe black people believed the same wage protections as
    white people. As stated by Representative Wilcox and I quote,
    ``There is another matter of great importance in the south, and
    that is the problem of our Negro labor. When we turned over to
    the Federal Bureau of Board the power to fix wages, it will
    prescribe the same wage for the Negro that it prescribes for
    the white man.
        Now, such a plan might work in some sections of the United
    States, but those of us who know the true situation know that
    it just will not work in the south. You cannot put the Negro
    and the white man on the same basis and get away with it.''
        Today our Nation is painfully aware of our entrenched
    racism, and the impact it exerts on people of color. Congress
    must take one step toward addressing systemic racism by ending
    the discrimination that endures in the FLSA. Farm workers would
    benefit greatly from overtime pay.
        One of the purposes in enacting FLSA was to eliminate labor
    conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum
    standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general
    well-being of workers. Exclusion of farm workers from the
    overtime protection flies in the face of that purpose.
        Farm workers work for low pay and in dangerous conditions,
    which is exacerbated by long hours. Beyond the increased
    dangers from the pandemic, agriculture work is among the most
    dangerous work in the country. Farm workers are
    disproportionately likely to be harassed, poisoned, injured, or
    killed on the job.
        Overtime is needed to help minimize the damaging effect of
    agricultural work on the body. Trust me, more than 40 hours a
    week in agriculture is extremely challenging and can lead to
    long lasting injuries.
        Overtime pay would also provide additional income for farm
    workers, many of whom live in poverty, who live from poverty,
    and provide security in other areas. For example, farm workers
    with great economic security will feel more confident leaving
    abusive employers.
        The United Farm Workers worked with California's
    legislature in 2016 to end the race base exclusion of farm
    workers from overtime pay. The economics of overtime pay for
    California's agriculture have had a positive impact. Farm
    workers are able to get more pay. In California agriculture
    continues to thrive.
        Recently the Washington legislature passed a law that
    phases in an overtime pay for agricultural workers after the
    state's Supreme Court found that exception of dairy workers
    from overtime pay was unconstitutional. The Governor of
    Washington is expected to sign the bill into law.
        In conclusion, now is the time to right the wrongs that can
    no longer be tolerated. We must end the racist exclusion of
    farm workers from FLSA's overtime protection. It was wrong
    then. It is wrong now when most farm workers are Latino. I
    thank Representative Grijalva for his leadership fighting
    racist exclusion of farm workers from overtime.
        We call on Congress to enact Representative Grijalva's
    Fairness for Farmworkers Act. As our Member, Jorge Maldonado
    shared on learning about overtime pay in Washington, winning
    overtime pay is a victory of equality. It is a historic moment,
    and I am happy to have been part of it. We cannot progress if
    we're building on the foundation of injustice. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Romero follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Theresa Romero

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Finally, we'll hear
    from Ms. Yoon, you are recognized for five minutes.

      STATEMENT OF MS. HAEYOUNG YOON, JD, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR,
                   NATIONAL DOMESTIC WORKERS ALLIANCE

        Ms. Yoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify. Domestic workers in the early part of
    the 20th Century compared to today's workforce have both
    changed dramatically and remain remarkably similar. In the
    earlier part of the 20th Century although women increasingly
    joined the workforce, their job opportunities were limited, and
    black women and immigrant women were virtually shut out of
    better paying jobs that some white women were able to get.
        In 1930s and 40s black women were overwhelmingly
    represented in domestic service. Today domestic workers are
    from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. To give you a sense
    of the diversity, when we surveyed domestic workers in 2012, we
    interviewed workers from 71 countries.
        What has remained the same in the last 80 years is that
    women are over-represented in the sector. Today over 90 percent
    of domestic workers are women, well over half are women of
    color, and a third are immigrants. Unlike farm workers,
    domestic workers were not expressly excluded when the law
    passed in 1938.
        On its face the exclusion appears race and gender neutral.
    The coverage was based on whether a worker engaged in commerce,
    or in the production of goods for commerce. But research shows
    that while more expansive interpretation of the commerce clause
    was legally permissible, political consideration dictated to
    conclude that domestic work did not implicate commerce.
        Committee debates show that the exclusion of domestic
    workers, along with farm workers were motivated by racism,
    allowing employers in the south to dictate the terms and
    conditions of black labor, and to maintain a racial and social
    hierarchy. Some legislators opposed the law on the ground that
    it threatened to equalize wages between black and white
    workers.
        Others compared FLSA to anti-lynching legislation. We also
    see the workings of sexism. Seeing domestic work as women's
    unpaid household labor, Roosevelt is quoted to saying that the
    Fair Labor Standards Act is not intended to apply to ``domestic
    help.''
        It took a large movement for Congress to extend FLSA
    coverage to domestic workers in 1974, finding that domestic
    service affects commerce. While it extended protection to a
    significant number of domestic workers, it also left many out
    of its protection.
        Congress narrowly exempted companions and casual
    babysitters from the minimum wage and overtime protection, but
    entirely excluded live-in workers from overtime protection. The
    Labor Department took the companionship services exemption and
    defined it overly broad to carve out a whole class of home care
    workers whose vocation is to provide home based services to
    older Americans and people with disabilities, and exempted
    third-party employers, like a home care agency, from paying
    their workers minimum wage and overtime.
        In 2013 the Labor Department issued new regulations to
    bring the scope of the exemption in line with congressional
    intent, and to reflect the dramatic changes in the home care
    industry. Now millions of home care workers are covered under
    minimum wage and overtime protection, and third-party employers
    are required to pay their workers minimum wage and overtime.
        But live-in workers who are hired by private households
    remain excluded from overtime protection. This legacy of racial
    and gender exclusion continues to shape the working lives of
    domestic workers. Their work is devalued, they're underpaid and
    largely unprotected in the workplace.
        In 2018 domestic workers earned just about $16,000.00 a
    year, significantly lower than other workers whose average
    annual income was about $39,000.00. Wage staff and other
    workplace violations are pervasive across domestic occupations.
    They often work long hours and are exposed to potentially
    harmful cleaning products.
        Given that the nature of domestic work is intimate, too
    many workers are subject to sexual assault and harassment,
    physical and verbal abuse. Domestic workers ongoing exclusion
    from other Federal workplace laws such as Title VII, health and
    safety laws leave them without protection.
        This is the reason why this Congress must pass the Domestic
    Workers Bill of Rights to protect domestic workers across the
    country. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Yoon follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Haeyoung Yoon

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much to all of our guests
    for their testimony. Under Committee Rule 9(a) we're going to
    now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'm going to
    be recognizing Subcommittee Members in senior order.
        Again to ensure that the five-minute rule is adhered to,
    staff will be keeping track of the time. And the timer will
    show a blinking light when your time has expired. So please be
    attentive to the time, wrap up when your time is over, and
    remute your microphone.
        As Chair I'm going to recognize myself for five-minutes.
    Ms. Dixon there are entire business models that assume, or
    center around excluding farm workers, domestic workers, or
    tipped workers from protections afforded to other workers, so
    does that mean it's too late to correct these exclusions and
    why is it important for business leaders to examine the impacts
    of these business models on workers of color?
        Ms. Dixon. It's never too late to examine a change in these
    business models. When something is rooted in white supremacy,
    and exclusion of workers of color, even those unaware of the
    roots of these exclusions should not continue to profit and
    benefit from them.
        But because we know that far too many businesses are built
    on the benefits they reap from these exclusions we know that we
    cannot erase them immediately without doing undue damage to
    business. This is why for example, the Raise the Wage Act calls
    for a gradual elimination of the tipped minimum wage, rather
    than an immediate eradication of it.
        And as we know, the advocates for tipped workers are very
    open to further discussion about how to ensure that we reach
    one fair wage in a manner that's economically responsible. But
    what we are not open to is continuing to enshrine a subminimum
    wage for tipped workers, and continuing to perpetuate an
    exclusion that is rooted in the blatant desire to avoid paying
    wages to black workers who were formerly enslaved, and that
    operates in a manner and means that women of color who make up
    a disproportionate share of tipped workers continue to earn
    lower wages.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Ms. Yoon, I came from a long
    line of domestic workers, my mom and my grandmother both were
    domestic workers. The workday was hard. It was undervalued,
    underpaid, and unfortunately that still seems to be the case.
        Domestic workers have been called the invisible workers on
    the frontline of the pandemic. Is this invisibility connected
    to the history of the FLSA that we are discussing today?
        Ms. Yoon. Thank you for that question. Very much so. The
    pandemic has revealed how many workers we've taken for granted.
    Their labor devalued, and their contribution to the economy
    made invisible. It took a pandemic to recognize that domestic
    workers who have been providing care and essential services to
    our children, aging parents, have been helping us to function
    as a society, and making it possible for all of us to work.
        Au pair job is a job enabling job. While families sheltered
    at home last year, many domestic workers continued to go to
    work facing an impossible choice around how they're going to
    feed themselves, and keep themselves and their families, and
    those they care for safe without necessary protective equipment
    and easy access to testing.
        The fact that domestic workers faced these impossible
    choices is because they have been earning poverty wages, living
    paycheck to paycheck, no access to paid time off. This is both
    the legacy of exclusion from FLSA which has had a domino effect
    of being excluded from other laws, and from legislation, even
    introduced in this Congress like the Health Families Act.
        Chairwoman Adams. OK thank you. Ms. Romero from my work on
    the Ag Committee I worked with struggling black farmers who
    have also faced discrimination in Federal policy, and this
    Committee it's clear to me that we must also work to provide
    our farm workers who are overwhelmingly Latino, with basic
    protections.
        How do we balance these goals? And how would you respond to
    the concern that farmers are struggling right now, and that
    making farm workers eligible for overtime pay would be a
    difficult cost for farmers to bear.
        Ms. Romero. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. Do you know
    when I think about those who struggle in agriculture, I think
    of farm workers and what overtime pay would mean to them. You
    know a doctor's visit, enough food for their family without
    having to go to food banks. And while under business law we
    talk about struggling small family farms. The reality is that
    most farm workers are hired by big companies who like any other
    private business should provide their workers with the basic
    FLSA protections.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I'm going to now
    yield my other few minutes. I'm going to give those back. But I
    want to recognize the Ranking Member for the purpose of
    questioning the witnesses now. Mr. Ranking Member?
        Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. DeCamp the
    Workforce Protection Subcommittee is here to help ensure that
    Congress makes policy decisions based on sound evidence. Our
    evidence does not support the claim that the one size fits all
    $15.00 national minimum wage would benefit economically or
    geographically diverse parts of our country.
        Based on your experience working with employers, what
    complications should Congress anticipate if legislation takes
    effect that would increase the national minimum wage to $15.00
    an hour. And apply that to the same thing for tipped employees
    that work throughout the United States?
        Mr. DeCamp: I think we'd see significant job losses, and
    that would be especially true for younger and less skilled
    workers. This would be a significant barrier to entry for
    people trying to get their foot in the door to become
    employees, to get jobs in the first place. And I think that
    this would also have a severe impact on tipped industries
    including restaurants and hospitality that rely on the tip
    credit as part of the wage structure given how customers
    typically pay for services.
        This would cause devastating effects especially in rural
    and southern parts of the country where the wage levels are not
    as high as in certain cities.
        Mr. Keller. And I guess I would just followup in that. Your
    experience in what you've worked, people you've worked with,
    whether it's the employers or the employees, a lot of the tip
    wages are people that might be in college, people that might be
    you know graduating from high school, first jobs, is that a
    fair statement to say?
        Mr. DeCamp. Yes.
        Mr. Keller. Where people get experience on work and are
    able to enter the workforce?
        Mr. DeCamp. Exactly. I mean most of the folks that are
    making minimum wage are not people who are adult supporting
    families who have been in those positions for years. More
    commonly you have minimum wage workers are either entry level
    workers achieving their first job, or something early in their
    employment, or they're individuals who are getting a tipped
    wage where their total earnings were substantially in excess of
    the minimum wage.
        Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate you for clarifying
    that. Mr. DeCamp businesses across the country, especially
    those in the restaurant industry, are reporting that they are
    struggling to find workers to fill open jobs as the economy
    fully reopens from COVID-19 pandemic.
        If Congress were to pass the Raise the Wage Act which
    eliminates the tip credit, what impact do you believe this
    radical policy change would have on the ability of restaurants
    and hotels and related establishments to recruit and retain
    individuals who enjoy the documented benefits of receiving tips
    for their services?
        Mr. DeCamp. The current estimates have been about close to
    700,000 tipped employees would lose their jobs. In addition, I
    think countless restaurants would close. This would be
    devastating for the workers who need these wages the most.
        Mr. Keller. Also Mr. DeCamp, farms in the United States
    face seasonal and weather-based constraints in their annual
    operations, as well as the challenges that arise when caring
    for livestock and other animals, all factors that don't follow
    a regular 9 to 5 office schedule.
        In light of these realities can you explain on the impacts
    that Rep. Grijalva's proposed changes to the FLSA's farm worker
    overtime exemptions would have on farming and operations and
    agricultural workers?
        Mr. DeCamp. Yes sir. Farmers would face a choice. They'd
    either have to reduce hours of individual workers and spread
    the work around which would reduce the pay of individual
    workers, or they would have to pay higher labor costs. And if
    they have to pay higher labor costs then they have to charge
    more for the agricultural products that they sell, which then
    has ripple effects throughout the economy.
        It increases the cost of food in restaurants and groceries
    stores and also puts those farms at a competitive disadvantage
    with non-U.S. agricultural producers that don't face the same
    labor costs.
        Mr. Keller. Seeing that would result in people earning
    fewer or less wages, and then also would impact maybe people on
    fixed incomes, retirees, as far as the cost of receipt of being
    able to purchase food and other items?
        Mr. DeCamp. Sure.
        Mr. Keller. Mr. DeCamp as you noted in your testimony the
    FLSA is over 80 years old. There is bipartisan agreement that
    many of the FLSA's provisions and regulations are outdated and
    overly complex. Do you agree with that view?
        Mr. DeCamp. Yes. I mean this is a topic that could take a
    full hearing on, but yes.
        Mr. Keller. OK. I was just going to ask if you could
    identify elements of the FLSA that should be updated to meet
    the needs of our 21st Century workforce.
        Mr. DeCamp. Clearer standards for who is an employee,
    possibly having a non-binary employee independent contractor
    approach. Clearer objective standards for who is exempt or not
    exempt, clearer standards for what contemplates or what
    constitutes compensable work, all of those would help a lot.
        Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much gentleman yields
    back. I want to recognize Mr. Takano of California. Five
    minutes, sir.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. DeCamp have you
    worked farm work? Have you worked on a farm?
        Mr. DeCamp. I'm sorry. I have not worked on a farm.
        Mr. Takano. Thanks for that. I just turned over soil in my
    yard, just a few square footages, it was hard work. How many
    college students do you know working farm worker jobs in this
    country like real farm worker jobs? I mean do you see a large
    share of college students working farm worker jobs, young
    people?
        Mr. DeCamp. No.
        Mr. Takano. Well it's mostly mature adult people working
    back breaking work on farms. What about homecare workers. A lot
    of teenagers and college students working those jobs?
        Mr. DeCamp. No.
        Mr. Takano. OK. Can I ask Ms. Romero, Ms. Romero can you
    confirm that the typical farm worker is not a teenager, or a
    young person that needs an entry into the workforce?
        Ms. Romero. That is correct sir.
        Mr. Takano. And typically, I mean what are the ages of
    people who work on farms doing the back breaking work of
    hoeing, tilling the soil, you know, all of the stuff in the hot
    sun, tell me about that.
        Ms. Romero. We have workers, probably you know I can tell
    you that we have workers that are in their 20's. We have
    workers that are, I can tell you that one of our Members, has
    been working in agriculture for 40 years, he's over 70 years
    old. So we have workers that are probably older than you know
    what you're talking about teenagers, or early 20's.
        Mr. Takano. So I mean the arguments being put forward by
    Mr. DeCamp is that a minimum wage across the country, one fair
    wage is going to deny a lot of young people entry into jobs.
    What do you have to say about that? I mean it's one of the
    narratives they're using;
        Ms. Romero. You know there is not a lot of young people
    that are looking to work in agriculture. It's very demanding,
    very physically demanding. But there is also actually a study
    that addresses the question of the cost of our food. The study
    found that increasing wages to farm workers by about 40 percent
    would only increase consumer's household grocery by $25.00 an
    entire year.
        And that study was done by the agriculture economist Phil
    Martin, and at the Economic Policy Institute. I can tell you
    the average age of farm workers is 38. About 38-40.
        Mr. Takano. 38 years old, and they're not protected by the
    Fair Labor Standards Act. They're not protected by the minimum
    wage, even the Federal minimum wage. I can't see being 38 years
    old, let alone 40 years old, or 50 years old, working under the
    hot sun and then finding out that I have to work longer than
    the 8 hours a day, or longer than 40 hours a week and am not
    protected by overtime.
        Are there any states that do provide farm workers with
    overtime protections?
        Ms. Romero. As I said here in California the UFW worked
    with the California legislature in 2016, and farm workers, the
    overtime pay is being phased in. This year farm workers earned
    overtime pay after 8 and a half hours a day, and next year it's
    going to be after 8 hours a day in California, and I'm sorry
    Washington legislature just passed a law that says that it is
    unconstitutional not to pay workers overtime pay, and it is
    expected that the Governor will sign it.
        Mr. Takano. What do you feel about the fact that so many
    workers across this country who work in demanding physical
    labor aren't protected by the farm workers are not protected by
    overtime pay in other states?
        Ms. Romero. You know as I mentioned sir these protections
    or exclusion of farm workers were based in racism. Like I said
    our core commander down in Washington says if we continue to
    build on these times or the decisions that were made at one
    time on the foundation of injustice, we're not just going to be
    able to get these workers to get the pay that they deserve.
    They deserve overtime pay. They feed our country.
        Mr. Takano. Well I'm just seething with anger at Mr.
    DeCamp's testimony which seems to reject any racial motivations
    for excluding farm workers from the FLSA in 1938, and instead
    suggests that the nature of farm work led to the farm worker
    exclusions. I just don't know what to say. Madam Chair I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to recognize
    the gentlelady from New York Ms. Stefanik.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to followup
    on Mr. Takano's questions. Clearly, he represents a district
    that's very different than upstate New York. I represent tens
    of thousands of small family farms, and in fact these are
    multi-generational farms, so college aged students do go home
    to work at the farm, and also run those farms.
        These farms are fighting to hand on. It is a tragedy that
    family farms have closed over the past decades. We should be
    making it stronger for domestic agricultural supply, and those
    multi-generational small family farms to exist, not harder.
        So Mr. DeCamp my question is for you. As I mentioned I do
    represent tens of thousands of small family farms in upstate
    New York. And I am very concerned about the implications of
    mandating the -40-hour work week on farmers and farm workers.
    As you know, and any farm family knows, and any farm worker
    knows, the inherent nature of farming calls for long hours,
    often in very short windows in order to cooperate with the
    unpredictable weather and the narrow harvest times.
        New York State has implemented an overtime threshold for
    agriculture employers which has forced many small family farms
    in my district and throughout the State to cut hours for
    workers and eliminate labor intensive crops. Several fruits and
    specialty crop producers, for example, have cut down fruit
    trees in order to spare the expense of growing fruit that they
    cannot hire someone to pick.
        So my question Mr. DeCamp is what is the overall economic
    impact to U.S. agriculture if farmers had to pay overtime after
    40 hours? And what effect would this have on the ability of
    American farms to maintain a strong domestic food supply?
        Mr. DeCamp. Well with the caveat that I'm not an economist,
    and don't claim to be. From a labor incentive standpoint I
    think it's fair to say that employers in this industry would
    face great pressure to do something about the overtime cost,
    either by spreading the work around, which is the policy behind
    the FLSA's 40 hour work week, or by having to pay the higher
    costs and find a way to make do with that, either by raising
    prices, or by having lower profits.
        I think the reality is it would cause where possible, farms
    to employ people for less hours. I can certainly envision
    situations where farms will employ people for 3 days a week,
    and then those folks would go to a different farm for the other
    2 days a week. The farm workers need the hours. They want the
    hours. And so I don't think the farm workers would be working
    less hours, it would be a question of where they'd be doing it.
        Ms. Stefanik. My next question is to you. You mentioned
    this and Mr. Keller did as well, but the fact that we are in a
    global marketplace when it comes to agricultural products. My
    district borders Canada, and in many ways we want to make sure
    that American farms are not at a competitive disadvantage given
    that proximity to the northern border, we're in direct
    competition with Canadian farmers for market access, especially
    for fruit and vegetable products.
        Canada currently has a lower minimum wage than New York
    State, and exempts agriculture from overtime requirements, and
    as a result our upstate New York markets are often flooded with
    Canadian product, putting our New York and American farmers at
    a severe competitive disadvantage.
        So my question is would this 40 hour work week and the
    increased cost of American product open our markets to further
    influx of cheaper foreign products, and what kind of affect
    would that have for farmers who already compete with those
    foreign products in our U.S. domestic market.
        Mr. DeCamp. Again, I think that when you raise your cost
    structure and you're competing with businesses that have a
    lower cost structure to produce the same good, it puts you at a
    disadvantage in the market. I think this would create a lot
    more difficulty for American farmers to sell their products,
    especially where they're in a market where there is an easy
    supply of lower cost produce, and they've the northern border,
    the southern border, places where there are readily perishable
    goods coming across the border from a much lower cost
    structure, it creates huge market pressure for the farmers and
    could well drive them out of business.
        Ms. Stefanik. And then my last question Mr. DeCamp is
    there's a lot of discussion between bigger farms and smaller
    farms, and this mandate would impact all farms, but it would be
    specifically hurtful and impact small, rural family farms. Can
    you talk about that? How it would specifically hurt those rural
    family farms?
        Mr. DeCamp. Well smaller farms that don't have the same
    kind of accumulated savings. They don't have the same kind of
    lifelines. They don't have the same kind of integrated
    operations that can perhaps function as a loss leader for other
    businesses within a chain are unable to weather the storm.
        They can't deal with short-term or longer-term drops in
    profitability. They just don't have the resources to do it.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you very much. After a year of
    unprecedented certainty for our family farms, we need to be
    making it easier and more supportive for them to grow domestic
    products, not harder with these one size fits all mandates. I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey,
    Mr. Norcross, you're recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's great to have
    a Committee that's absolutely focused on survival. We're
    hearing testimony, and we're counting back, it affects business
    and certainly a part of the equation. But the fact that we are
    a dozen years, 12 years since the last minimum wage increase,
    more time than in the history of minimum wage, and that somehow
    this is a radical move, are you kidding me?
        $7.50 an hour in the wealthiest nation in the world that
    incrementally and predictably would raise it. Unbelievable
    we're still having this conversation. And then we look at the
    tipped worker and I've got to ask. Ms. Dixon when the change
    took place for tipped workers saying you could combine that
    $2.13 and make up for it in tipped wages.
        How are the tipped wages reported? How does management
    estimate or prove that they're actually getting those tipped
    wages?
        Ms. Dixon. So part of the reason why there's so much non-
    compliance in restaurants is that employers don't actually
    track the tips, and as required by law. So if you don't keep
    track of the tips, you don't know how to top up. So that's one
    of the big issues that we see, and you can see how even--well-
    meaning employers can get caught up in that, and certainly the
    ones that want to do it intentionally can do it.
        Mr. Norcross. Good. So there's a financial incentive not to
    collect that information.
        Ms. Dixon. Correct.
        Mr. Norcross. OK. Now when we go to Europe so many people
    tell us, ``Oh you don't tip workers over there because they're
    already making that.'' So the model for the majority of the
    world is not using tips, is that correct?
        Ms. Dixon. That's correct. In the U.S. we came to tipping
    in the post-emancipation era as a you know, a way to treat
    formerly enslaved people where they just get paid whatever they
    get paid, whatever you want to give them as opposed to paying
    them a wage.
        Mr. Norcross. So when we look at trying to level the
    playing field which should have been done long before this, and
    raising the minimum wage is incredibly important. But when
    those tipped workers go to if this law is passed to a minimum
    wage, that means that their competition is paying the same rate
    correct? It levels the playing field?
        Ms. Dixon. It absolutely does, and it gets rid of this
    unfair advantage that some minimum tipped wage employers have
    had versus other employers.
        Mr. Norcross. Well the idea of competition is that
    everybody will be paying this. Is there any chance for
    particularly in the restaurant industry, that foreign
    competition is going to bring in food and deliver it to people?
        Ms. Dixon. You said foreign competition?
        Mr. Norcross. Yes, yes, foreign competition. In other words
    are they coming over from Canada to deliver food because they
    can do it cheaper?
        Ms. Dixon. Most of what we've seen is that restaurants are
    local and that's my point right.
        Mr. Norcross. There is no foreign competition, for that
    piece of it now. McDonalds on this side of the river will pay
    the same as that side, and they don't seek tips with the
    restaurant. This levels the playing field. Takes that incident
    that the employer can do for not counting tips out of the
    equation. Then you know if they want to tip on top of it, they
    do.
        It's time to wake up. I have nothing against the folks on
    the other side of the aisle, this is a moral obligation to make
    sure people can live. I know a lot of times taking care of the
    villagers, we got to remember that people are literally keeping
    this country running. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I want to recognize Mrs.
    Miller-Meeks of Iowa now five minutes ma'am. Mrs. Miller-Meeks?
    OK. Mr. Owens of Utah? The gentleman from Utah? Mr. Good from
    Virginia?
        Mr. Good. Yes ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chairman, third
    time's a charm here, glad to be with you all.
        Chairwoman Adams. OK.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to our
    guests today. You know it's sad to see though democrats once
    again framing every issue in terms of race, seeking to further
    divide our Nation, perpetuate a false narrative, and further
    portray a victimhood mentality.
        Democrats also never miss an opportunity to put illegal
    aliens and foreign workers ahead of Americans. If they truly
    want to protect foreign guest workers, they would support the
    work of border patrol and customs, and border protection. I
    have been to the border and I've heard the reports of physical
    abuse and danger for those illegally crossing.
        Those who can't afford to pay smugglers are extorted into
    carrying drugs and other elicit material. Others are abused as
    indentured servants to the cartels. If they make it across many
    are forced to live the rest of their lives with existential
    threats to themselves and their families.
        While democrats romanticize illegal immigration, demonize
    law enforcement and turn a blind eye to the horrific abuse that
    people face at the hands of the cartels, my questions are how
    long will it be until the President, the Vice President visit
    the border?
        When will democrats stop attacking border patrol, ICE and
    local law enforcement? If the democrats are truly worried about
    exploitation of guest workers, will they support mandatory E-
    Verify?
        Turning specifically to agriculture concerns in my
    questions for our witnesses, somebody asked earlier of another
    Member of our panel. I have worked on farms. I worked on dairy
    farms, horse farms, agriculture farms, picking crops, baling
    hay and much more. It is very hard work, but there's honor in
    that work.
        I now have the honor of representing Virginia's 5th
    District that has over 300,000 farm workers. Recent years have
    been difficult for farmers thanks in part to China's trade war,
    and the mishandling of COVID-19.
        But only democrats could look at a struggling industry and
    think now is the time for more costly and burdensome
    regulations as they believe more government is the answer to
    everything. So Mr. DeCamp can you please comment further on the
    economic impact for farmers if democrats force H.R. 1080 upon
    them, the Fairness for Farmworkers Act?
        Mr. DeCamp. I don't know that I have much to add beyond
    what I said before which is that it creates pressure on farmers
    to either reduce hours for workers in order to avoid having to
    pay an overtime premium, or it forces them to absorb a higher
    cost structure which threatens their viability and threatens to
    increase prices substantially in the market, and puts them at a
    competitive disadvantage with foreign producers.
        It's tough and for businesses that are barely making it,
    especially smaller farms, it can be the final nail in the
    coffin.
        Mr. Good. Yes don't you think there's a disconnect in the
    democrat policy of requiring overtime pay in agriculture to the
    realities of what farm work is like?
        Mr. DeCamp. I think that farm work, much like many other
    jobs in the Fair Labor Standards Act for which overtime is not
    provided, is such that it is not susceptible to the policies of
    the FLSA. It doesn't make sense in other words to apply the
    overtime premium to this kind of work, much like many other
    kinds of work that are exempt under the FLSA.
        Mr. Good. Can you point to any examples of similar policies
    that have enacted in other states that you know outside of
    Virginia that have hurt the ag economy?
        Mr. DeCamp. I'm not familiar with much State law regulation
    of agriculture.
        Mr. Good. If producers are forced to grow less--labor-
    intensive crops because of this change that's been proposed,
    how do you think the food supply might be negatively impacted?
        Mr. DeCamp. The question would be would those same food
    products come from somewhere? And if they came from somewhere
    else would that necessarily involve a higher cost to consumers
    and then I'd also be wondering about if the farmers are using
    less--labor-intensive crops, what are the farm workers doing?
        Are they going to have jobs? Does that affect employment
    for those workers in the industry if the farmers are saying
    we're just not going to plant those crops?
        Mr. Good. And undoubtedly that would hurt the wallets of
    consumers as prices might go up with more scarcity of products
    because they're not grown because labor has shifted to less--
    labor-intensive products that are grown.
        You know again to the panelists, to our guests, and to my
    fellow Members of this Committee, it's a shame that we think
    that the majority here at least thinks that governments' answer
    to everything more government intrusion, more government
    regulation, instead of letting the free economy work and we
    want to layer more levels of regulation intrusion upon these
    farms.
        Chairwoman Adams. The gentleman is out of time.
        Mr. Good. I think I've got 10 seconds. I yield back thank
    you ma'am.
        Chairwoman Adams. All right thank you, thank the gentleman.
    The gentlelady from Washington Ms. Jayapal, you have five
    minutes ma'am.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you very much Madam Chair. I really
    appreciate this hearing and I'm always stunned at what feels
    like a lot of hypocrisy in the comments that get made in this
    Committee. The hypocrisy of exploiting labor, but not wanting
    to honor that labor with immigration reform, or the hypocrisy
    of saying we want mandatory E-Verify without immigration reform
    when even the farmers have told us that they don't want that
    because they need the workers.
        So I hope we can get to a place where we're not denying
    that overtime premiums should apply to all workers. Why should
    some workers be asked to work without that overtime? I just
    don't understand that at all. We're here today to take
    responsibility for the legacy of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
    which excluded domestic workers and farm workers from
    protection.
        I want to focus on domestic workers. Today over 2 and 1/2
    million nannies, housecleaners, and care workers do the work of
    caring and cleaning in homes across this country. Over half of
    these domestic workers are black, Hispanic, Asian-American, or
    Pacific-Islander.
        And in 1930 an estimated 79 percent of domestic workers in
    the south were black. So domestic workers have traditionally
    been people of color. Ms. Dixon how would you explain this
    fact, and how does it relate to the ongoing exclusion of live-
    in domestic workers from benefits such as overtime protections
    under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
        Ms. Dixon. This rule was rooted in racism as we talked
    about earlier in my testimony. And the fact that it moved from
    one set of women of color, to another set of women of color is
    not a surprise. The moment is now to get rid of this. There is
    no reason that we allow this exploitation to continue.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. And Madam Chair thank you for
    mentioning my Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, that bill would
    fix this for domestic workers by extending common workplace
    rights and protections to domestic workers including overtime
    pay, paid sick days, privacy, and other civil rights
    protections. The bill also extends new workplace rights and
    benefits that address the unique challenges of domestic work,
    requiring written agreements, fair scheduling provisions, a
    national domestic worker hotline, and a standards board to
    investigate standards in the industry.
        And it would create and fund an interagency task force on
    protecting domestic workers workplace rights to ensure robust
    enforcement of the law. These protections are crucial for
    domestic workers like a woman I'll call Ramona.
        She is a home care worker and she's a leader with the
    National Domestic Workers Alliance in my district. She's an
    immigrant from Honduras. She identifies as black. Ramona has
    faced sexual harassment and assault as a domestic worker in
    every city she's worked in, but she never reported the
    incidents because she didn't know where to turn.
        Ms. Yoon your testimony indicated that Ramona's experience
    is common among domestic workers. How do we protect domestic
    workers from sexual harassment and assault on the job?
        Ms. Yoon. Yes. The experience of domestic worker you just
    shared is unfortunately too common. Workers know that they have
    no recourse, but because they're not currently covered by Title
    VII and thus not protected from sexual harassment assault in
    their workplace.
        This is the reason why we need to pass the Domestic Worker
    Bill of Rights to protect individual workers, but also
    establish standards across a country in these workplaces.
        Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Yoon, Mr. DeCamp seems to deny any racist
    motivations behind denying domestic workers protections under
    the FLSA, instead suggesting that a narrow reading of the
    commerce clause at the time was the only reason these workers
    were excluded.
        Is that the case? And is there any legitimate reason to
    continue excluding domestic workers from the full protections
    of the FLSA?
        Ms. Yoon. No. That is not true. My reading of the Committee
    debates as well as other research on the Roosevelt
    administration's drafting of the process depicts a different
    story. While domestic service certainly was not comparable to
    the agricultural sector in terms of its importance to the
    southern economy.
        A huge concentration of blacks in the domestic service was
    unmatched by any other sector in the southern economy. During
    the Committee debates southern legislators compared FLSA to
    anti-lynching legislation. I think that statement speaks for
    itself. And in terms of what we should do now systemic racism
    and sexism motivated the exclusion in 1938, and then 80 years
    later this workforce continues to bear the brunt of that
    legacy.
        We have to think about the costs of not protecting these
    essential workers who help our society to function and make all
    other work possible. It means that domestic workers are earning
    poverty wages and cannot support their own children and family
    when they're working to care for other children.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. I think for Ramona and for
    so many others like her we are ready to be the authors of a new
    story, and that begins with passing the Domestic Workers Bill
    of Rights, thank you so much Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
        Mr. Owens. Madam Chair can you now hear me? I'm sorry I was
    trying to talk earlier, this is Owens.
        Chairwoman Adams. Yes, we can.
        Mr. Owens. OK.
        Chairwoman Adams. I was getting ready to recognize Mr.
    Owens of Utah, you have five minutes sir.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for those
    who testified today. Let me just start off by saying I totally
    agree that in 1938 the racist act by the President Roosevelt to
    put in place what he did, not only in this care but also social
    security.
        It's also a racist act for the democrats to continue to
    support the Davis Bacon Act which keeps black business owners
    from starting businesses and hiring black employees. This is
    not about race. We have small business owners out there, black,
    white, Hispanic, Asian, every culture you could possibly think
    of.
        They are right now producing 50 million jobs in the private
    sector. It is not about race, it's about survival. It's taking
    a risk, making a profit and then hiring people that you want to
    keep around and make sure that they're feeling good in that
    environment.
        This would devastate the small business owners, no question
    about it. A little reminder that it has always been stated as a
    fact, those that are most at risk, predominantly my race, would
    not get a raise with this, they'll get fired. They'll get a
    pink slip. It's proven. It's seen in other places, been shown,
    and in Chicago, 8 years ago 92 percent of black, young boys
    were unemployed.
        A lot of them because of the high minimum wage, and nobody
    wanted to hire them with. The other piece of this is the higher
    cost will be the labor being the higher cost of food. This
    impacts blacks, Hispanics, those at risk, so this is on a fixed
    income.
        So no, this is not something that will work, and I wish
    that Members across the board that come in this position would
    try and start a business at some point before we start putting
    these type of regulations and dictates on those that are trying
    to survive a business.
        So that being said, Mr. DeCamp can you elaborate on some of
    the reasons that Congress exempted the agriculture
    establishment from certain requirements of the FLSA when it was
    enacted in 1938. And what makes these workplaces unique from
    wages and the hourly wage perspective?
        Mr. DeCamp. There's a few things about it. First is that
    the nature of the work tends to be a very short season, intends
    to involve very long hours during the day when that short
    season is happening. We're also talking about work that many of
    the workers in that space are migrant, and so they're moving
    from place to place.
        We're also talking about work where often times the people
    that are doing this work are receiving housing and possibly
    food subsidy from the employer, certainly housing, sometimes
    food. And that affects the calculation of what even is the
    wage. And so that's another issue under the FLSA.
        I think the main issue with the FLSA, and agricultural work
    is the necessary long hours. The purpose behind or one of the
    key purposes behind the 40 hour work week under the FLSA is to
    encourage spreading of work in a time of high unemployment, so
    that you know you're moving work to more workers as opposed to
    fewer workers.
        And that makes sense when you want to spread the work
    around, but when the work requires the long hours, you've got
    to find the workers to do this. We're already talking about an
    economy where about half the work, at least according to the
    written testimony from the witnesses today, is being done by
    workers who are undocumented.
        This is already a workplace kind of in chaos, and a
    workforce that is kind of in chaos. And I think that's just a
    recognition of the fact that this work requires long hours
    among other things. And it's also very difficult work. Again
    the statements that Members have made, and witnesses have made
    is absolutely right, it is very demanding work.
        Mr. Owens. OK. Thank you so much. For those who do not
    understand the fact that when a business owner has to pay more
    for the labor, they don't quite understand how that translates
    to impacting those of us who have to pay for those services.
    You stated the fairness of the Farm Workers Act will likely
    result in higher food prices for consumers at the grocery
    stores and restaurants.
        Again this impacts those of us, like my race, more than
    anybody else out there. Can you help those who are listening to
    understand why this would be the case?
        Mr. DeCamp. Sure. If a business is not able to spread the
    work around, so if you're a farm and you have workers and
    you're not able to hire 50 percent more workers, and instead
    have to use the same workforce working the same long hours, now
    you would under this bill have to pay them overtime.
        So if you have to pay premium wages for the longer hours,
    your labor costs go up. If your labor costs go up, you're
    either going to be losing money, or you have to raise your
    prices for what you sell in order to not go out of business.
        If you raise your prices for what you sell, that then has
    ripple effects throughout the chain of distribution, so that
    the business that you sell the product to then has to charge a
    higher price when it is selling that food in a grocery store,
    in a restaurant, or wherever it may be.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you, thank you so much and I yield back my
    time.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. The gentleman's time is up.
    The young lady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar you are recognized five
    minutes ma'am.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwoman. The preservation of the
    tipped minimum wage system has long lasting effects on
    worsening economic outcomes for workers of color today. It
    shouldn't be surprising that it is just another system sharing
    its roots in the legacy of slavery.
        In the post-Civil War United States many black workers were
    concentrated in the hospitality industry and designed to
    preserve socioeconomic subordination. They were denied base
    wages, instead had to work for tips. This tipping model wasn't
    changed by the Fair Labor Standard Act, but we have an
    opportunity to address this historic discrimination through the
    Raise the Wage Act.
        My State of Minnesota has already taken the necessary steps
    to establish a fair wage for all but is also one of the only
    few states that have addressed the tipped minimum wage, largely
    due for opposition from the restaurant industry.
        Ms. Dixon can you respond to some of the concerns over the
    phaseout of the tipped minimum wage hurting profitability and
    surging labor costs for local restaurants?
        Ms. Dixon. Absolutely. The tipped wage has been $2.13 since
    1991, and that's unconscionable. And we are not talking about
    phasing it out overnight, we're talking about phasing it out
    over time, and as I said in my testimony, the advocates are
    open to compromise on that phaseout.
        We know that seven states have already done this, so it's
    possible, and it's much better for workers. So we're not
    advocating for getting rid of tips, but we want tips plus the
    minimum wage like in those states. And we really don't want
    employers to continue to get this subsidy for their payroll
    cost as you mentioned.
        Ms. Omar. And why have restaurant workers in Minnesota not
    lost their tipped income, or their jobs due to this change?
        Ms. Dixon. The amount that employers have to increase their
    menu price is very small. And so if we're talking about a
    phased in increase over time, we're talking about very small
    increases. There was a study in one of the one fair wage areas
    that looked at an increase in wages of about 25 percent and the
    menu price had to go up by $1.10.
        So it's really overblown what folks are saying about
    increasing menu cost.
        Ms. Omar. I really appreciate that. Overblown is something
    that we should highlight because a lot of these policies that
    are being pushed by republicans is fear-based and they're not
    based in reality because some of us live in some of these
    states where progress has been made and have not suffered the
    crazy consequences that the republicans like to tell the
    American people that they will suffer, so I really do
    appreciate your input in that.
        Madam Chair I would like to yield the rest of my time to
    Mr. Grijalva.
        Chairwoman Adams. Yes Mr. Grijalva you are recognized.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you and I thank the gentlelady for
    yielding. Very quickly Madam Chair just thank you and the
    Ranking Member for bringing these three pieces of legislation
    forward. I appreciate it very much and the witnesses in the
    hearing have been very, very good and I appreciate that.
        Representative Jayapal, Chairman Scott and myself, I think
    these bills are essentially corrective actions to address some
    vestiges of what's already been said by the witnesses. Systemic
    racist is the standard that codified into law in 1938. And this
    double standard that some American workers did not receive
    equal protections that others do is basically wrong and rooted
    in that racism.
        And I think that what these three bills do is provide
    equity to these workers, and by correcting that mistake in
    1938. And so it's ironic that these now are essential workers
    and they're the ones taking the risks, the ones that we depend
    on to take the risk for the rest of us to provide services to
    the rest of us.
        And I think it's time that we treated those workers
    equally, and I appreciate the time. Madam Chair I thank you for
    the hearing and I yield back, my time back to Ms. Omar.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. You've got six minutes, OK,
    the lady's time is up. I'm going to yield to Mr. Cawthorn now
    from North Carolina. You have five minutes sir.
        Mr. Cawthorn. Madam Chairman thank you very much. My
    questions are going to be directed at Mr. DeCamp, and Mr.
    DeCamp thanks for being on, to all my witnesses, really thank
    you for being on.
        You know first I want to touch on this idea of imposing a
    40-hour work week on farmers. You know as somebody who has
    worked on a farm in western North Carolina when I was much
    younger, I realize that the hours you have to work are very,
    very long, and it's very difficult for these farmers,
    especially those who pick specialty crops to be able to have
    more workers to spread around because it takes a significant
    amount of training.
        These workers have to be trained on how to work the
    systems, especially if they're in a packing house, or if
    they're on picking for any specialty crop. Can you discuss
    something I really want to touch on is I believe that after the
    global pandemic that we've been through, we saw in the
    beginning of COVID-19 how difficult it was to get a lot of the
    resources that we had offshore manufacturing to other areas.
        If we start imposing a 40-hour work week, and we bankrupt
    all of our farmers, we will essentially be offshoring all of
    our food processing and food resources off to other countries.
    Would you not believe that this would be a terrible national
    security threat Mr. DeCamp?
        Mr. DeCamp. I don't claim any expertise on national
    security. I think generally it would be a bad idea to bankrupt
    the farming industry, but what affects that might have on
    national security I have no idea.
        Mr. Cawthorn. I understand OK. So now let me ask you in
    regards to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it
    prohibits employment discrimination. This only applies to
    employer with 15 or more employees. The Title I of the
    Americans With Disability Act also only applies to employers
    with 15 or more employees.
        The Domestic Worker Bill we're discussing today includes an
    astonishing sweeping provision, applying Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act to any employer with at least one employee, reducing
    the employee threshold from 15 employees to one. Mr. Decamp can
    you discuss the radical nature of this change and what it would
    mean for small businesses in the United States with respect to
    litigation risk and compliance costs?
        Mr. DeCamp. It would be a big change with regard to
    exposure. I mean part of the reason why you don't have
    typically these laws applying to small businesses, at least at
    the Federal level is the commerce clause issue. It's at that
    level when the businesses are that small, they're typically
    very local.
        But also there's a sense that the compliance costs for
    small businesses, they don't have the kind of sophistication
    that you typically see with larger businesses. They don't have
    in-house counsel, they don't have in-house H.R. staff, they
    don't necessarily even know what these laws require until they
    run afoul with it.
        And just the transaction costs of defending a demand letter
    from a Plaintiff's lawyer could put a small business out of
    business. And so there are lots of good reasons why Congress
    has seen fit not to apply most of these laws to very small
    businesses.
        Mr. Cawthorn. Thank you Mr. DeCamp and in closing you know
    I would encourage any of my democratic colleagues on this
    Committee to please come to my district and visit a lot of the
    farms in my district, and you will see the hours that are
    required to work, and it will become abundantly clear to you
    that if we impose a 40 hour work week on these farms it will
    bankrupt our farmers who are absolutely necessary to the
    survival of our country. With that I yield back Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. The gentlelady from
    Michigan, Ms. Stevens you're recognized five minutes ma'am. Ms.
    Stevens? OK. Let me move on to Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky. You're
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the
    witnesses for being here. I have to say this is my 15th year in
    the House of Representatives, and I have heard the same
    arguments raised by republicans for 15 years as to why we
    shouldn't raise the minimum wage.
        It is bizarre to me that for that length of a period of
    time that republicans continue to raise issues that have no
    empirical support, yet they continue to say that businesses are
    going to go bankrupt, we're going to lose businesses, we're
    going to lose jobs. When really they have no basis for saying
    that. It's all speculation.
        Mr. DeCamp you referenced the CBO report and said that it
    said that we would lose 1.4 million jobs if the minimum wage
    were raised to $15.00. That's not exactly what the report said.
    It said we could lose 1.4 million jobs, so we also could lose
    zero jobs.
        It also said we could lose more jobs. And that's the
    problem with these kinds of reports because people seize on
    numbers that really have, they're speculative as well. We have
    an economy that is very dynamic that changes very rapidly.
        So we know that. Right now in my district, I don't have any
    farms in my district. I have a handful of farms, I have a very
    urban district, Louisville, Kentucky. And so I haven't talked
    to many farmers, but I have talked to a lot of business owners.
    And right now the business owners say we wouldn't mind pay
    $14.00--$15.00 an hour, we can't find anybody. We can't find
    anybody to work.
        And so in our district we have UPS, which is our largest
    employer, offering $14.25 to start there. We have Walmart and
    Amazon. You have distribution facilities right outside my
    district paying $15.00 an hour. I think that's probably the
    reason that some businesses can't find employees is because
    they're not paying enough money, they're just not paying
    enough.
        And I once had a conversation, this is when I was
    campaigning the first time and the minimum wage was $5.25. And
    we were talking about raising the minimum wage. And I asked a
    McDonald's franchisee who was fighting it, and I said let me
    ask you this. If I can say to you and said I've got the
    greatest business model in the world, it can't miss, it's a
    sure-fire hit.
        The only condition is that I have to pay my employees
    nothing. I have to have them work for free. What would you say
    to me? He said, 'I think I'd say you're crazy.'' I said in
    today's world, and this is 15 years ago, in today's world
    what's the difference between $5.25 an hour and zero?
        And I would ask the same question today. What's the
    difference between $7.25 an hour and zero? And the thing I
    would also say is at least I still have yet to hear a
    republican make a counteroffer saying well $15.00 is too much.
    Well we've got democrats saying that.
        Joe Manchin saying that. He says I could go to $11.00. I
    don't hear republicans saying that. They just say we can't
    afford to raise the minimum wage because it will hurt small
    businesses, it will hurt farm workers, it will hurt employers.
        What about the people who are working? We pay a lot of
    respect to these people. Last summer we were talking about, we
    were praising bus drivers and grocery store clerks, and people
    who stock the shelves and all of these people as being critical
    employees, farm workers as well.
        Well why don't we pay them like they're critical? We just
    don't do it. And there's one more anecdote. I don't have
    questions for the witnesses, but back in 2008 my brother is in
    the barbecue restaurant business. We were talking about the
    minimum wage and he had always voted republican because he
    didn't want to pay as much tax.
        And he said to me, he called me the summer of 2008 and said
    John you'll be happy to know that Judy his wife, Judy and I are
    maxing out to Barack Obama, and we are voting for all democrats
    this year. And I said that's great Bob what was your epiphany?
        He said well I finally figured out that if nobody can
    afford barbecue it doesn't matter what my tax rate is. And
    that's the problem we have right now. Not enough people can
    afford barbecue. Not enough people make enough money to have a
    decent standard of living.
        And this Congress can and should be the Congress that
    finally takes a step in that direction and says we're going to
    make sure that every America who's working hard has a decent
    standard of living. That's what all these proposals are about,
    and I strongly support them. With that I yield back Madam
    Chair.
        Chairman Adams. Thank you, sir. Working hard is not enough
    if you don't make enough. I want to recognize the gentlelady
    from Michigan now Ms. Stevens you have five minutes thank you.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you
    for having this hearing and to our phenomenal witnesses, Ms.
    Romero, Ms. Yoon and Ms. Dixon and for your just incredible
    background and expertise and knowledge, particular thanks to
    our Chair for going to the history and looking at the root of
    some of these causes and how they impact us today.
        Mr. Decamp whatever it is you do you know I guess it's you
    know we're hearing your viewpoint, although it doesn't seem to
    be importing into the reality that so many of our workers are
    facing. I'm in Michigan and I see it and we feel it, and we
    talk about our workers, our food service workers, the people
    behind the scenes, the lunch ladies who get forgotten, you
    know, who have been a major part of what we've been living
    through with this pandemic.
        You know the first people to step up in the middle of this
    shutdown and making sure our folks, our families had access to
    prepared meals, when all of a sudden everything was shouldered
    at home. You know, making sure they're getting their hero pay
    and their due and you know they're squeezed.
        So, I'd love to hear from Ms. Dixon on you know some of
    these other forgotten workers in our economy, particularly you
    know what is dubbed the lunch lady, but also in our food
    service, and dovetailing off of what Ms. Omar was talking about
    with our Raise the Wage.
        You know I'm a proud co-sponsor of the Raise the Wage Act,
    and you know it's going to phaseout the tipped wage, and I'm
    hearing from some forms of constituents who hold tipped wage
    jobs, that they're concerned about the take home pay, and
    they're concerned it would go down.
        So, Ms. Dixon do you also mind just kind of sharing some
    comments about what you would say to those workers as well
    based on some of what we've heard here today?
        Ms. Dixon. Sure. So one of the things to talk about is
    who's going to benefit from the Raise the Wage Act? And in
    fact, 90 percent of workers who are earning at or near the
    minimum wage are over the age of 20 and the majority of the
    workers are adult women, many of whom have attended college and
    who have children.
        So more than half, 52 percent would benefit our adults ages
    25 to 54, and only one in 10 is a teenager. So nearly 6 in 10
    are women, half work full-time and more than 4 in 10 have some
    college experience. More than a quarter have children.
        And then to your other question, could you repeat the other
    question please?
        Ms. Stevens. I just wanted some comments about you know
    we've got a lot of brilliant comments on domestic workers or
    farm workers, obviously you have a big swath with your
    portfolio and your organization, and I was just looking for
    some additional feedback around our cafeteria workers or other
    food service workers who aren't part of the tipped wage, but
    also have been subject to some of these draconian principles
    that have held these workers back because they're stuck at an
    unfair wage, be it the minimum wage where they're not even able
    to work full-time.
        And if you had any data around you know not just our tipped
    workers in food service, but our you know behind the scenes in
    our schools with our cafeterias or anything along those lines.
        Ms. Dixon. I don't have anything very specific about them.
    What I will say is that they are a part of the way in which our
    labor market is segregated right? And certain workers are
    shunted into low-paying jobs that are not compensated at the
    rate that they should be, so they're underpaid.
        And we need to help those workers in the same way that
    we're helping tipped workers. So the one fair wage would most
    likely apply to these women that you were talking about in the
    cafeteria.
        And then one other thing you had mentioned was around
    what's going to happen to their tips, are their tips going to
    go down? And I would point out that data from the one fair wage
    demonstrates that tipped workers earn better wages and make the
    same or better tips in states that allow them to be paid above
    the subminimum wage.
        So this custom of tipping it's deeply engrained in our
    culture, and people are happy to continue to do that to have
    generous tipping for good service. And polling indicates that
    time and time again customers are also happy to pay higher
    prices in order to ensure that workers get vastly better wages.
        Ms. Stevens. And while I still have you Ms. Dixon, this is
    a big question, so maybe we can just do it for the record about
    you know what does the history of these you know racist assay
    exclusions teach us about the link between worker's rights and
    power at the ballot box?
        And I know Chairman I have 10 seconds left, so maybe we can
    pick that one up, but is there a linkage Ms. Dixon?
        Ms. Dixon. There absolutely is a linkage. Just because you
    have constitutional right or law says you do, we know from
    history you don't, and it can be intimidation or voter
    suppression.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I see Mr. Jones is
    with us, so I'm going to recognize the gentleman from New York,
    Mr. Jones, you have five minutes sir.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of
    the witnesses for your testimony. It is so important that we
    shine the light on this issue because it provides yet another
    example of how the legacy of Jim Crow continues to harm people
    of color in this country.
        The history of the Fair Labor Standards Act is well
    documented, and as we've heard here today the exclusion of farm
    workers, domestic workers, and tipped workers in the law was
    done intentionally to exclude black workers from the basic pay
    and worker protections afforded to white workers under this
    landmark legislation.
        There is no good reason why nearly a century later we
    continue to have these exclusions in the law. Congress's
    failure to act upholds a system that oppresses working class
    people of color, and especially women of color by the way. That
    is in fact what Congress in 1938 intended.
        Now my grandmother was a domestic worker who spent long
    hours cleaning homes, and she worked well past the age of
    retirement because she simply could not afford to retire when
    most people do. Ms. Yoon, you mentioned in your testimony that
    domestic work was often seen as not real work. How did that
    perception prevent the fair and full protection of domestic
    workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
        And do we still hear echoes of this argument today in the
    debate overextending wage an hour protections to domestic
    workers?
        Ms. Yoon. Thank you for your question, and thanks for
    sharing your own story. I think as I've talked about in my
    testimony the long-standing association of domestic work is
    unpaid labor, as women's labor, as labor of black women harking
    back to the days of slavery, in leave of other women of color
    and working women.
        I think all contribute to devaluing this labor as
    unskilled, and therefore deemed not worth of protection and
    industry standards. I think all the parents and aunts and
    uncles, and grandparents on this Committee and my fellow
    panelists will know that the skills that are needed to raise a
    child to thrive.
        Skills that are needed to care for your own aging parent
    who may have dementia, to live with dignity, or to care for a
    kid with a complex medical condition so that that kid could
    sleep in her own bed right. All of this takes an incredible
    amount of skill, but we continue to devalue this work, we
    devalued it back then in 1938, and I think we continued to
    devalue it today.
        I think the most recent debate about whether care is an
    infrastructure in our economy as we talk about how we recover
    our country really speaks to this issue. Our care giving
    infrastructure collapsed during the pandemic. 800,000 left the
    workforce last September alone, when we were back to 1988
    levels of women workforce participation.
        Yet some say, largely men, say it's not infrastructure
    because it's not roads and bridges, even though this investment
    in the care infrastructure will precisely allow, not just
    women, but all parents to go back to work, and that will
    continue to fuel our economy back.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you so much Ms. Yoon, and of course a few
    days ago I introduced the Universal Child Care Early Learning
    Act with Senator Elizabeth Warren which would fully provide for
    universal childcare in this country, childcare indeed being
    infrastructure. And I could tell you, you know what my
    grandmother did was real work. I know that because I was with
    her often times when daycare was too expensive, she had to take
    me to clean homes with her.
        Now Ms. Dixon, Mr. DeCamp's testimony seems to question
    whether the exclusion of farm workers and domestic workers in
    New Deal legislation, and the Fair Labors Standards Act is
    rooted in racism. He talks about there being an absence of
    compelling evidence in his written testimony.
        What compelling evidence do we have on this, and why is
    denying the roots of these exclusions so harmful?
        Ms. Dixon. Well my grandmother used to say we know better,
    do better. And we know better, and we have all of this evidence
    that tells us that these exclusions are harmful, they are
    unnecessary, and we need to move on from here.
        And so I think the main thing to understand here is that
    this argument is rooted in the commerce clause, right? To say
    that in the commerce clause there was no authority to actually
    put these folks in the Fair Labor Standards Act, but this
    argument is a red herring because the constitutional
    justification issue was raised by one senator during a
    legislative debate over the bill.
        And that's suspect on its face. The Supreme Court had
    already changed the interpretation of the Commerce Act by the
    time the FLSA was passed, so we know that that is just
    overblown and not accurate.
        Chairwoman Adams. OK. Thank you, the gentleman is out of
    time. Are there any Members on the platform who have not been
    recognized and would like to ask questions? OK. Well I want to
    thank all of the witnesses.
        I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee
    practice, materials for submission to the hearing record must
    be submitted to the Clerk within 14 days following the last day
    of the hearing, so by the close of business on May 17,
    preferably in Microsoft Word format.
        The materials submitted must address the subject matter of
    the hearing and only a Member of the Subcommittee or an invited
    witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing
    record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. A document
    longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via
    an internet link that you must provide to the Committee Clerk
    within the required timeframe, so please recognize that in the
    future that link may no longer work.
        Pursuant to House rules and regulations items for the
    record should be submitted to the Clerk electronically by
    emailing submission to edandlabordothearings@mail.house.gov.
    Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their participation
    today. Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
    questions for you, and we ask the witnesses to please respond
    to those questions in writing.
        The hearing record will be held open for 14 days in order
    to receive those responses. I remind my colleagues as well that
    pursuant to Committee practice, witness questions for the
    hearing record must be submitted to the Majority Committee
    Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days. The questions submitted
    must address the subject matter of the hearing.
        I want to now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member
    for a closing statement. You're recognized Mr. Keller.
        Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing highlights
    the need to provide flexibility to the American workforce.
    Continually, we hear from farmers, those in the restaurant
    industry, small business operators and others in Pennsylvania's
    12th Congressional District about their challenges of
    recruiting and retaining employees during our economic recovery
    from COVID-19.
        We need to be giving employers the tools they need to bring
    back the American workforce, not creating unworkable mandates
    that will slow economic recovery. Employers understand the
    unique challenges facing their businesses, as well as the needs
    of their employees and work very hard to effectively tailor
    their workforce practices accordingly.
        I look forward to advancing forward looking policy
    solutions that provide economic freedom and opportunity for
    employers and employees in the workplace and help them bring
    their businesses back stronger than ever. Madam Chair, I ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the
    American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Restaurant
    Association, statements from the Restaurant Workers of America,
    and a letter from Valerie J. Graham, who is a tipped worker in
    Washington, DC. in opposition to the legislation we are
    discussing here today. Thank you and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. So ordered.
        Chairwoman Adams. I now recognize myself for the purpose of
    making my closing statement. I want to thank our expert
    witnesses for being with us today and reiterate how grateful I
    am for the diverse perspectives and expertise that you've
    brought to our discussion.
        We cannot build a more equitable future for this country
    without first confronting the active legacy of slavery
    throughout our institutions and recognizing the Federal
    Government's continued role in perpetuating racial
    discrimination.
        This is precisely what we did today. We recognized the
    significant influence racist law makers and Jim Crow era
    policies played in inserting racially motivated exclusions into
    our Nation's foundational labor laws.
        We examined how expansions for worker protections under the
    Fair Labor Standards Act has helped narrow the racial wage gap
    as well as how persistent exclusions continue to disadvantage
    workers of color today.
        Most importantly however, we affirmed our commitment to
    passing legislation that will finally eliminate these
    discriminatory exclusions in the FLSA, and extend basic worker
    protections to farm workers, domestic workers and tipped
    workers. So thank you all again to our witnesses. I look
    forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to confront of
    the legacies of slavery and secure equal worker protections for
    workers of color and forge an economy where everyone can
    succeed.
        I continue to say that working hard is not enough if you
    don't make enough. And so if there's no further business
    without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

        [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Additional submissions by Mr. Keller follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submission by Ms. Omar follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by
    Ms. Dixon follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by
    Ms. Romero follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by
    Ms. Yoon follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 1:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]