[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 [email protected]. 
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.]