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







 
                     PHASING OUT SUBMINIMUM WAGES:
                SUPPORTING THE TRANSITION TO COMPETITIVE
                   INTEGRATED EMPLOYMENT FOR WORKERS
                           WITH DISABILITIES

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

                             JOINT HEARING

                               before the

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                         WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS


                                and the

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                            CIVIL RIGHTS AND
                             HUMAN SERVICES

                                 of the

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

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 21, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-24

                               __________

      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 
45-176 PDF           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 DeSAULNIER, 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 McBATH, Georgia                 MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            BURGESS OWENS, Utah
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 BOB GOOD, Virginia
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                LISA C. McCLAIN, 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)

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES

                  SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Chairwoman

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina        RUSS FULCHER, Idaho, Ranking 
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut                Member
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico   GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana              LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland               SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (ex 
  (ex officio)                           officio)
  
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on July, 21 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................................................     3
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil 
      Rights 
      and Human Services.........................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
    McClain, Hon. Lisa C., Member, Subcommittee on Civil Rights 
      and Human Services.........................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

Statement of Witnesses:
    Anton, John, Legislative Specialist, Massachusetts Down 
      Syndrome 
      Congress...................................................    19
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
    Koppstein. Nantanee, Member, New Jersey Statewide Independent 

      Living Counsel.............................................     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    11
    Lewis, Anil, Executive Director, Jernigan Institute, National 
      Federation of the Blind....................................    30
        Prepared statement of....................................    33
    Putts, Matthew R., CEO, Employment Horizons, Inc.............    25
        Prepared statement of....................................    28

Additional Submissions:
    Chairwoman Adams:
        Prepared statement from Melwood..........................    77
        Prepared statement from the National Association of State 
          Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services.......    81
        Prepared statement from the National Council on 
          Disability.............................................    82
    Chairman Scott:
        Prepared statement from the Consortium for Citizens with 
          Disabilities Employment and Training Task Force........    84
        Letter from the Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a 
          Representative in Congress from the State of 
          Washington, dated July 21, 2021........................    87
        Prepared statement from SourceAmerica....................    89
    Ranking Member Foxx:
        Article: ``Faith at Work: The dignity of all work'', 
          Washington Times, May 11, 2016.........................    92
    Mr. Keller:
        Prepared statement from Kate McSweeny, Vice President 
          Government Affairs and General Counsel, ACCSES.........    94
        Letter to Leadership dated February 12, 2021.............   100
        Prepared statement from Kit Brewer, Executive Director, 
          Project CU.............................................   102
        Letter from the Hon. Vicki Hartzler, a Representative in 
          Congress from the State of Missouri, dated December 8, 
          2020...................................................   105
    Mr. Keller on behalf of Grothman, Hon. Glenn, a 
      Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin:
        Prepared statement from A-Team Grassroots System, Inc....   107
        Prepared statement from Dallas Kerzan, Mother and 
          Guardian of Yael Kerzan, Member of A-Team Wisconsin....   109
        Prepared statement from Disability Service Provider 
          Network................................................   111
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania:
        Prepared statement from Rehabilitation & Community 
          Providers 
          Association............................................   113
        Prepared statement from Venango Training & Development 
          Center, Inc............................................   114
    Questions submitted for the record by:
        Chairman Scott...........................................   115
        Ranking Member Foxx......................................   119
    Response to question submitted for the record by:
        Mr. Lewis................................................   116
        Mr. Putts................................................   120


                     PHASING OUT SUBMINIMUM WAGES:

                      SUPPORTING THE TRANSITION TO

                   COMPETITIVE INTEGRATED EMPLOYMENT

                     FOR WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 21, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
   Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services,
                          Committee on Education and Labor,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Alma S. Adams (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Adams, Bonamici, Scott, Takano, 
Norcross, Jayapal, Hayes, Stevens, Leger Fernandez, Mrvan, 
Bowman, Keller, Thompson, Miller-Meeks, Good, McClain, 
Fitzgerald, Cawthorn, Steel, and Foxx.
    Staff present: Phoebe Ball, Disability Counsel; Ilana 
Brunner, General Counsel; Rasheedah Hasan, Chief Clerk; Sheila 
Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Eli Hovland, 
Andre Lindsay, Policy Associate; Richard Miller, Director of 
Labor Policy; Max Moore, Staff Assistant; Mariah Mowbray, 
Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff Director; Lorin Obler, GAO 
Detailee, Kayla Pennebecker, Staff Assistant; Veronique 
Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of 
Information Technology; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; 
Gabriel Bisson, Minority Staff Assistant; Michael Davis, 
Minority Operations Assistant; Rob Green, Minority Director of 
Workforce Policy; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of 
Education and Human Resources Policy; Dean Johnson, Minority 
Legislative Assistant; Georgie Littlefair, Minority Legislative 
Assistant; David Maestas, Minority Fellow; Hannah Matesic, 
Minority Director of Operations; Eli Mitchell, Minority 
Legislative Assistant; Alex Ricci, Minority Speechwriter; Mandy 
Schaumburg, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of 
Education Policy; and John Witherspoon, Minority Professional 
Staff Member.
    Chairwoman Adams. Good morning. We are ready to begin. I 
will countdown from five and then we'll start. The Subcommittee 
on Workforce Protections and the Subcommittee on Civil Rights 
and Human Services will come to order.
    Welcome everyone. I note that a quorum is present. The 
Subcommittees are meeting today for a joint hearing to hear 
testimony on ``Phasing Out Subminimum Wages, Supporting the 
Transition to Competitive Integrated Employment for Workers 
with Disabilities.''
    This is an entirely remote hearing, and as such the 
Committee's hearing room is officially closed. All microphones 
will be kept muted, as a general rule, to avoid unnecessary 
background noise. Members and witnesses will be responsible for 
unmuting themselves when they are recognized to speak, or when 
they wish to seek recognition.
    If a member of witness experiences technical difficulties 
during the hearing, please say 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 in advance. 
Should the Chair experience technical difficulty, or need to 
step away, Chair Bonamici, or another majority member is hereby 
authorized to assume the gavel in the Chair's absence.
    In order to ensure that the Committee's five-minute rule is 
adhered to, staff will be keeping track of time using the 
Committee's remote timer which appears in its own thumbnail 
picture. Members and witnesses are asked to wrap up promptly 
when their time has expired.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), opening statements are 
limited to the Chairs and Ranking Members. This will allow us 
to hear from our witnesses sooner and provide all members with 
adequate time to ask questions. I now recognize myself for the 
purpose of making an opening statement.
    Chairwoman Adams. Today we are meeting to discuss a 
proposal to phaseout the 14(c) subminimum wage and help workers 
with disabilities transition to competitive integrated 
employment. Each person in this country deserves access to 
equal employment opportunities, yet one of our foundational 
labor laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, still allows workers 
with disabilities to be paid less than their peers.
    Under Section 14(c) employers can obtain certificates that 
allow them to pay individuals with disabilities subminimum 
wages. These certificates have effectively eliminated any 
minimum wage for workers with disabilities. For many of these 
workers the estimated hourly wage is roughly $2.50.
    For too many it is even less. We should all agree that no 
American worker should be earning a measly $2.00 an hour, but 
opponents continue to argue that phasing out 14(c) certificates 
will burden businesses and restrict opportunities for workers 
with disabilities. The evidence says otherwise.
    Eleven states, New Hampshire, Maryland, Alaska, Oregon, 
Maine, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and 
Wyoming have either phased out 14(c) or have no active 
certificates. Many of these states have taken the initiative to 
ensure individuals with disabilities can continue to their 
local economies--can contribute, excuse me, to their local 
economies, and work in competitive employment alongside people 
without disabilities.
    Even in states with 14(c) certificates, many providers have 
discontinued the subminimum wage in favor of inclusive 
workplaces that meet the needs of both employer and worker. And 
while many workplaces across the country have shifted away from 
14(c) certificates, we know that some states have struggled to 
find appropriate and meaningful alternatives.
    So today we will discuss legislation, the Transformation to 
Competitive Integrated Employment Act that would help providers 
to shift their business models to hiring workers with 
disabilities, in competitive, integrated employment. This bill 
incentivizes states and employers who currently use 14(c) 
certificates to work with the disability community toward 
updating business models and creating fully integrated and 
competitive employment opportunities.
    Simply put, with the right supports anyone can achieve 
competitive integrated employment if they choose to. It's up to 
us in Congress to provide the support that workers with 
disabilities need to succeed in our economy. I now recognize 
the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]

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

    Today, we are meeting to discuss a proposal to phaseout the 14(c) 
subminimum wage and help workers with disabilities transition to 
competitive integrated employment.
    Each person in this country deserves access to equal employment 
opportunities.
    Yet, one of our foundational labor laws-the Fair Labor Standards 
Act-still allows workers with disabilities to be paid less than their 
peers.
    Under Section 14(c), employers can obtain certificates that allow 
them to pay individuals with disabilities subminimum wages.
    These certificates have effectively eliminated any minimum wage for 
workers with disabilities. For many of these workers, the estimated 
hourly wage is roughly $2.50. For too many, it is even less.
    We should all agree that no American worker should be earning a 
measly $2 an hour.
    But opponents continue to argue that phasing out 14(c) certificates 
will burden businesses and restrict opportunities for workers with 
disabilities.
    The evidence says otherwise.
    Eleven states-New Hampshire, Maryland, Alaska, Oregon, Maine, 
Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Wyoming-have 
either phased out 14(c) or have no active certificates. Many of these 
states have taken the initiative to ensure individuals with 
disabilities can contribute to their local economies and work in 
competitive employment alongside people without disabilities.
    Even in states with 14(c) certificates, many providers have 
discontinued the subminimum wage in favor of inclusive workplaces that 
meet the needs of both employer and worker.
    While many workplaces across the country have shifted away from 
14(c) certificates, we know that some states have struggled to find 
appropriate and meaningful alternatives.
    Today, we will discuss legislation-the Transformation to 
Competitive Integrated Employment Act-that would help providers to 
shift their business models to hiring workers with disabilities in 
competitive integrated employment.
    This bill incentivizes states and employers who currently use 14(c) 
certificates to work with the disability community toward updating 
business models and creating fully integrated and competitive 
employment opportunities.
    Simply put, with the right support, anyone can achieve competitive 
integrated employment if they choose to. It is up to us in Congress to 
provide the support that workers with disabilities need to succeed in 
our economy.
    I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee of Workforce Protections for the purpose of making an 
opening statement.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Keller. I thank the Chair, and before I begin, I would 
like to make a couple points. I must first urge the majority to 
begin holding hearings in person. The American people, the 
people we are elected to work for show up for work. We should 
be no different. In fact, the people that we're discussing that 
may have disabilities are eager to get to work, and would 
welcome the opportunity to come to work, yet my Democratic 
colleagues can't seem to come to the hearing room and do the 
business that we should be doing for the American people here 
in Congress.
    Having said that, I just want to say that democrats and 
republicans both want what is best for people with 
disabilities. We want these individuals to find rewarding work, 
get paid a fair wage for their contributions, and live 
fulfilling lives. Every human life is important, and every 
person should be free to pursue their happiness and reach their 
full potential.
    Federal law sets standards employers must meet to protect 
their workers. The Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, 
establishes standards for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other 
workforce protections for private and public sector employees. 
Section 14(c) of the FLSA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to 
allow employers to compensate certain individuals with 
disabilities at wages commensurate with their productivity.
    These processes use special certificates issued to 
employers commonly called 14(c) certificates. A Department of 
Labor 14(c) certificate offers individuals with disabilities a 
chance to contribute in the workplace, engage with other 
workers, and develop new skills.
    Republicans believe 14(c) certificates, combined with 
competitive integrated employment opportunities have been 
successful in helping individuals with disabilities find the 
best and highest paying jobs possible for their unique 
circumstances. It is worth dispelling several myths about 14(c) 
work environments.
    First, it is not true that employers with 14(c) 
certificates accrue a financial benefit because of the 
arrangement. Second, it is not true that 14(c) workers are 
somehow trapped in their jobs. These individuals are fully able 
to explore other employment opportunities as they receive job 
coaching, referrals, and readiness services.
    Third, it is not true that all 14(c) employees can work in 
competitive, integrated employment environments. Available 
research shows that those with significant disabilities will 
lose their jobs if the 14(c) system is terminated.
    Republicans support the ability of individuals with 
disabilities to access employment opportunities in a setting of 
their choice. I am concerned that eliminating 14(c) as proposed 
by H.R. 2373, would have terrible consequences for many workers 
with disabilities.
    I look forward to hearing the witnesses' insights on this 
important topic. Thank you and I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Keller follows:]

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

    Thank you, Chairwoman Adams.
    Democrats and Republicans both want what is best for people with 
disabilities. We want these individuals to find rewarding work, get 
paid a fair wage for their contributions, and live fulfilling lives. 
Every human life is important, and every person should be free to 
pursue happiness and reach their full potential.
    Federal laws set standards employers must meet to protect their 
workers.
    The Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, establishes standards for 
minimum wage, overtime pay, and other workforce protections for private 
and public-sector employees.
    Section 14(c) of the FLSA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to 
allow employers to compensate certain individuals with disabilities at 
wages commensurate with their productivity. This process uses special 
certificates issued to employers commonly called 14(c) certificates. A 
DOL 14(c) certificate offers individuals with disabilities a chance to 
contribute in the workforce, engage with other workers, and develop new 
skills.
    Republicans believe 14(c) certificates combined with competitive 
integrated employment opportunities have been successful in helping 
individuals with disabilities find the best and highest-paying jobs 
possible for their unique circumstances.
    It is worth dispelling several myths about 14(c) work environments.
    First, it is not true that employers with 14(c) certificates accrue 
a financial benefit because of the arrangement.
    Second, it is not true that 14(c) workers are somehow trapped in 
their jobs. These individuals are fully able to explore other 
employment opportunities, and they receive job coaching, referrals, and 
readiness services.
    Third, it is not true that all 14(c) employees can work in 
competitive integrated employment environments. Available research 
shows that those with significant disabilities will lose their jobs if 
the 14(c) system is terminated.
    Republicans support the ability of individuals with disabilities to 
access employment opportunities in a setting of their choice. I am 
concerned that eliminating 14(c), as proposed by
    H.R. 2373, would have terrible consequences for many workers.
    I look forward to hearing the witnesses' insights on this important 
topic. Thank you and I yield back.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much Mr. Keller. I now 
recognize the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Civil 
Rights and Human Services for the purpose of making an opening 
statement, Chair Bonamici.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Adams and Ranking 
Members Keller, McClain and thank you especially to our 
witnesses for joining us today. Today workers with disabilities 
in several states can legally be paid less than the Federal 
minimum wage. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently 
issued a report that found that more than 100,000 workers with 
disabilities have been subjected to subminimum wages averaging 
an estimated $3.34 per hour.
    Phasing out subminimum wages for workers with disabilities 
is fundamentally a civil rights issue. The 14(c) subminimum 
wage provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or FLSA 
is a relic of an era when employers were legally permitted to 
discriminate against individuals with disabilities in the 
workplace.
    And workers with disabilities did not have access to 
Federal protections. It is far past time that we phaseout this 
harmful provision that denies the equal opportunity for many 
workers with disabilities. Since the FLSA first passed, thanks 
to generations of advocacy, Congress has passed several key 
laws to guarantee students and workers with disabilities the 
education and workplace rights they deserve.
    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for 
example, provides children with disabilities access to free and 
appropriate education. The Developmental Disabilities Bill of 
Rights provides people with development disabilities the 
opportunity to design and access community services, 
individualized supports, and other forms of assistance.
    And the Americans With Disabilities Act guarantees equal 
opportunity for individuals with disabilities in all areas of 
public life. And now, decades after the enactment of these 
Federal protections, Congress must make sure that workers with 
disabilities can earn fair wages and succeed in the workplace.
    States across the country, including my home State of 
Oregon have already enacted legislation to eliminate the 14(c) 
subminimum wage, and successfully transition workers into 
integrated and competitive work. But a recent GAO report also 
found that many employers and workers with disabilities do not 
have the appropriate resources or services to transition to 
competitive, integrated employment.
    We need to phaseout this outdated policy for all workers 
with disabilities, regardless of where they live. So, I'm 
pleased to support Chairman Scott's Transformation to 
Competitive Employment Act, which would make sure states and 
employers that currently employ workers using a 14(c) 
certificate can provide workers with disabilities the support 
that they need to transition into fully integrated and 
competitive jobs.
    We must take bold action to make sure that all Americans 
have access to equal employment opportunities. Thank you Madam 
Chair and I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member Mrs. 
McClain for the purposes of making an opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]

 Statement of Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil 
                       Rights and Human Services

    Thank you, Chair Adams, and Ranking Members Keller and McClain, and 
thank you especially to our witnesses for joining us today.
    Today, workers with disabilities in several states can legally be 
paid less than the Federal minimum wage. The
    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently issues a report that found 
that more than 100,000 workers with disabilities have been subjected to 
subminimum wages averaging an estimated $3.34 per hour.
    Phasing out subminimum wages for workers with disabilities is 
fundamentally a civil rights issue.
    The 14(c) subminimum wage provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act 
of 1938, or F-L-S-A, is a relic of an era when employers were legally 
permitted to discriminate against individuals with disabilities in the 
workplace and workers with disabilities did not have access to Federal 
protections.
    It is far past time that we phaseout this harmful provision that 
denies the equal opportunities for many workers with disabilities.
    Since the FLSA first passed, thanks to generations of advocacy, 
Congress has passed several key laws to guarantee students and workers 
with disabilities the education and workplace rights they deserve.
    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, for example, 
provides children with disabilities access to free and appropriate 
education.
    The Developmental Disabilities Bill of Rights Act provides people 
with developmental disabilities the opportunity to design and access 
community services, individualized supports, and other forms of 
assistance.
    And the Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees equal 
opportunity for individuals with disabilities in all areas of public 
life.
    And now, decades after the enactment of these Federal protections, 
Congress must make sure that workers with disabilities can earn fair 
wages and succeed in the workplace.
    States across the country, including my home State of Oregon, have 
already enacted legislation to eliminate the 14(c) subminimum wage and 
successfully transitioned workers into integrated and competitive work.
    But a recent GAO report also found that many employers and workers 
with disabilities do not have the appropriate resources or services to 
transition to competitive integrated employment.
    We need to phaseout this outdated policy for all workers with 
disabilities regardless of where they live. So, I am pleased to support 
Chairman Scott's Transformation to Competitive Employment Act, which 
would make sure
    states and employers that currently employ workers using a 14(c) 
certificate can provide workers with disabilities the support they need 
to transition into fully integrated and competitive jobs.
    We must take bold action to make sure all Americans have access to 
equal employment opportunities.
    Thank you, Madame Chair, and I yield to the distinguished acting 
Ranking Member, Ms. McClain for the purposes of making an opening 
statement.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Adams. And thank you. Ms. McClain?
    Ms. McClain. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want 
to express my frustration and sadness as well, and echo what my 
friend Representative Keller said. How disappointed I am that 
this hearing is entirely remote. We are one of the last 
committees still not meeting in person, and it's really time to 
get back to the work of the people and get back to in-person 
events.
    With that said, I think my friend, Representative Keller 
said it best, ``Work, by its very nature is dignifying and 
important for all individuals.'' Our job is to help as many 
people as possible pursue pathways to success. As 
Representative Keller stated a DOL 14(c) certificate offers 
individuals with disabilities a chance to contribute in the 
workforce, engage with other workers, and develop new skills.
    We must honor and uphold this flexibility. Sadly, it 
appears that the democrats' good intentions would result in a 
misguided public policy. The unemployment rate for people with 
disabilities is tragically high already. H.R. 2373 strips 
workers' self-worth by eliminating jobs opportunities.
    Employer with 14(c) certificates are not artificially 
keeping paychecks low. They are giving individuals an 
opportunity to contribute where no opportunity existed. By 
advocating for the elimination of 14(c) program, democrats are 
effectively turning their backs on some of our Nation's most 
vulnerable workers.
    A one size all DC mandates are rarely effective, and this 
proposal is truly no different. To try and reduce the 
inevitable fallout, the bill authorizes 300 million in taxpayer 
funded competitive grants to effective states and businesses, 
throwing taxpayer dollars at states and a handful of employers 
will not make up for the job lost opportunities.
    The legislation's phasing out of 14(c) combined with 
democrats' efforts to double the national minimum wage, will 
force these employers to actually downsize, and unfortunately 
tens of thousands of laid off individuals will have no hope of 
finding meaningful employment opportunities, and they will lose 
the more important benefit of actually having a job.
    My friends across the aisle claim that the existing system 
segregates people with disabilities and is detrimental to 
everybody's interest. This cheap rhetoric misstates the 
reality. As Dr. Putts describes in his testimony, there are 
legitimate instances where the 14(c) environment is 
appropriate.
    Differently situated workers may want different work 
environments, and we must respect those workers' choices. 
Presumably, democrats called this hearing because they want to 
help. But H.R. 2373 is not the solution. Democrats claim that 
the solution claim it to be, we should carefully weigh the 
evidence, the actual evidence before eliminating a meaningful 
and successful program. Thank you very much and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. McClain follows:]

Statement of Hon. Lisa C. McClain, Member, Subcommittee on Civil Rights 
                           and Human Services

    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My friend Representative Keller said it best. Work, by its very 
nature, is dignifying and important for all individuals. Our job is to 
help as many people as possible pursue pathways to success. As 
Representative Keller stated, a DOL 14(c) certificate offers 
individuals with disabilities a chance to contribute in the workforce, 
engage with other workers, and develop new skills.
    We must honor and uphold this flexibility.
    Sadly, it appears the Democrats' good intentions would result in 
misguided public policy. The unemployment rate for people with 
disabilities is tragically high already. H.R. 2373 strips workers' 
self-worth by eliminating job opportunities.
    Employers with 14(c) certificates are not artificially keeping 
paychecks low; they are giving individuals an opportunity to contribute 
where no opportunity existed. By advocating for the elimination of the 
14(c) program, Democrats are effectively turning their backs on some of 
our Nation's most vulnerable workers. One-size-fits-all D.C. mandates 
are rarely effective. This proposal is no different.
    To try and reduce the inevitable fallout, the bill authorizes $300 
million in taxpayer-funded competitive grants to affected states and 
businesses. Throwing taxpayer dollars at states and a handful of 
employers will not make up for lost job opportunities. The 
legislation's phasing out of 14(c), combined with Democrats' efforts to 
double the national minimum wage, will force these employers to 
downsize. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of laid-off individuals will 
have no hope of finding meaningful employment opportunities, and they 
will lose the important benefits of having a job.
    My friends across the aisle claim the existing system segregates 
people with disabilities and is detrimental to everybody's interests. 
This cheap rhetoric misstates the reality. As Dr. Putts describes in 
his testimony, there are legitimate instances when the 14(c) 
environment is appropriate. Differently situated workers may want 
different work environments. We must respect workers' choices.
    Presumably, Democrats called this hearing because they want to 
help. H.R. 2373 is not the solution Democrats claim it to be. We should 
carefully weigh the evidence before eliminating a meaningful and 
successful program.
    Thank you and I yield back.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Adams. And thank you very much for your 
comments. Let me now without objection, all of the members who 
wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by 
submitting them to the Committee Clerk electronically in 
Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on August 4, 2021.
    I'd now like to introduce our witnesses. First of all, we 
have Nantanee Koppstein, who is the mother of an adult daughter 
with multiple cognitive and auditory disabilities and is an 
effective advocate for people with disabilities, including in 
her role as a board member of the New Jersey Chapter of the 
Association of People Supporting Employment First.
    John Anton is a legislative specialist with the 
Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress, and an ambassador to the 
National Down Syndrome Society who advocates for legislation to 
improve the lives of people with disabilities.
    Dr. Matthew Putts is the Chief Executive Officer of 
Employment Horizons, Inc., a non-profit community 
rehabilitation program in northern New Jersey that provides a 
variety of employment services to people with disabilities.
    Anil Lewis is the Executive Director of Blindness 
Initiatives at the National Federation of the Blind. He has 
previously held other leaderships posts within the NFB and 
managed employment programs for people with disabilities.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses. We appreciate your 
participation today. We look forward to your testimony. Your 
written statement will appear in full in the hearing record, 
and you are asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute 
summary. And after your presentation we'll move to member 
questions.
    The witnesses are aware that their responsibility to 
provide accurate information to the joint Subcommittee, and 
therefore we will proceed with their testimony. I'd like to 
first recognize Ms. Koppstein, you are recognized now for five 
minutes. We'll hear from, so Ms. Koppstein you are recognized 
for five minutes.

     MS. NANTANEE KOPPSTEIN, MEMBER, NEW JERSEY STATEWIDE 
                   INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNSEL

    Ms. Koppstein. Thank you, good morning. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify into part of the Transformation to 
Competitive Integrated Employment Act, H.R. 2373. Today I draw 
upon my lived experience as a parent of Monica, a 33-year-old 
individual with cognitive and developmental disabilities, 
auditory processing deficits, seizures, and bleeding disorders.
    My testimony does not necessarily represent the views of 
any organization of which I'm a member, including two Governor 
appointed state-wide councils, and if I may add I have been 
appointed and reappointed by both republican and democrat 
Governors of New Jersey.
    I have graduate degrees in economics and have also worked 
as an economist. I've lived in New Jersey since 1986 and have 
enjoyed an extensive network and friendship with individuals 
with disabilities and their families, largely through my 
daughter's participation in Special Olympics activities, and my 
own active advocacy.
    The network and observation of events during my college 
years in America from 1969, have given me a voice to advocate 
for our daughter Monica, who was fortunate to have graduated 
from a public high school with a decent school to work 
transition program, but no paid employment when she left school 
in 2009.
    One year before her final year at high school Monica and I 
visited three sheltered workshops following the recommendation 
of her school's transition team, which viewed her as being too 
disabled to work in the community, even though she had had two 
paid summer jobs as camp counselors.
    Neither Monica nor I had positive impressions of the three 
14(c) entities we visited. Attendants there appeared to be 
bored with long periods of down time, were not performing the 
assigned tasks, which were monotonous and all mundane, there 
seemed to be little interaction among attendees.
    Before these three visits my husband I were ready to sign 
on the dotted line and send her to a 14(c) entity, which would 
achieve our goal of finding a structure to Monica's four school 
days away from home. In the end we followed not only our own 
impressions, but more importantly, Monica's vehement objections 
to her attending a sheltered workshop.
    Out of desperation Monica applied to and was accepted to a 
county vocational technical school, and which granted her a 
certificate in retail food marketing after 2 years. Upon 
graduation she was offered a part-time job at a grocery store, 
and later on applied and received part-time position at a new 
Costco warehouse, and eventually was asked to become a full-
time worker at another warehouse.
    Monica's road to full-time employment and a decent living 
wage with paid time off, health and other benefits was winding 
with many bumps and some barriers. Her employment success is an 
outcome of her strong desire to work, her own work ethics, and 
employment and other supports received, all in integrated 
settings.
    The interactions Monica has with coworkers and customers 
have been the best rehabilitation she has received, at no 
direct cost to her or to the public. Her ability to recall 
information and to respond appropriately has improved since 
exiting her educational entitlement.
    In my opinion, a number of Monica's disabled friends in 
14(c) entities not only want to hold competitive integrated 
jobs, but also have the attributes necessary to do so, if only 
they would be given access to effective job supports, 
reasonable accommodations and the opportunities to acquire 
skill. Research indicates those who had previously been in 
sheltered workshops at higher support costs and low wages, than 
comparable people who have never been in sheltered workshop 
settings.
    And we've had a number of research results which would 
support this statement already. From Monica's own experience in 
high school, I know that an individual's behavior and 
performance are partly impacted by the setting and the implicit 
or explicit expectations of the environment.
    Supervisors of workers with disabilities in sheltered 
workshops evaluate the performance of these workers in 
restricted and confined contexts. As a result, participants in 
sheltered workshops are viewed by their supervisors as not 
being capable of working outside the strict confines of these 
workshops.
    Chairwoman Adams. Can you bring your comments to a 
conclusion, we've passed time.
    Ms. Koppstein. Thank you. Disability employment has been 
regarded as the next frontier to empower people with 
disabilities to live full and independent lives. The 
Transformation Act would build capacity, improve the disability 
and employment service and----
    Chairwoman Adams. I'm sorry ma'am, we are out of time.
    Ms. Koppstein. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Koppstein follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Nantanee Koppstein
                
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




    Chairwoman Adams. OK thank you very much. We do have your 
full testimony, and that will benefit the committee.
    Ms. Koppstein. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. We'll now hear from 
Mr. Anton. Mr. Anton you have five minutes sir.

  MR. JOHN ANTON, LEGISLATIVE SPECIALIST, MASSACHUSETTS DOWN 
                       SYNDROME CONGRESS

    Mr. Anton. Good morning.
    Chairwoman Adams. Good morning.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Good morning.
    Mr. Anton. Thank you for inviting me to speak today. 
Growing up in segregated, and devalued, and hard to use my 
voice. I felt invisible and not respected. My parents helped me 
to be included in Special Olympics, Boy Scouts, hunting and 
fishing with my dad.
    After high school I did a variety of food service jobs 
which were not good for my diet I can tell you that. Then I 
attended the local workshop doing jobs such as packaging, 
shipping, and piece works. It was very boring. My friends would 
be playing cards, watching videos, and just hanging out with 
nothing to work on. In addition, I got paid very little. It was 
discouraging, and it did not encourage us to do our best.
    Many of my friends felt the same way. One friend worked for 
the week of $1.25 and another friend paid only $10.00 a week 
for cleaning bathrooms. I went to my supervisor and said I want 
to do more. He told me no. And look, so I quit. The local ARC 
helped me to learn how to dress professionally. I wanted a job 
wearing a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase like my dad who 
was my teacher.
    I have learned that legislative advocacy can make things 
happen. I led the Mass Advocates Standing Strong regionally, 
and I went on to be the Chairperson of a state-wide 
organization, and it's all about respect and dignity as a 
citizen for me. It's not being stigmatized on labels which 
belong on jars, not people.
    I was hired in Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress as a 
Legislative Specialist. I got paid for the minimum wage, and I 
advocate for legislation that supports and protects the rights 
of all people with Down Syndrome. For many years I also have 
worked as a legislative intern at the State House in Boston on 
bills affecting all of us.
    Many self-advocates, and I come to Washington, DC for the 
National Down Syndrome Society. We advocate for policies to 
ensure that all people with Down Syndrome have access, 
meaningful jobs, healthcare, and other important resources. The 
NDSS has connected me with a 5-week internship with the 
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers from Washington State who 
has a son with Down Syndrome, and is the co-lead on H.R. 2373, 
and I am proud to be here today to represent both the 
organizations, with the Mass Down Syndrome Congress and the 
NDSS.
    For many years people told me that I could not do what I 
wanted, but I persisted. My parents were so surprised in how 
high my goals were. Look at me now. The fact that people with 
disabilities need real jobs for real pay. Like all of you, I 
urge members of the committee to support and phaseout the 14(c) 
and the Transformation of the Competitive Integrated Employment 
Act, H.R. 2373, thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Anton follows.]

                    Prepared Statement of John Anton
                    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Chairwoman Adams. And thank you very much. Right on time. 
You did a fantastic job sir. And you look good too. So, Dr. 
Putts we now recognize you for five minutes sir.

      DR. MATTHEW R. PUTTS, CEO, EMPLOYMENT HORIZONS, INC.

    Mr. Putts. Good morning. Thank you, Chairs Adams, and 
Bonamici, Ranking Members, Keller and McClain, and members of 
the Subcommittees for the invitation to provide this statement 
regarding 14(c) wages as discussed in the Transformation to 
Competitive Integrated Employment Act.
    Employment Horizons, founded in 1957, is a non-profit 
community rehabilitation program, or CRP in Northern New 
Jersey. Our program participants, the people with disabilities 
we serve, participate in a wide range of programs which include 
supportive employment, work on janitorial, groundskeeping, and 
fulfillment contracts, and a variety of other vocational 
programs.
    While Employment Horizons is proud of the work, we do to 
ensure employment opportunities for individuals with 
disabilities, we are just one organization out of thousands 
nationally, that provide these life-changing services.
    In order to ensure that as many people with disabilities as 
possible can work, CRPs rely on a variety of methods and tools, 
including in some cases 14(c) special wage certificates. 
Elimination of 14(c) certificates as proposed in H.R. 2373 
would eliminate employment opportunities for thousands of 
employees who want to be able to choose the type of employment 
that makes the most sense for them.
    In fact, the outright elimination of 14(c) certificates 
benefits no one. Those working under 14(c) certificates already 
have the right and option to pursue competitive integrated 
employment. They also have the right and option to pursue non-
vocational programs like day programs.
    Employment within a 14(c) program is just one of the many 
choices available to people with disabilities who wish to work, 
and only one type of program offered by CRP's. Part of my role 
is to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. It 
is crucial that I raise awareness about any issue in which a 
person with the disability loses the right for self-
determination, or the right to make choices about their own 
life.
    The elimination of 14(c) certificates does just that. Such 
a step assumes that people with disabilities cannot make their 
own best choices about the type of employment and setting they 
would like to work or spend time in. Discontinuing 14(c) 
programming also makes the assumption that working with people 
without disabilities is somehow innately better than working in 
a setting with people with disabilities.
    How can we assume and apply a standard that work is only 
valuable when performed around a preponderance of non-disabled 
coworkers if we truly believe in the value of the people with 
disabilities? If we accept the basic premises that people with 
disabilities are valuable members of our community, and that 
they have the right to self-determination, then we must also 
accept that they have a right to a full array of employment and 
program options.
    Why then would anyone argue for the elimination of 14(c)? 
Often those who would like to see 14(c) eliminated are not 
fully aware of the value of these programs or have been 
provided information on them that is not fully accurate, 
including some of the following misconceptions.
    First, many people believe that 14(c) certificate holders 
receive a financial benefit through having such a certificate. 
Second, some people believe that employees in 14(c) programs 
are unaware of other employment opportunities or are not 
provided alternatives.
    And third, a common misconception is that the closure of 
14(c) programs would result in more people with significant 
disabilities working in competitive integrated employment. The 
use of 14(c) certificates as part of a continuum of 
opportunities for people with disabilities is a complicated 
issue. Unfortunately, grant funding, and elimination of such 
certificates are not enough to ensure a transition from 14(c) 
to competitive integrative employment.
    More research is needed on the impacts such an elimination 
would have, and employers must be part of the conversation as 
competitive integrated employment relies on their hiring 
decisions. Ultimately, the self-determination of people with 
disabilities must be preserved. I leave you with the story of a 
former program participant working under a 14(c) certificate.
    This individual started working in a 14(c) program after 
high school. After developing the necessary skills, she 
transitioned into competitive integrated employment working in 
the hospitality field. As part of her disability, she had a 
number of medical issues including frequent seizures.
    As these conditions worsened, and her seizures became more 
frequent, she left competitive integrated employment and 
returned to her earlier 14(c) covered job, where she continued 
to work until unfortunately passing away in her 50's. There was 
not a day in either of her jobs where she was not proud to be 
working.
    However, without the full continuum of services available 
to her, she would have needed to stop working as her seizures 
worsened and may have never achieved her earlier competitive 
position. Her 14(c)-employment allowed her to both develop 
critical work skills initially, and to finish her career in a 
safe and supportive setting.
    I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the 
important issue of 14(c) employment, and the array of 
employment opportunities available to individuals with 
disabilities. I look forward to continuing the discussion and 
believe that together we can find creative ways to ensure the 
best, and best paying employment possible for people with 
disabilities, thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Putts follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Matthew R. Putts
                 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Dr. Putts. Now we'll hear from 
Mr. Lewis. You're recognized sir for five minutes.

          MR. ANIL LEWIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JERNIGAN
          INSTITUTE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND,
                         BALTIMORE, MD

    Mr. Lewis. Good morning. Can you hear me, OK?
    Chairwoman Adams. Yes.
    Mr. Lewis. I'd like to offer, I am blind, so I cannot see 
the timer, so if someone will just say two minutes at two 
minutes left and one minute, at one minute left, I'll adhere to 
the time constraints.
    Chairwoman Adams. OK.
    Mr. Lewis. So, my name is Anil Lewis. I live in Atlanta, 
Georgia. As stated, I am the Executive Director of Blindness 
Initiatives for the National Federation of the Blind, which is 
an organization of blind people that realize that blindness is 
not the characteristic that defines you, or your future.
    See every day we raise expectations for blind people 
because we realize it's those low expectations, like those that 
are perpetuated through Section 14(c) that create the true 
obstacles between blind people and our dreams. And we recognize 
that you can live the life you want, and blindness is not what 
holds you back. And this is true we found for other 
organizations as well.
    I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the 
committee. I hope that I'm able to convey the message that I 
like because I have a history in all this, and if you take the 
time to read my written testimony, you'll see, especially I 
appended the testimony that I was able to give at the United 
States Commission on Civil Rights, which talks about how 
Section 14(c) adversely affected the future of my brother, 
created a tremendous amount of guilt on behalf of my mother.
    Created tremendous barriers for employment for my sister 
and myself, but I'm trying not to emote around that issue 
because I have come through the fog and understand that there 
is a better outcome, but in all honesty in evaluating all this, 
I had to realize that as a professional, early on in my 
awareness around disability, and the capacity of people with 
disabilities, I also helped support a subminimal wage workshop 
at a community rehabilitation program.
    So, I have true empathy and understanding, less I'd be a 
hypocrite for those who still feel like that antiquated remedy 
is still the solution for people with disabilities. Working 
with the National Federation of the Blind National Office since 
2011, I was a legislative lead in trying to pass legislation 
that would eliminate 14(c).
    I have to admit upon reflection, the strategy that we 
described in our legislation--the proposed legislation then--
was woefully inadequate. The legislation before you now has 
addressed in my opinion, all the concerns that existed on both 
sides. But it's only important if we understand that those who 
support 14(c) come to know we're not committed to the 
exploitation and a discrimination that I have to admit back in 
2011 was the messaging I put out there.
    They're individuals through their what I understand is 
misguided compassion which I had as well, but well-intended. 
Just really invested in a philosophy that again is antiquated. 
I could take the time to express all of the data, the data just 
to take us off message because we can contest numbers, but it 
doesn't get us to the place where we can change the minds of 
people.
    We start by actually informing the heart. I was doing this 
work under a shelter workshop; I thought that I was doing God's 
work.
    Chairwoman Adams. You have two minutes.
    Mr. Lewis. I thank God for those who continue to show me 
that it is possible. And I think that the written testimony is 
there, but I'd like to take this opportunity based on the 
scenario that was just described, to give you an alternate 
perspective.
    So, you have an individual with a significant disability 
that's employed at a shelter workshop, and she was able to 
obtain competitive integrated employment, which I think speaks 
to the fact that many individuals who are given the opportunity 
would choose competitive integrated employment.
    It's not fair to say that every individual in those 
sheltered workshops has that opportunity, but when it's that 
environment, but then due to medical reasons as explained, 
chose to go back to the sheltered workshop environment. OK, so 
let's yield and say that was a choice, but I think that we're 
making assumptions that the services that we're aspiring should 
be provided in the instance to support her in the competitive 
work environment which could have made it----
    Chairwoman Adams. One minute sir.
    Mr. Lewis. Equally possible for her to do so, we're done. 
And I don't think that's the case. But even more so, I'd like 
to stress the difference of this. Eliminating 14(c) is not 
closing the shops. We already see shops that have been 
eliminating 14(c) and still able to continue to operate.
    We need to understand that the ability for people to work 
competitively in these environments does not depend on the 
wages, that's the employer's decision. It's not going to close 
the shops, it's not going to eliminate choice, and it doesn't 
do the things--many of the things we're describing, but I 
understand the value and the motivation for doing so.
    I just recognize that the Transformation Act puts the 
technical assistance in place that I think is necessary the 
grants that in place that will make it possible, and really 
shapes in a way the paradigm for us to seek better futures for 
people with disabilities, not acquiesce to the antiquated 
philosophy that existed. Thank you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Anil Lewis
                    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much Mr. Lewis, we 
appreciate that very much. Under Committee Rule 9(a) we will 
now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. As this is a 
joint committee hearing, after the Chairs and Ranking Members, 
I will be recognizing Subcommittee members based on seniority 
on the full committee.
    As Chair I know recognize myself for five minutes.
    Mr. Lewis a March 2021, Government Accountability Office 
Report described the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for 
the employment of people with disabilities. For example, the 
pandemic made congregate work settings more dangerous, made it 
harder for disabled people to get jobs.
    In your view sir, what has been the impact of the pandemic 
on efforts to transition people with disabilities into 
competitive, integrated employment, and what role can the 
Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act Play in 
helping to address the challenges?
    Mr. Lewis. Sure, I mean there are so many negatives, and 
actually positives that resulted out of the pandemic for people 
with disabilities. Yes, based on the nature of the sheltered 
workshop model the congregated environment did create a problem 
for the virus spread, it could turn into super spreader 
locations.
    But many individuals who were again in competitive 
integrated work environments were not adversely affected by 
that particular scenario, but they were adversely affected by 
the fact that many of the accommodations that were needed in 
order for them to be employed, had to be adjusted, and improved 
on. So, I think in a strange way the things that we learned, 
the strategies that we learned to support those individuals 
that were already in competitive, integrated environments, are 
strategies and tools that we can use now to enhance that 
employment post-pandemic, and also create opportunities for 
more individuals in those sheltered congregated environments to 
transform and transition into competitive integrated 
workplaces.
    Chairwoman Adams. OK. Great. Mr. Lewis in his testimony Dr. 
Putts cited a study finding that after Maine eliminated 14(c) 
employment, the number of people with disabilities employed in 
the State decreased, as did the work hours. Dr. Putts cited the 
study as evidence that phasing out 14(c) would be harmful to 
people with disabilities.
    So, if you're familiar with the study, can you put its 
methodology and findings into context for us? Do you for 
example, consider the findings valid, and if not, why?
    Mr. Lewis. So again, as I stated we could look at data and 
analyze data. This specific study I received information that 
did challenge the validity of the data. But I'd like to take 
this opportunity to make the point. Even if the data was 
correct, again we're operating under assumptions that the 
processes that we're ascribing now were followed, and I don't 
think that that's the case.
    It's been demonstrated across the country that entities who 
use these strategies that have been developed, to actually 
transform their business model to transition into this new, 
integrated model, are successful. So to State that it happened 
as described in the data provided in Maine, is probably more of 
a confirmation that it wasn't done correctly or using best 
practices.
    Chairwoman Adams. OK. At the time of publication one of the 
studies were literally refuted due to the problematic research 
design, the very low sample size used, and the conflict of 
interest of the study's funder.
    Mr. Lewis. Correct. And that's where I saw one of the data 
analysts who evaluated the study also shared those same results 
with me. But again, I could pull data that shows in other 
states how it was done correctly and created the positive 
outcomes that we aspire to achieve.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. So, beyond this one study, 
what do research findings more broadly tell us about the 
outcomes for people with disabilities when states have 
eliminated the 14(c) employment? And I just have a minute left.
    Mr. Lewis. Sure, overwhelmingly the data shows that 
individuals in those states that have done it correctly, that 
abused not only the opportunity to provide employment--I mean 
the support, but also the wrap around services that are 
necessary, have proven to have an increase in the employability 
of people with disabilities in competitive integrated work 
environments.
    Chairwoman Adams. OK. Well thank you sir, thank you very 
much for that. I want to now recognize the Ranking Member of 
the Ed and Labor Committee Dr. Foxx, I'm going to recognize you 
if you will take five minutes, you are recognized ma'am.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you Dr. Adams and I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here today. Dr. Putts thank you for your 
testimony and for making it your life's work to offer 
employment opportunities to people with disabilities.
    We've heard some strong rhetoric already about 14(c) 
employment opportunities, and the people who provide them. That 
rhetoric doesn't seem to match what we've heard from you. Could 
you just tell us more about yourself, how you've gotten into 
this work, and what motivates you?
    Mr. Putts. Sure, thank you. So, my first job out of college 
was actually as an employment specialist at Employment Horizons 
where I am still employed. I was working with individuals with 
physical disabilities and brain injury helping them find 
competitive integrated employment, and very quickly fell in 
love with the field in terms of helping individuals with 
disabilities become more self-sufficient by finding and keep 
jobs and learned an awful lot about the meaning and dignity of 
a job, and how much that goes beyond just a paycheck.
    After a pretty short period of time in the field I realized 
I really couldn't see myself doing anything else, and I 
continued my education in order to be able to do more in the 
field, earning a master's in rehabilitation counseling, and 
eventually a Ph.D. in rehabilitation counseling and 
administration, and working my way through different 
administrative positions until eventually becoming CEO of 
Employment Horizons in 2016.
    Beyond my work at Employment Horizons, I'm involved in a 
number of different government and board type of roles, so I am 
the Chair of the Board for Access New Jersey, which is our 
trade association here in New Jersey. I serve on the 
Paratransit Transportation Committee to ensure transportation 
options for folks with disabilities, and I'm also in our Tri-
County Workforce Development Board.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Dr. Putts as we like to say in this 
committee, states are the laboratories of innovation, sometimes 
for the better, but sometimes for the worse. We think Congress 
can learn a lot from what states are doing to create 
opportunities for individuals with disabilities, and to find 
out which policies work and which do not.
    In your testimony you discuss one State that stopped the 
use of 14(c) certificates. Could you please expand on the 
outcomes of that decision for individuals with disabilities, 
and how this experience should inform the debate about the 
14(c) program at the Federal level?
    And let me add very quickly that I'm a firm believer that 
there is tremendous dignity in work for every single person, 
and I will put something in the record about this after the 
hearing today, but please go ahead and expand on the outcomes.
    Mr. Putts. Absolutely. So the State that I referenced was 
Maine, which was spoken about just a minute ago, and the report 
was put together by George Washington University. In 2011, 
which was about 3 years after the transition in Maine, people 
with intellectual disabilities were working an average of 12 
hours a week, which at the time was the lowest in the Nation.
    And that was a jump from an average of working over 4 days 
a week before the closure of workshops to working less than 
half a day a week after. Following the closure of 14(c) 
programs it was found that people with disabilities were 
spending more time in community support activities than they 
were before the transition, which means non-work activities.
    And the employment rate of people with disabilities 
actually decreased from over 39 percent to about 34 percent, 
which was greater than the work for non-disabled individuals 
during that same time period. By 2010 in fact, integrated 
employment had decreased from 31 percent to 23 percent for 
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, 
and participation had increased for non-work facility-based 
services.
    So folks were still coming to non-profit organizations, but 
they were doing non-work activities. And so while individuals 
were earning more per hour after the transition, they were 
earning less in total due to the decreased number of hours that 
they were working.
    So my biggest takeaway from what happened in Maine is that 
Maine planned for this transition and still got this result, 
and they're a relatively small State with a relatively small 
number of people that needed to be transitioned out of 14(c). 
According to the GAO report, we could be looking at as many as 
125,000 individuals working under 14(c) nationally, and--with 
time to plan the transition, couldn't pull that off, and I'm 
very concerned about what that would mean nationally.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Madam Chair I believe I have 14 
seconds left, and what I want to say is we'll be asking you a 
question after the hearing that we'd like to put into the 
record about your experience with the issue on determining on a 
case-by-case basis, the competitive integration employment 
determination, and with that I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 
So now we'll hear from Ms. Bonamici, Chair Bonamici?
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much Chair Adams and 
thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. I want to 
start with Mrs. Koppstein. Thank you for sharing the story that 
your family experienced, and I wanted to ask you the 
Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act would 
strengthen wrap around support services to help workers with 
disabilities transition to competitive integrated employment.
    So could you talk a little bit about what support services 
and benefits, the wrap around support services and benefits, 
were most important for your daughter Monica's success and 
integration into the workplace.
    Ms. Koppstein. Yes, thank you for the question. In fact, 
the wrap around services that Monica has received funded by the 
Division of Developmental Disabilities has provided her with 
not just a supplement to her workday which started off as part-
time, but also provided her with some control over her own day 
and schedules and activities.
    She has used this funding and services to participate as a 
member in a local gym that has helped her learn the benefits of 
exercise, healthy eating to keep her weight down, and also has 
learned skills that would help her prevent injury at work and 
at home, simple work skills, everything has to be taught to 
Monica, for instance, how to lift some heavy object from the 
floor. I suppose I could benefit from that as well.
    So in addition, she has also used opportunities that were 
not funded publicly outside of her services. So it has really 
enriched her life and supplemented her day of work in very 
meaningful way while exposing her to and providing her with 
network of friends outside of her usual special education, not 
that they are better or worse, but just different exposures 
actually help people grow.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Right, thank you. Is it fair to say 
that she wouldn't have been as successful without those wrap-
around services?
    Ms. Koppstein. Absolutely. They are crucial, and I'm glad 
that the Transformation Act has been so insightful to provide 
these wrap-around services which are so crucial in many ways.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. And I want to move on to Mr. Lewis. 
And Mr. Lewis in your testimony you noted that you testified 
before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the importance 
of helping people with disabilities transition into 
competitive, integrated employment, and thank you for that 
involvement.
    I know your voice matters. So can you underscore for us why 
phasing out the 14(c) subminimum wage is a Civil Rights issue, 
and also what is the nexus between 14(c) subminimum wage and 
the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Supreme Court's 
decision in Olmstead?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. And I think that's a really important 
question, so I'll focus the answer on that. In all the 
discussion I think that we're convoluting the issue. 14(c) 
itself is what's counter to the Americans With Disabilities Act 
which states that people with disabilities have the same rights 
as any other American citizen.
    14(c) is a provision that allows people with disabilities, 
just for the fact of having a disability to be paid less than 
everyone less. In many instances, it's not because the people 
with disabilities lack the capacity, it's because the 
professionals that work with them don't evolve into a place 
where they recognize there are evolving new strategies to do 
so.
    I was one of those people, so I recognize that that's the 
case. The Olmstead Act really shows that by integrating--and 
working to integrate people with disabilities within the 
community--not only does it create quality of life for people 
with disabilities, but it also reduces the public burden. The 
data is out there, it shows it, but we are not going to be able 
to move further until we get people who again, through that 
misguided compassion remain vested in that old, antiquated 
philosophy around the incapacity and the low expectations, and 
we've got to shift the paradigm.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, and I agree. I 
really see this as a Civil Rights issue, and to say that 
there's a category of people who don't deserve to earn minimum 
wage, it just seems to me an injustice, so I'm glad that we 
heard from you today, as well as our other witnesses, personal 
stories really do make the difference as we move forward with 
this important legislation. Thank you Madam Chair and I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Adams. OK. And thank you very much Chair 
Bonamici, and it looks like it's Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Dr. Putts, 
members of both sides of the aisle share the goal of ensuring 
that individuals with disabilities have employment 
opportunities. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 
less than 20 percent of individuals with disabilities were 
employed in 2019 and 2020.
    By comparison, almost 62 percent of individuals without a 
disability were employed in 2020. In your experience would 
ending the Section 14(c) certificate program, as required by 
H.R. 2373, actually improve the employment rate for individuals 
with disabilities, or help address this disparity?
    Mr. Putts. Thank you. So from what I have seen from the 
data, and from my personal and professional experience, I 
believe that ending 14(c) would actually decrease employment 
opportunities for people with disabilities. As you pointed out, 
unfortunately employment rates for people with disabilities are 
dismally low and have been that way for as long as any of us 
can remember.
    Those working under 14(c) certificates are typically the 
individuals with the most significant disabilities, and so 
there's little reason to believe that ending 14(c) would in 
that case improve employment rates. What we've seen on a large 
scale is that the systems that exist are unsuccessful at that.
    And so I'm deeply concerned that if 14(c) were to go away 
without some sort of replacement that we'd be looking at 
significantly decreased rates of employment for people with 
disabilities, and you can see that in places where 14(c) has 
ended, that there's a lot more engagement in non-work 
activities.
    Mr. Keller. You mentioned non-work activities, and an 
individual that is going to a non-work activity, and I imagine 
they get you know, some kind of help with life skills and 
education on being able to get a job, or have employment, do 
they get paid any money for going to these non-work activities? 
Do they earn any money while they're in the non-work 
activities?
    Mr. Putts. They do not. And so from my perspective, that's 
where 14(c) comes in, is that those same work skills, that same 
career counseling, the developing the ability to work through a 
full work day, et cetera, can be accomplished in a 14(c) 
setting where actual work is being performed for real 
companies, a paycheck is being earned, and folks get the 
dignity of reporting to work, of going to a job as opposed to 
you know you certainly can acquire some of those skills in a 
non-work setting, but I don't believe that's the same, and has 
the same value, you know, unless someone choose that as going 
to work does.
    Mr. Keller. So in order to get the skills, and employment 
experience necessary in an environment with 14(c) would the 
equivalent of you know a high school student getting their 
first job and learning their job and learning the work 
environment and so on.
    Meanwhile, people in a 14(c)-certificate program are 
earning a few dollars while they're doing that.
    Mr. Putts. And to be clear the 14(c) is commensurate wage, 
and so there are folks that are earning more than a few dollars 
when we talk about this. There are folks that are actually 
making above minimum wage, but below a contract or prevailing 
wage.
    And people you know working in 14(c) settings, anyone with 
a disability has their own unique needs, and so the setting 
that's most appropriate for one person, is the setting that's 
most appropriate for that one person. If you've met somebody 
with a disability that's all you've done is meet one person 
with a disability. And so it's really important to maintain the 
full array of options, so that folks for whom 14(c) is an 
appropriate choice, have it, and other folks certainly you know 
can choose other things, and we're proud at Employment Horizons 
to provide that full array.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, and actually you're 100 percent 
correct on individuals that have--and I like to refer to it as 
different abilities you know. Everybody has abilities, and my 
wife actually worked in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for 34 
and a half years in a setting where she worked with individuals 
that had disabilities.
    And actually, the job I had, in the factory I managed, we 
hired people with job coaches, to help give them the experience 
they need. We didn't have 14(c) certificates, we paid the 
wages, you know, and depending upon the job we could do that. 
And you know individuals with disabilities have disparate and 
unique needs.
    In your testimony you discussed the menu of services 
Employment Horizons offers to meet employment-based needs. Can 
you discuss further what role the 14(c)-certificate program 
plays in providing options to individuals with disabilities?
    Mr. Putts. The 14(c) certificate just allows for a wider 
array of options. So without it we would be sort of left with 
the extremes of supported employment in a competitive setting, 
and those pre-employment and non-work sort of opportunities, 
and so with the 14(c) there's something in between that for the 
folks for whom that's appropriate, and that could be learning 
soft skills.
    It's developing the stamina and the concentration needed 
for a workday. It allows those with safety or behavior 
challenges to work, rather than attend non-work programs if 
they choose.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    Many folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities 
receive relatively few hours of CIE, and so some individuals 
then can actually split their time between competitive 
opportunities, and work in a 14(c) program.
    Chairwoman Adams. And we're out of time, OK, thank you very 
much. I appreciate it. I'll now recognize Mr. Takano, Mr. 
Takano you have five minutes sir.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions are for 
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis, as you described in your written 
testimony, you previously managed a sheltered workshop that 
employed people who were blind. But it successfully 
transitioned virtually all of these workers into competitive, 
integrated employment.
    Can you tell the committee what the key factors, or 
practices that helped these individuals transition to 
competitive integrated employment?
    Mr. Lewis. Sure. The key factor was in my paradigm shift. I 
was looking at them, even though I was a blind person, society 
made me feel like I was an exception because I was doing other 
things that other blind people were not. And I'm not the 
exception, only because the systems in place make it the 
exception and not the rule.
    But I saw them as individuals, handicapped individuals, you 
know, less fortunate than me. Once I realized that they were 
just people with disabilities with the same rights and 
aspirations that I had, and I got access to the tools that the 
National Federation of the Blind provided with respect to work 
incentives for social security, different alternative job 
modifications and strategies.
    Again, I didn't know all of this. I was operating from a 
limited knowledge. Once I stared implementing those, and then 
empowering them, because the other thing I had to do was take 
an institutionalized group of people who had been in that 
workshop for years, who had made that comfortable for them, and 
that was what they did day to day, recognize that there was 
another alternative, and to give them a real understanding of 
what that opportunity consisted of.
    That it wasn't just wonderful, but with a lot of work it 
could create a better outcome for them, so working 
collaboratively on myself, and implementing the strategies to 
work with the consumers, we were able to get those individuals 
competitively employed. And I must say that that was done, and 
I guess at this point, say haphazard, because the 
Transformation Act itself really prescribes what should have 
been done.
    And if we would have had the funding through the grants and 
the technical assistance that's provided, I would have been 
able to do a much better job.
    Mr. Takano. Well Mr. Lewis what were the practices? Can you 
just sort of enumerate the practices that helped these 
individuals?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. So one of the things that was just 
mentioned was the term non-work. So yes, we bought into the 
fact that they were earning some money and acquiring a 
skillset, but the skillset they were acquiring were how to fold 
and stuff envelopes, and that wasn't going to be a gainful 
opportunity for them to be employed.
    So what we did was we had them participate in non-work, and 
I will just offer this as an understanding. I participated in 
non-work it was called college. I didn't get paid. As a matter 
of fact, I got in debt as opposed to it. I wasn't paid for it, 
but it allowed me to acquire the skillset and the knowledge to 
become competitively employed, so that's what we did.
    We stopped paying them subminimum wage for doing work that 
wasn't leading to a successful outcome and using that time 
through our non-profit status to raise money, capitalize on the 
other public programs that paid for this type of assistance, 
and provided them actual training in a skill that resulted in 
competitive integrated employment.
    So non-work is not a bad thing. Non-work is what we all 
participate in as we acquire skillset and talent to become 
employed.
    Mr. Takano. So really what you mean by non-work was 
training that led to some sort of skill that would lead them to 
employment, full employment, not subminimum wage employment.
    Mr. Lewis. Exactly.
    Mr. Takano. So really what we call non-work is really some 
sort of training or broader education.
    Mr. Lewis. If we, do it right. Again, individuals who 
aren't really invested in a successful outcome yes, their 
answer is going to be well if we can't pay them subminimum wage 
well, I guess we'll just let them sit there. And like the other 
witness said, playing games. Of course, they're having fun, and 
many parents think that's great because their kids are doing 
something, but they truly don't recognize that there is an 
alternative that leads to a better outcome for their children.
    I also reference a conversation I had with a parent of a 
child with significant disability who I know through my 
experience, I would have been able to help them obtain 
competitive integrated employment, but because she had been 
told by professionals year after year, after year, that the 
best her son could do is work in that sheltered workshop.
    Mr. Takano. Mr. Lewis, with the time I have remaining that 
one example of the intellectual disability, that one person, 
what competitive work did they obtain?
    Mr. Lewis. She told me, and it was really just interesting. 
Again, I didn't get to work with him because she didn't want to 
work with me, but she in her discussion with me and told me 
that in the times when he wasn't at the sheltered workshop, he 
actually worked at their local church, and she described him 
doing a variety of different custodial jobs.
    That's a no brainer. I wouldn't want to relegate him to 
just doing that, but I knew at a minimum that the floor was 
that he could have obtained a competitive wage in any other 
environment, doing custodial work.
    Mr. Takano. All right. Well thank you. Madam Chair I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Now 
Mrs. McClain you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Putts you talked 
in your statement about the dignity of work. And I agree with 
you on that. The principle was especially evident in the moving 
story you talked about the former participant in your program.
    I think everyone would agree we want to provide an 
environment that enables people with disabilities to flourish. 
And also, to get as many of those people with disabilities 
involved in that process through listening. That's what I hear 
we all agree upon.
    However, I think the injustice would be if we decreased the 
amount of people that we could get into that program, in those 
types of programs, and I think by eliminating this, that is 
what we're doing, or at least that's what the facts tell us. 
And although I would love to live in a world where facts didn't 
matter, and we could just go on about our day with our 
feelings, that's not reality.
    And I think it's my job to really get us into reality and 
pay attention to the facts. That's what I'm here to do, and 
that's what I'm here to try to understand. So the facts tell me 
that if we eliminate the 14(c) program that we would in essence 
have less people in these programs, which is counter intuitive 
to what we're trying to do.
    The other thing that I want to point out is as a business 
owner, we're not taking into account the actual people and 
entities that employ these people, which are the businesses. My 
fear is that if you take this away and you mandate to a 
business what they need to pay, they do have a choice, and they 
do have an option. So one of the things I would like to suggest 
is instead of mandating, why don't we incentivize them?
    That would seem like a lot better idea to be more 
inclusive, and we can broaden the tent, but the piece we're 
forgetting here is that the business actually has a choice as 
well. So I would offer a suggestion that we be inclusive to the 
businesses, and that we incentivize the businesses as opposed 
to mandating them.
    With that said, why Mr. Putts, why is access to a job so 
meaningful to people with disabilities? And what is the impact 
on those people's dignity when employment opportunities are 
taken away? Because the facts actually show, not the feelings, 
but the facts actually show that if we eliminate this, we are 
going to employ less people with disabilities, and those 
opportunities are going to be taken away. So can you share with 
me what the impacts of that dignity would be when the 
opportunities are taken away?
    Mr. Putts. Sure. And I think you're right in that a lot of 
what we're hearing doesn't put the onus on the businesses where 
it falls, and we can see that already it's not that there is a 
lack of access to people with disabilities on the job market. 
The majority of them are unemployed. Employers are not making 
the decisions to hire them, and so there does need to be focus 
on the employers.
    Many folks that are non-disabled take having a job for 
granted, and it's how a lot of non-disabled folks actually 
identify. It's one of the first things we ask someone when we 
meet someone new is what do you do?
    And for folks with disabilities a lot of the times there 
isn't an answer for that. And so it is about the dignity. It's 
the sense of purpose. It's a reason to get out of bed in the 
morning and have a place that you report where you can be proud 
of the work that you're doing, and you can connect to other 
people. How many of us, our daily connections, the social 
interactions we have, take place at work.
    And I can tell you exactly what the loss of that 
opportunity looks like because in New Jersey all of our 14(c) 
programs, all of our workshop programs were shut down for over 
7 months because of the COVID-19 pandemic by the State. And I 
can't even tell you the heart wrenching Facebook messages we 
were getting, the emails we were getting, the phone calls we 
were getting from folks that went from having a place that they 
went daily to work, to not having that and not knowing if we 
were going to reopen ever, or when that would be, and it really 
was gut-wrenching to see.
    Mrs. McClain. And what I understand, and I want to make 
sure I understand this correctly, from your data, if we 
eliminated this 14(c) program, we would have less people with 
the opportunity to work. Did I hear that? Is that simply put?
    Mr. Putts. Correct. We would have--there certainly would be 
some folks that would leave 14(c) for competitive, integrated 
employment, but what we've seen is it's not the majority.
    Mrs. McClain. And that's not a goal. I don't think that's 
anyone's goal, that the policies would have some unintended 
consequences that would work in reverse to what we're trying to 
accomplish. Thank you, ma'am.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. OK. Next Representative Hayes 
you're recognized for five minutes ma'am.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you to the 
witnesses who are here today for being with us. The phasing out 
of 14(c) is not only a labor equity issue, it's a Civil Rights 
issue. Every worker, including workers with disabilities, or 
differing abilities, deserve a living wage.
    This issue is somewhat personal for me. I worked at 
Southbury Training School, a residential facility here in my 
State of Connecticut for people with physical and intellectual 
disabilities. I was there for 15 years, and I have been a job 
coach and supported so many of our residents as they worked at 
these sheltered workplaces.
    Through those years I experienced first-hand that while 
many of those individuals required specialized services, I also 
saw the potential for them to succeed with proper supports and 
saw many of them thrive outside of those workplaces. Another 
concern that I saw is that one of the workshops that I was in 
was a place where we had where the employer asked the job was 
to piece together packets for a much larger corporation.
    Those packets were sold at full price, while the people who 
put them together were paid a subminimum wage. I've heard 
concerns that the passage of the Transformation to Competitive 
Employment Act would mean an end to sheltered workshops 
nationwide. I just do not believe that to be true.
    So Mr. Lewis, can you describe the resources provided by 
the bill for employers to transition from utilizing 14(c) 
certificates, to providing high-wage employment for all 
workers, including workers with different abilities.
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you for this question because again I 
think that's the point that needs to be hammered home. The 
phaseout of 14(c) is not going to eliminate the ability for 
these existing community rehabilitation programs to operate. 
Those entities that say that they can't, that's a business 
decision that they're making because their peers in this 
environment are doing it and doing it successfully.
    The Transformation Act itself has provisions that again I 
wish were in place back when I was doing this. They're grants 
to the states that want to implement the services to allow the 
workshops to transition into a new business model, a proven, 
new proven business model.
    We know that in instances where the states were not willing 
to apply for the grants, there's still going to be some 
ambitious community rehabilitation programs that recognize that 
this is the right thing to do, and the bill itself offers 
grants for those particular entities to do it as well, which is 
a great thing, because they will become exemplars right, for 
their peers.
    Then it also offers technical assistance. Again, building 
on the best practice of what's been done makes it possible for 
others to do it without the overhead that it costs. I would 
bring another example, when we first started advocating for the 
phaseout, well, we've been doing that as an organization for 
centuries, well not centuries, decades.
    But when we in this recent initiative started, we were 
engaging with the individuals at Goodwill Industries which had 
a significant amount of their community rehabilitation programs 
dependent on 14(c). And I remember a conversation with Jim 
Gibbons who was the Executive Director at the time, and we 
pointed out that approximately two-thirds of them were working 
without the 14(c) certificate, and we were asking--and I never 
got an answer to this question, so the one-third of remaining 
community rehabilitation programs that say that the 14(c) 
certificate is needed.
    So what is that? Are they dealing with the more 
significantly disabled population than the others? Which is not 
true. Or are the people in their geographic area somewhat more 
disabled than others, which also wasn't true. The fact remains 
that it's been proven by a majority of entities that it can be 
done, and the decision not to do so is a business decision, not 
a result of incapacity of the people with disabilities.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I appreciate that because in my 
district there are two businesses that I can think of off the 
top of my head that are very successful. One of them is a cafe, 
and the other is a movie theater, that is fully staffed with 
people with differing abilities, and they are a thriving 
business.
    With the remainder of my time, I want to go to Mr. Anton. 
You talked about actually going to your supervisor and quitting 
your job because you didn't feel that you were fulfilled. How 
difficult was it for you to find a new job after you made that 
really important decision? Mr. Anton?
    Mr. Anton. Hello.
    Mrs. Hayes. Hi. I'm sorry I don't know if you heard my 
question, I said when you made the decision to quit your job, 
how difficult was it for you to find a new job?
    Mr. Anton. It took me a while to figure it out in the 
beginning. But, also, through my advocacy where people saw me 
working hard to get hired at MDSC, the Mass Down Syndrome 
Congress as a legislative specialist, and also the minimum 
wage--above the minimum wage, and thank you, OK.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Anton. You show us that it is in 
fact possible. Madam Chair I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. And thank you, thank you very much. Mr. 
Thompson? Is Mr. Thompson on the platform? OK, then we'll go to 
Representative Miller-Meeks, you're recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to 
thank all of those who are providing testimony today. I have a 
best friend whose daughter has an intellectual handicap if you 
will, but I also have experience with an organization in my 
hometown, Timko, who does assist and help individuals with 
disabilities of all kinds, and when the State of Iowa was 
raising the minimum wage, ended up having individuals who lost 
employment.
    We also had a situation where unfortunately, there was an 
abusive situation and employment was terminated, but those 
individuals to this day have not been re-employed, those with 
disabilities, and are now leading a much less functional and 
engaged life than they were, and they've commented upon this to 
us.
    So I think Mr. Putts, last Congress this committee held a 
hearing where one of the witnesses testified about his 
organization's transition away from the use of 14(c) 
certificates. Prior to the transition his organization employed 
500 workers using 14(c) certificates. After the transition, the 
organization was only able to employ 65 individuals with 
disabilities at or above the minimum wage, where the average 
employees were working part-time.
    While about one-fifth of these workers were able to find 
competitive employment outside the organization, the 
circumstance strikes me as far from being an unqualified 
success, and certainly, it would mirror my understanding of 
what happened in my own hometown of 26,000 people.
    So Dr. Putts, based on your experience would H.R. 2373 lead 
to similar outcomes including fewer hours worked, and 
employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities, and 
would not companies hire people at higher wages, and then make 
a task that they had someone else do, make that part of the 
expanded tasks that an individual with a higher wage would do?
    Mr. Putts. Thank you. So sadly, I'm not surprised by that 
result. I believe you'd see a very similar result on a broad 
scale, a concerningly broad scale, if not a worse overall 
result due to the lack of resources for a much larger 
population. So it's one thing to scale down 14(c) for a 
particular organization, but to do it nationally again for you 
know 125,000 or so people, is quite the undertaking.
    So while I wasn't present for that testimony, the evidence 
in general suggests that the one-fifth who got jobs were likely 
working fewer hours ultimately, and earning less money overall, 
even though their hourly wage may have increased, and as 
minimum wages continue to go up, there really aren't as many 
jobs with one or two sort of tasks that exist anymore, and for 
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities it 
does get harder to place individuals into those jobs because 
there's so much more complication and multi-tasking involved in 
that.
    So there has to be incentive for employers to carve out 
positions that make sense as appropriate, and that's you know 
again, not an easy thing to do because there are, you know, 
millions of employers, and they're all independent entities, so 
that's a bit of an undertaking.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And Dr. Putts can companies or 
businesses, or non-profit, other organizations, can they 
continue to work on increasing the jobs skills of individuals 
with disability while they're engaged in employment with the 
14(c) certificate?
    Mr. Putts. Absolutely, and we do have folks actually 
working in our workshop downstairs right now who split their 
time between competitive integrated employment, and 14(c). 
They're developing job skills in both of those locations, and 
we flex their schedule here in order to match the schedule that 
they have at the employer because we give that precedence, but 
it's absolutely possible to do both, and to continue to develop 
really important skills from both.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. So that looking at the individual as not 
just having a static set of skills, but skills that would be 
dynamic as we would see in any employee, in any workplace.
    Mr. Putts. Sure. And I think one informs the other.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Great. Thank you so much for your 
testimony. Madam Chair I yield my time.
    Chairwoman Adams. Well thank you very much. We want to 
recognize now Representative Jayapal you have five minutes, 
ma'am.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you very much 
for holding this hearing on phasing out the subminimum wage. I 
think it's just important again to ground ourselves in the 
stories of how people with disabilities get compensated under 
the subminimum wage that is so disturbing, and so just a couple 
I want to highlight.
    A man in my home State of Washington worked 6 hours a day 
only to make $70.00 every 2 weeks. Another individual earned 
$1.54 an hour, even while producing two times the number of 
products compared to their supervisor, who made over 
$100,000.00 a year.
    In New York workers with disabilities packaged 
pharmaceuticals and got paid 33 cents an hour while the CEO was 
paid more than $400,000.00. I think if everyone understood that 
Americans with disabilities are getting paid less than their 
coworkers for doing the same job because of an 80-year-old law, 
I think they'd be horrified.
    I'm proud that Seattle became the first city government to 
eliminate the subminimum wage, and that my home State of 
Washington is one of seven states that has abolished it as 
well. Mr. Lewis in your testimony you talk about how there was 
a time when you thought the subminimum wage made sense.
    And you talked about how you provided work to blind folks 
as a manager of a sheltered workshop where people with 
disability work in clusters, separate from other workers. But 
then you were able to successfully transition nearly all your 
workers into competitive integrated employment.
    What was it that led you to realize that your workers were 
capable of more?
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you for that question because it was that 
epiphany, I think that was the pivotal moment for me. One in 
your opening comments I think that you speak to a big problem. 
This is happening in a vacuum, and most of the people when 
they're made aware do find that it is atrocious, then they fall 
subject to the existing misconception that people with 
disabilities don't have the capacity, and this is the least we 
can do to at least give them quality of life, but that's not 
balanced with the tools and strategies that are necessary to 
change that particular outcome.
    And that's what happened. We were thinking we were doing 
the right thing before we realized that if we implemented other 
strategies that we weren't aware of, we could create other 
opportunities. And I also think that it's important to 
recognize when you talk about looking forward to what could 
happen, that we look at what has happened.
    The data from Maine was back in 2015, but if you look at 
the data there was an increase in employment with people with 
disabilities. If you start citing data from 2019 to 2020, we 
all know why those numbers were different than what the 
progress has shown and hopefully it will return to the upward 
employability of people with disabilities post-pandemic.
    Again, I know that my testimony here today is probably not 
going to change the minds of those individuals who have been 
convinced that 14(c) is the right thing to do, but I can stand 
here, or sit here, as an example to say I've been there. I 
understand that that's how you feel, and just charge you with 
really reaching out and finding out more truth to what's 
possible and really looking toward a more positive future.
    The last thing I will say you know I believe the 
Congresswoman said she was from Iowa when she was talking about 
her example. I thought that she was going to talk about the 
turkey farm incident, but I'm sure that the one she was talking 
about was not the turkey farm, because the turkey farm was 
really the demonstration of how the 14(c) really does lead to 
just a horrific outcome.
    And I know that that people say that that's an anomaly, but 
as long as it's legal it still remains a possibility.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Let me stay on that for 
a minute and go to Ms. Koppstein, because one of the things 
that always strikes me about this argument is we're talking 
about how wages are portrayed in terms of a person's worth. I 
mean really, we're saying to the people with disabilities, we 
think you're worth much less, and we're going to pay you much 
less, and that really, really troubles me for anybody, 
regardless of their abilities, there's support we need to give.
    There's things we need to do for people to be successful, 
but it bothers me to see sort of how the wage gets pulled into 
a person's worth. Ms. Koppstein in your testimony you speak 
compellingly about how your daughter was able to gain full-time 
employment and a decent living wage with benefits.
    What would you say to other parents who believe that the 
subminimum wage is necessary for their kids to have jobs?
    Ms. Koppstein. I think you've nailed one of the key issues 
in this discussion. That is a person should not be defined by 
one variable alone, productivity. A person is multi-
dimensional, can bring different unique talents.
    My daughter's productivity may be lower while working at 
Costco compared to other of her coworkers who perform the same 
task, but she brings other attributes to the job that may not 
be measurable, and therefore the wages in a company that has 
the foresight to hire people of different abilities with 
diversity, the bottom lines actually have been shown to be 
higher than their peers without that element of diversity.
    And so this would also address the motivation of employers, 
that's the inherent reason to hire people with disabilities 
because of the multi-dimensional talents that they bring.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you Madam Chair I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. OK. Representative Good do you 
want five minutes sir?
    Mr. Good. Yes ma'am. I'm here.
    Chairwoman Adams. OK, go ahead.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses and thank you again Madam Chairman. Work in and of 
itself is invaluable in the dignity it provides, along with 
satisfying a God created need that we all have to contribute, 
to be productive. In fact, we often identify ourselves by what 
we do.
    That is typically the first question we ask when we meet 
someone because we all gain a tremendous amount of pride and 
self-worth from what we do, and I appreciate those employers 
and those organizations who are willing to stretch a little, 
and give a break, or a helping hand to those who are 
disadvantaged, or at risk in some way.
    Both my wife and son actually work for a company that helps 
folks in these situations to obtain employment, and to succeed 
in the workplace. Again, folks who are disadvantaged in some 
way, or at risk in some way and need some help in obtaining and 
succeeding at employment.
    But democrats seem to see discrimination in everything 
whether based on race, gender, or disability. Democrats seem to 
look with contempt on all employers and job creators and 
presume the worst of intentions on those hiring and paying 
American workers.
    The fact is there's value in providing employers a greater 
ability to hire someone who because of some personal 
limitations may not be able to perform at the same level of a 
typical employee. And the fact is there's value in providing 
disabled employees more opportunities for employment, even if 
it's a special reduced rate for those unable to obtain 
employment at standards rates.
    There are over 9.3 million jobs waiting to be filled, yet 
Democrats' solution to this madness is to keep printing more 
money, spending money we don't have, and exacerbate the problem 
by finding more ways to pay people not to work. That's why last 
month I joined my colleague, Mr. Roy from Texas, in trying to 
help get Americans back to work by introducing legislation 
eliminating the $300.00 Federal enhanced unemployment weekly 
benefit in an effort to fight against these efforts.
    Democrats' default response to businesses struggling to 
stay open, struggling to recover from government lockdowns and 
restrictions is just pay them more, but as with the impact of 
forcing a minimum wage increase, democrats don't seem to want 
to use real world facts and evidence, they prefer anecdotal 
stories.
    Dr. Putts I'm glad that in your testimony you mentioned the 
disastrous results that Maine experienced when that State 
eliminated Section 14(c). Instead of helping people with 
disabilities, eliminating it actually hurt them, so we have 
real-life, real-world example.
    This would no doubt be made much worse if the democrats are 
successful in forcing through a doubling of the minimum wage. 
This is why when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights requested 
feedback in 2019 on the 14(c) program, nearly 10,000 
respondents were received, or responses were received, and 98 
percent of those said that 14(c) should be maintained.
    98 percent of the nearly 10,000 respondents to the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights asking if 14(c) should be maintained 
back in 2019. Dr. Putts, can you give a few examples of how 
this program has helped individuals by allowing them to 
experience the opportunity and the dignity of work.
    Mr. Putts. Absolutely. And 98 percent of those comments 
were in favor of 14(c) and 1 percent were opposed, so I don't 
believe that H.R. 2373 respects the opinion of the individuals 
that----
    Mr. Good. That's right.
    Mr. Putts. Did submit comments on that. You know every day 
we have about 100 here at Employment Horizons, about 115 
individuals coming in to work with us who get to see peers, 
have social interactions, perform real work for real companies. 
I don't want to, you know, mention them in a public forum, but 
we have two huge telecommunications companies that we do work 
for, along with other Fortune 500 companies that you would 
absolutely recognize the names of.
    And these folks that are coming here are proud of the work 
that they're doing. They're proud of Employment Horizons, 
they're proud of the companies that they're performing work 
for, and as they acquire skills, we are taking opportunity to 
place them into jobs in competitive integrated employment that 
I'm doubtful they would have received without that opportunity 
to work.
    We have some folks that recently got placed in an ice cream 
store. We have somebody recently placed in a local food store. 
To us, I can talk about folks from the past that have worked in 
movie theaters, and other settings, and the skills that they've 
acquired from their 14(c) employment has allowed that to 
happen.
    And for some of them working in a hybrid manner where they 
split their time between the 14(c) environment, and competitive 
employment is exactly what they need to maintain sort of the 
higher level of supports that they get in 14(c) and also 
maintain the employment that they need outside. And we support 
them in both of those options.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Dr. Putts. I yield back Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Now Representative 
Mrvan you're recognized.
    Mr. Mrvan. Madam Chair thank you very much. I would like to 
thank all the witnesses. I have been in Congress as a freshman 
member for 7 months. One of the more memorable things that I'm 
going to take with me is John Anton. When you high-fived after 
your speech and celebrated doing such a phenomenal job.
    I want to commend you for all of that and for what you did 
and your contribution toward this. With that, my question is 
for Ms. Koppstein. In your written testimony you mentioned the 
importance of the effective job supports and accommodations in 
helping your daughter Monica succeed in her job at Costco.
    Can you say more about the specific supports and 
accommodations she has received and how they have helped her?
    Ms. Koppstein. Yes certainly. The reasonable accommodations 
that Monica has received actually because her job coach has 
educated Costco about who she is and has communicated about any 
needs that might arise. Just during the pandemic, during the 
beginning weeks of the pandemic when it was too chaotic, when 
people didn't know what to do, actually Monica took the 
benefits, vacation pay, and time off to stay out, but she 
returned to work immediately after that.
    And she was able to be assigned a work schedule early in 
the day when it's not so busy, and when she is usually more 
productive. In fact, Costco has assigned her work schedule to 
recognize that. Costco has allowed Monica to take frequent time 
off for doctor's visits, and also has exempted her from doing 
front end tasks, that are usually required of other front-end 
workers. For instance, she does not have to do shopping cart 
duties, which would be deemed too dangerous for her.
    She would not have to check membership cards at the front 
door, and they've tried to put her fold clothes and tidy up 
merchandise, but they found that was not the best suited skill. 
So she's really good at packing and unpacking merchandise into 
shopping cart, but that too was not something that she was born 
with.
    Her job coach had worked very hard with Monica to teach her 
this skill because among other things she has challenges in 
spatial planning. But she has prevailed. Someone in Monica's 
position is required to count the number of items in the 
shopping cart, but Monica is really not accurate in counting, 
and we're not talking about counting to 100, we're talking 
about counting to maybe 7 or so.
    As long as she can communicate and say that something is 
underneath the shopping cart. So some of those accommodations 
and flexibility have enabled Monica to thrive, and be 
successful in her job, along with the job support she's 
received.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Ms. Koppstein. Mr. Lewis how can 
competitive grants under the Transformation of Competitive 
Integrated Employment Act help 14(c) certificate holders 
leverage what they have learned about working with people with 
disabilities in an employment setting in order to shift to a 
focus on competitive integrated employment?
    Mr. Lewis. That's a very good question. I'd like to add to 
the description of the job that was just given. Again, this is 
learned. So even in the individual's inability to count to a 
specific number, you could set up a little jig that allows her 
to put the contents in a container that only allows for the 
specific number that you want.
    So I could brainstorm any number I guess, but I only do 
that because I've transitioned into my understanding of 
thinking out of the box and being creative around these 
employment options. The grants themselves will help us not only 
create an environment that the states who really want to invest 
in this and centers that want to invest in this, can continue 
to build on those learned behaviors, build on those best 
practices.
    But share them in a real way. I'll give a real quick 
example of something that I think is important here as well. As 
long as we continue to see people with disabilities that are so 
uniquely different that we can't relate to it, we will continue 
to feel that we need to take care of these less fortunates.
    But if you look at the research that the Office of 
Disability Employment policy has been doing to build on the 
customized employment strategies, customized employment is the 
strategy that is used to help people with significant 
disabilities get to work by engaging in what they call the 
discovery process, integration of job coaching, and supportive 
employment, and some job carving. All those sound like 
unfamiliar terms, but discovery is just what every--as an able-
bodied person if I weren't blind, I discover it every day 
because I had the opportunity to be engaged in different 
extracurricular activities.
    And even my first job at a grocery store had me 
experiencing a lot of different things, so I found out what I 
was good at what I liked, what I didn't like.
    Chairwoman Adams. We are out of time. OK. Well thank you 
very much. I want to yield now to Representative Fitzgerald, is 
Representative Fitzgerald on the platform?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you. Thank you very much Madam Chair. 
I just wanted to highlight after kind of thinking through some 
of the centers that could, and I'm not exactly positive on each 
one of the arrangements, but there are a number of them that 
are non-profits within my district.
    And so the question is there's kind of this misconception I 
think that employers are motivated by financial incentives, but 
the fact of the matter is I think the model could fall apart if 
in fact there was, you know, something less than just an 
incentive to increase those.
    So I'm wondering if Dr. Putts could comment on that part of 
it, because I'm worried, we could without any intention, do 
some damage here that maybe we're unaware of.
    Mr. Putts. I think it would, and you know I want to correct 
I guess some of the misconceptions if I could about the 
financial aspects of this, because I've heard a few even just 
today in terms of how the model works. There really is no 
financial incentive for an organization like Employment 
Horizons to have a 14(c) certificate.
    We don't make any additional money off of the contracts 
that we run by having one, in fact my 14(c) program in our 
workshop actually loses money. If we break even, we would 
consider that a pretty good year. The way that the payment 
actually works, and we've heard some of the misconceptions 
about that this morning, is that we know on average how long a 
particular task takes non-disabled folks to do, and just to 
make the math very easy, if we know that the average is 10 
widgets produced an hour, and the prevailing wage is $10.00 an 
hour, then each widget is worth $1.00.
    And so, you know the average productivity in our shop is 
somewhere between 20 and 25 percent at any given moment, and so 
the 14(c) certificate allows us that if we need to hire four or 
five individuals to complete 100 percent productivity work, we 
can go ahead and do that.
    We're still providing a more intense supervision than a 
regular employer in the community is, and so there's actually 
added costs for us in having a 14(c) certificate, but it's our 
mission to provide those employment opportunities, and so 
that's simply how we operate.
    And I do think, you know, when you talk about the more 
global model that with 14(c) if that were to go away, you would 
be losing both employment opportunities, and also these 
instructional and training opportunities for a large number of 
folks.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, very good. I mean my concern is just 
you know let's do no harm. And thank you very much. I'll yield 
back. Thank you to the Ranking Member, thank you.
    Mr. Keller. I appreciate that and you know just looking and 
following-up on that, I think it's important to realize, and 
Dr. Putts you mentioned the learning potential that people 
have, and what you do to help people develop skills that they 
can use.
    Maybe you can explain a little bit or elaborate a little 
bit on what you help people with.
    Mr. Putts. Absolutely. So a large part of working in any 
setting is developing the soft skills. It's things as simple as 
showing up to work on time, and how do you take feedback from a 
supervisor, and how do you work cooperatively. The things that 
we all learn from having work experiences, especially some of 
those first and early work experiences that we have.
    But it's also really important for organizations like ours 
to make sure that we are introducing individuals with 
disabilities to the world of work beyond the 14(c) setting, so 
one of the things that we do is we have a discovery or 
community program where we take individuals from our 14(c) 
settings out to local employers so that they can learn about 
jobs that exist in the community. Because if you have not had a 
lot of work experience, you may not realize the things that you 
see every day are actually jobs.
    We do job sampling, where we take folks from our 14(c) 
settings, and give them paid opportunities to try out jobs at 
local employers, and we learn a lot about what their skills 
are, they learn a lot about what they like and don't like in a 
work setting, which makes it easier then to place folks.
    And in fact, on a number of occasions those job samplings 
have turned into employment--competitive integrated employment 
for the clients that we serve. We do career counseling, career 
discovery, so that individuals might learn where their 
interests lie and the types of jobs that correspond to that.
    We hold a groups so that folks who are wanting to work 
together on things like developing interview skills, resume 
writing skills, how to find jobs that are of interest to you in 
the first place, and so you know there is a whole lot that goes 
into it beyond sort of what I think that people think 14(c) is.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate that insight and I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. We want to recognize 
Representative Bowman you are recognized sir five minutes.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much Madam Chair. My first 
question goes to Ms. Koppstein. Thank you so much for your 
testimony, which is a testament to your years of advocating for 
your daughter to ensure her voice was uplifted, particularly on 
the question of sheltered workshops.
    You also shared in your testimony that the recommendation 
to look into sheltered workshops came from your daughter's 
school transition team. I wanted to ask you what are your 
thoughts or recommendations for schools to consider when it 
comes to supporting students with disabilities and their 
families with transitioning from school to work?
    Ms. Koppstein. So WIOA from 2014 has recognized that pre-
employment transition service which could start as early as age 
14 in New Jersey would be one promising stick. And even though 
my daughter's school has already recognized that before WIOA, 
the most important transition from school to work activities 
would be to provide opportunities of job skills in authentic 
settings where students could learn skills in those integrated 
settings because then they would not have to unlearn the 
skills.
    Even if the students might be learning in the classroom, to 
transfer the learned skill from the classroom to outside of the 
classroom represents another learning stick. Another important 
aspect is to recognize the presumption that everyone has the 
ability, the presumption that everyone can work, rather than 
having to limit the growth, the learning growth in a straight 
line, by looking at work readiness skill.
    Now work readiness skill is important, however, if 
someone--a typical person is tested for his or her own work 
readiness skill, I would say that many of us would not be able 
to achieve what we've been able to, but people with 
disabilities, and many in the special education schools, and in 
sheltered workshops, are limited because they are not able to 
pass all of the job readiness skills that in fact are 
obstacles.
    So the presumption of ability to work is really key to the 
success.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Ms. Koppstein. Mr. Lewis, I would 
love for you to share your thoughts on the same question. What 
more can be happening in our K to 12 school settings to set up 
students with disabilities, and better prepare them for the 
world of work?
    Mr. Lewis. As I as alluding to earlier giving them the same 
experiences that our able-bodied students get. I think that one 
of the things that we talked about in our group was people with 
disabilities don't get opportunities to experience bad jobs, 
real bad jobs in the real world so they can understand what 
they like and what they don't like.
    And I want to be very clear. I'm not trying to throw out 
the baby with the bath water. I need to make sure everyone 
understands that all of the good things that we're talking 
about, even Dr. Putts has talked about, can be done without the 
14(c) certificate.
    When you introduce this 14(c) certificate, you can say 
you're doing these things in tandem, but I'll be honest with 
you, we had contracts to meet because of our subminimal wage 
environment, and we know it's time to get the new job club, but 
we had a contract that we needed these many widgets done by a 
certain timeframe, job club was usurped.
    And we put those people back in the workshop to make sure 
that we're able to deliver the products that we needed. The 
14(c) is just counter to what we need to be focusing our energy 
on, and the school systems using the 14(c) environments as 
training institutions is not right. We need to be doing more of 
what Dr. Putts says.
    Getting them out into the community looking at real jobs, 
getting an opportunity to see what they like, what they don't 
like, what they have the skills for, what they don't have the 
skills for.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. Madam Chair I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. All right. Thank you very much. 
Representative Thompson you're recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair thank you so much. Thank you to 
all the witnesses. This is an issue having spent my entire 
career working with individuals that were facing or living with 
life changing disease and disabilities. I really appreciate 
this hearing. Dr. Putts thank you for being here today.
    You know the Fair Labor Standards Act established the 
Federal minimum wage, overtime pay, child labor, recordkeeping 
and other wage and hourly standards for nearly 143 million 
Americans.
    As you know, Section 14(c) of this legislation authorizes 
the Secretary of Labor to provide special certificates, more 
commonly referred to as 14(c) certificates for certain workers 
whose capacity is impaired living with physical or cognitive-
intellectual disability, at wages lower than the Federal 
minimal wage.
    And as of April 1, 2021, the Department of Labor listed 
more than 600 employers with an issue 14(c) certificate, paying 
nearly 40,000 workers a subminimum wage and almost 700 
employers with a pending 14(c) certificate application. In my 
congressional district many employers utilize the 14(c) 
certificate program, including the Cambria County Association 
for the Blind, the Venango Training and Development Center, ICW 
Vocational Services in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Progressive 
Workshop of Armstrong County, among others.
    These employers have argued for the continuation of this 
program citing that it provides employment opportunities for 
individuals with disabilities who would not otherwise find 
employment. You know 14(c) is not just about receiving a 
paycheck, this is about the power and the dignity of work.
    It has always been my opinion that work gives dignity to 
individuals, and these certificates offer individuals with 
disabilities, living with disabilities, a chance to contribute 
in the workforce, engage with other workers, have that social 
network, and to develop new skills.
    However, my colleagues across the aisle are considering 
H.R. 2373, which aims to eliminate this program entirely 
forcing people with disabilities out of the labor market. And 
while I can support, and always supported giving individuals 
the opportunity to earn more money, this should not come at the 
expensive of eliminating opportunities for others.
    HR 2373 within that, by eliminating 14(c) this will be 
based on my work experience, and my observations today spending 
a lot of time in these settings, this is going to result in 
pushing many individuals with significant disabilities over the 
poverty cliff, threatening the very safety net benefits that 
they rely upon.
    So instead, what we should be doing, and this comes down to 
the fact that it is the Secretary of Labor that grants these 
waivers. We should focus on how the department oversees and 
implements this program. We should be doing our job as a 
committee of oversight with the Secretary of Labor in order to 
make sure that they raise their standards and allow these 
individuals to thrive in the workplace.
    Where there's a problem, there's a violation of the law 
that already exists today. So Dr. Putts, I wanted to reiterate 
what my colleague from Virginia said earlier. In November 2019, 
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights received nearly 10,000 
public comments when soliciting opinions on the future of the 
14(c) program, 98 percent commenting that the 14(c) program 
should be maintained.
    This clearly shows how we should look for other ways to 
improve the program and not eradicate it all together. So Dr. 
Putts in your opinion, does H.R. 2373 respect the ability of 
individuals with disabilities to select an employment setting 
that meets their needs?
    Mr. Putts. So I think it clearly does not based on those 
figures. 98 percent of the comments like you said were in favor 
of 14(c). If we're to judge 2373 in light of those comments, 
then it's not matching the feedback that the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights received, and in my opinion self-determination and 
choice have to be the underpinning of any good system of 
employment for people with disabilities.
    And what H.R. 2373 does is take away certain choices. 
There's clearly not an insignificant number of people with 
disabilities who want to maintain 14(c) options, and I sort of 
reject the attitude that others know what's best for them, 
instead of allowing them to make those choices.
    I also appreciate your comment on fixing things when there 
are errors, as opposed to trying to you know sort of throw 
apart the whole system. Some of the examples that we've heard 
this morning are definitely not best practice, or things that 
employers with 14(c) certificates should not have done, but if 
there are folks operating out there that are not operating 
appropriately with a 14(c) certificate, then we need to address 
that as opposed to deciding that the entire program, you know, 
doesn't work.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Dr., Madam Chair if I may, before 
I conclude I'd like to submit two letters for the record. The 
first is from the Venango Training and Development Center 
located in my congressional District. The second letter is from 
the Rehabilitation and the Community Providers Association. 
Both letters outline the impact of eliminating the 14(c) 
certificate program.
    Chairwoman Adams. So noted thank you. OK. Thank you very 
much. Representative Cawthorn you're recognized for five 
minutes sir.
    Mr. Cawthorn. Thank you very much Madam Chair. The facts 
are abundantly clear. The Biden administration's policy and 
exorbitant unemployment benefits has been counterproductive, 
and the American workforce has stalled in returning to work. 
Our local businesses need safe, effective labor in order to 
kickstart our economy.
    If there was ever a time to work on disability pay, now is 
the time after a global pandemic, and where businesses need 
workers more than ever. Now I personally do not believe in any 
form of Federal minimum wage, but if there is going to be a 
minimum wage, you should treat all citizens as equal under the 
law.
    The strength of human dignity is fully realized in a good 
job and a firm work ethic. Given the right resources and 
building on existing programs we can transition capable 
employees into our workforce. I urge my colleagues to consider 
this legislation and with that I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. All right thank you sir. Let's see. The 
Representative Steel, are you on the platform? Mrs. Steel 
you're recognized five minutes, OK.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you for all the 
witnesses for testifying today, and I really appreciate it and 
staying long hours. And I just want to have a question to Dr. 
Putts. Hopefully everyone agrees that individuals with 
disabilities should have access to employment opportunities and 
Congress should empower people to make the best choice for 
themselves.
    Should we respect the abilities of individuals with 
disabilities to select an employment setting that best meets 
their needs? Who should make that decision? Should the Congress 
take away options available to individuals with disabilities?
    Mr. Putts. Thank you for that question. You know as 
somebody who works in the vocational rehabilitation field, 
choice is really the primary thing that we support. And all of 
us get to make choices about the employment settings that we 
work in, and so people with disabilities really should not be 
treated any differently by Congress or any other organization.
    And so I think it's important that we recognize that there 
are people that may make a choice that is different than the 
one that we would make, or that we might make for a family 
member, and that we have to preserve that wide range of 
choices. And so I don't think the 2373 allows for that.
    And everyone's situation really is so different that we 
have to allow them, and in conjunction with their family and 
other support of others to make the choice for the situation 
that best fits their needs.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you for that answer. I have a second 
question. If someone in California loses the ability to use 
Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, can 
organizations like yours Employment Horizons, successfully 
transition everyone to another opportunity in a competitive 
integrated employment setting?
    Mr. Putts. So that what we've seen so far suggests no. 
There are certainly individuals that could and would be 
transitioned into competitive integrated employment, I don't 
believe they would be working the same number of hours that 
they are now, and ultimately, they would probably earn less pay 
overall, but certain folks would be able to be placed in 
competitive integrated employment.
    My fear is that there's a large number, and some folks also 
would take advantage of the opportunity either to retire, or to 
move into you know day programs due to age or other factors, so 
who I worry about are the folks that are in the middle, the 
clients we serve that are not going to be able to be placed in 
the competitive, integrative employment, or who don't want 
competitive, integrative employment, and the folks that want to 
do more, or want to continue working and don't want to be in a 
day program or retire, and those are the individuals that I 
really worry about in this situation.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. And thank you. Let me recognize the Chair 
of the full committee, Representative Scott, you are recognized 
sir.
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair thank you for this hearing. First, 
I'd like to introduce a letter for the record, and I'm just 
going to introduce the letter for the record from 
Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers in support of the 
legislation.
    Chairwoman Adams. So noted, thank you.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Lewis for the people that are 
presently on 14(c) certificate, how can wrap around services, 
supportive employment, job coaches, allow transformation to 
competitive, integrated employment?
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you for that question because it allows me 
to elaborate that that's the only time that the individuals 
really do have an opportunity for real choice. We've been 
talking about choice, but in the example that was given, about 
the individual who went to that competitive integrated work 
environment and said that as a result of some circumstance 
related to her disability, she went back to the shelter 
workshop.
    Again, it's easy to use that as an example without taking 
into consideration that we put in place the proper job coaching 
to help her be able to be productively employed in that 
environment, that we provide the wrap around services that 
include not only supports on the job, but also in her home life 
that allowed her to do this, that would have reduced, or even 
eliminated the subsequent impact that the seizures, or whatever 
happened.
    There doesn't seem to be a legitimacy in saying that those 
same supports that were provided in a segregated environment 
could not have provided in a competitive integrated work 
environment. And once you get an opportunity to be exposed to 
all those supports in that opportunity, I think that it's 
common knowledge that anybody on this committee would make the 
choice to be in a more integrated work environment, making a 
better wage, hopefully with better benefits.
    I don't see how anyone could say that that choice would be 
different.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Lewis are you aware of any programs that 
give wage subsidies to help bring up the pay?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. I mean I could give many examples. The one 
that speaks to my heart is when my brother was employed at the 
workshop in Georgia. Not only was he given kind of a wage 
subsidy because they were saying that they wanted to make sure 
he didn't lose his social security benefits. In those instances 
where his productivity did end up based on that flawed 
commensurate wage formula, make more than he was eligible for.
    What they would do is they would put money back to actually 
reduce his income. Never even give him the opportunity to make 
enough money to escape public assistance.
    Mr. Scott. Well, if you can give us, provide for the record 
those kinds of programs we'd appreciate it.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes sir.
    Mr. Scott. Dr. Putts one of the problems we have with this 
issue is that the Supreme Court has spoken with the Olmstead 
decision about getting people into the least restrictive 
environment. The Americans With Disabilities Act has prohibited 
discrimination. Disability advocates coming to a consensus that 
14(c) is obsolete.
    In fact, several states have just eliminated 14(c) 
altogether, and the number of 14(c) certificates is going down. 
And so one problem we have is that the debate seems to be, if 
it's not over already, it's on the way to being over. You 
indicated that you shouldn't end it without a reasonable 
replacement. How does this legislation serve as a reasonable 
replacement for 14(c)?
    Mr. Putts. Well unfortunately, I don't think this 
legislation does service as a reasonable replacement for 14(c).
    Mr. Scott. OK. And in that case what provisions would be 
necessary to serve as a replacement?
    Mr. Putts. You know I can give you some of my sense, but 
this might go beyond my expertise here. One of the things that 
certainly could be looked at is subsidized wages so that 
organizations like Employment Horizons could pay the individual 
with the disability the prevailing rate, or the minimum rate 
wage the individual then earn a full wage and hopefully be able 
to come off of other forms of public assistance, but without 
making it impossible for organizations like ours to continue 
operating.
    My issue with 2373 as it stands, and I want to be clear is 
I want individuals with disabilities to earn as much as they 
possibly can, and to have as much career mobility as they 
possibly can. I just don't think that we're in a situation, at 
least a situation yet where we can do that by simply shutting 
down 14(c).
    And this legislation puts money into states, in 
disseminating information and best practices, but the ultimate 
reality is that right now employers have access to individuals 
with disabilities, and yet only 20 percent or so of individuals 
with disabilities are in the labor force, and so it's not that 
employers don't have access to these individuals, we need--
we're looking at grant funding to change the hearts and minds 
of employers, and I don't think grant funding can do that.
    Mr. Scott. OK. Thank you. Mr. Lewis both Ranking Members of 
both Subcommittees and Dr. Putts have indicated that if we 
eliminate 14(c) there will be some people that won't be 
choosing between $2.00 an hour or $7.25 an hour, but they will 
be choosing between $2.50 an hour, or they'll lose their job.
    What happens to people that cannot get into competitive 
integrated employment if 14(c) is eliminated?
    Mr. Lewis. So first I'd like to offer the perceived impact 
that eliminating 14(c), and again we're not eliminating, we're 
phasing out the use of it, that it would have on the employment 
rate. Well, the Act was introduced in 1938, and the employment 
rate of people with disabilities has hovered--unemployment rate 
has hovered around 75 to 80 percent for these many years, 
except for the last few, where there has been an increase in 
the employment rate for disabilities.
    So 14(c) existed in those years. The only thing that's 
really changed is the move toward eliminating the use of 14(c), 
toward engaging in competitive integrated employment 
strategies, so I think that's important to note. And I'm sorry 
I went to that without answering your question if you could----
    Mr. Scott. Well what happens? What could we do for those 
who may lose their job?
    Mr. Lewis. So what we need to understand is that 80 percent 
that's unemployed now, they're the ones who are currently being 
adversely impacted because 14(c) exists. It shapes the minds, 
paradigms, and perception of employers around the capacity of 
people with disabilities. But we see now that those individuals 
who have been unemployed are gradually becoming employed in the 
competitive integrated environments.
    I think that it self-signals that we're on the right path. 
We're moving forward toward the right trajectory.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Grothman was a member of the full committee, but not a member 
of either of these Subcommittees is joining us today. And he's 
requested to waive on to the Subcommittee and to ask questions 
of the witnesses, so Mr. Grothman you are now recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I can't think of a bill I have 
more of an interest in this session, and it's not a positive 
one. I like our Chairman, but first of all I'd like to make a 
statement before I begin my questioning. I'd like to submit the 
following documents into the record.
    A statement of support of 14(c) and a full array of 
employment choices for individuals with disabilities from a 
disability service providers network, a statement in opposition 
to 2373, the Transformation to Competitive Integrated 
Employment Act from the A Team, a great grass roots advocacy 
organization.
    And finally, a constituent and my constituent friend Yael 
Kerzan, her personal story of her experience working both in 
the community and with her CRP called Northwoods.
    Chairwoman Adams. So noted.
    Mr. Grothman. So thank you. Now I would also beg members of 
the committee before we ever take any vote on this, to 
personally tour some of these facilities themselves. I have 10 
in my district. I don't know how anybody could tour these 
facilities and see how happy the employees are to have a 30 or 
35 hour a week job like their siblings and friends.
    To get rid of it I just think you're taking such a 
wonderful choice away from people, and I think it's quite 
frankly anti-helping these people to have Big Brother come in 
and say you can't have that option. I have talked to people who 
moved to something in the community, either that job is a 6 of 
7-hour job instead of a 30-hour job, or they just don't like it 
because they like so much the current settings.
    And it is so arrogant to force these people to work in the 
community when they would prefer to work in these facilities. 
And I beg other members of the committee to tour these 
facilities in their district.
    Now Dr. Putts a couple things, we have been told by one of 
the other committee members that people want to get out of 
these facilities and everyone would rather work in the 
community. I don't find that true when I talk to people. I find 
people who worked in the community and regret it, and want to 
get back, but I want you to comment on that quickly.
    Mr. Putts. And I'll go back to everyone is an individual. 
There are absolutely folks that are very happy working in a 
14(c) setting and wish to remain there, and there are folks who 
have aspirations for competitive integrated employment, and it 
is 100 percent our job to help them reach that when that is 
their goal.
    Mr. Grothman. Is there a difference do you think a little 
bit between people with physical disabilities and more mental 
disabilities?
    Mr. Putts. And again, everyone with a disability is so 
different, so there is a definite difference between 
intellectual and developmental disabilities which is 
predominantly who we serve.
    Mr. Grothman. Next question I have, and I think it's going 
to be particularly a big problem for people with mental 
disabilities, but next when they say we've found employment for 
people, one of the things that I find is that they exaggerate, 
because someone goes from a 35 hour a week job to a 6 hour a 
week job, and they say, ``Ah ha, we found a job in the 
community.'' And the rest of the time you're babysit in a 
daycare setting.
    And people know very well that they lost their job, and 
they're miserable, and I think to count finding a 6-or 7-hour 
job to replace a 35-hour job is just so unfair. I'd like you to 
comment on that.
    Mr. Putts. Yes, and it's not a replacement. It's certainly 
an interesting opportunity for someone, you know competitive 
integrated employment is always a worthy goal for individuals, 
but 6 hours doesn't replace 30.
    Mr. Grothman. Right, it's just so dishonest. I'm going to 
say too, I think frequently you find a 6-and 7-hour job, it's 
not only a different job for the employee, it's a different job 
for the employer. I find a lot of employers in my district when 
they do offer the 6 or 7 an hour week thing, they do it as 
charity all the way. They're not getting a lot out of that 
employee, the employee knows it, but we created an expectation 
in our society, which is wonderful, and that a lot of employees 
feel it's their goal as a good citizen to in essence kind of 
sadly babysit this person for 6 and 7 hours a job.
    And that's fine and it's wonderful to be out in the 
community, but I sometimes think certain advocates miss that. 
Do you feel that's the attitude of some of the private sector 
employers that they view it as more of a charity than we found 
this employee?
    Mr. Putts. I think a lot of employers want to do what they 
consider to be the right thing, that they want a diverse 
workforce, and I think increasingly understanding that people 
with disabilities are part of a diverse workforce is becoming 
more common. But at the same time if the position made sense at 
more than 6 or 7 hours, then I'd like to think the employer 
would offer the position.
    Mr. Grothman. That's exactly right. I find that again and 
again, people hired for 6 or 7 hours a week, and everybody says 
how wonderful it is, but miraculously the employer says how 
wonderful that is, that employer never moves up to 14 or 15 
hours a week. There's a reason for it. Do you feel that people 
have more job security in the formally called workshops than 
they do out in the community?
    Another thing that concerns me is you know businesses open 
and close, and consistency and security is so important for 
that population. I find frequently, and people get jobs in the 
community, restaurant work is common. Restaurants open and 
close.
    Chairwoman Adams. You're out of time, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you much. I again beg members of the 
committee to tour these facilities in their district, thank you 
very much.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Let me quickly 
recognize Representative Stevens.
    Ms. Stevens. OK thank you Chair Adams and thank you Chair 
Bonamici, and of course Chairman of the full committee Mr. 
Scott as well as our just incredible witnesses. This hearing 
was not only informative, it was essential. And as we look at 
Section 14(c) of the FLSA which allows employers to apply for 
special certificates from the Department of Labor to pay 
individuals with disabilities less than the Federal minimum 
wage.
    We've heard a lot today about how changing the law would be 
cumbersome for the businesses. It would be cumbersome for the 
businesses, except for they're still going through an 
application process to pay less. And what we heard through our 
remarkable testimony from Mr. Anton, from Ms. Koppstein to Mr. 
Lewis here, it's absolutely remarkable that in the year 2021 
this is still going on.
    This is still going on. We have places in Michigan in my 
district, some of the gold standards for adult higher ed 
learning for the disability community, from Visions Unlimited, 
to the Learning Enrichment Center located at the Novi 
Northfield border that's focused on not leaving behind human 
talent.
    And yet the value that we are placing on this talent is 
less than in the year 2021. So yes, this hearing couldn't be 
more essential for us here today. As we are balancing some very 
profound considerations with workforce development, a 
constrained labor market, and on.
    Mr. Lewis, in particular, in the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act which requires vocational rehabilitation 
agencies to provide career counseling and other services to 
youth with disabilities before they can be employed at 
sheltered workshops, which is a term that I don't even know why 
we are using, frankly. I don't even like that term in the 
United States of America.
    Based on your observations, to what extent Mr. Lewis, and 
how effectively has the counseling requirement been 
implemented?
    Mr. Lewis. The counseling requirement is only going to be 
as good as the professional's knowledge of what the true 
opportunities are, which was one of our concerns when we were 
looking at passing the reauthorization. I'm so pleased that the 
Workforce Integration Opportunity Act recognized that that 
transition aid is crucial.
    And we need to set high expectations for our students with 
disabilities to strive for the same goals as everyone else 
regardless of what society feels their capacity is, we have 
proven strategies, interventions and supports that makes it 
possible for them to be in the same environment with the peers 
that hopefully they're engaging in the school systems.
    This is pivotal that we need to do that, but if there are 
individuals--and again, I was one of these individuals that is 
advising these people that 14(c) is a viable option, and my 
arrogance was that I thought I knew what was best, but luckily 
for me I was open minded, and people who proved to me over and 
over again that the ceiling that I had placed on these people, 
the limitations that I had placed on these people were false 
and wrong.
    Once I broke through that ceiling, then they were able to 
get those to access those true opportunities. So I think that's 
what's important. The counseling has to be supported through 
individuals that have the knowledge and the belief in the 
capacity that these students can be competitive.
    Ms. Stevens. Great, thank you so much and I know we are 
over on our hearing time, but just allow me again to thank you 
for your work, to thank you for your testimony. God bless you 
and your families, Mr. Lewis, Ms. Koppstein and Mr. Anton, you 
are remarkable individuals and part of the progress that we are 
making for the people in the 117th legislative session of the 
U.S. House of Representatives. Thank you Madam Chair and I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. And thank you, thank you very much. And 
let me remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice 
materials for submission for the record hearing must be 
submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days following the 
last day of the hearing, so by the close of business on August 
4, preferably in Microsoft Word format.
    The materials submitted must address the subject matter of 
the hearing. Only a member of the joint Subcommittee, or an 
invited witness may submit materials for inclusion in the 
hearing record. Documents are limited to 50 pages, no longer 
than 50 pages, or documents longer than 50 pages will be 
incorporated into the record via internet link that you must 
provide the clerk within the requirement timeframe.
    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 submissions to [email protected].
    Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their 
participation today. Members of the joint Subcommittee may have 
some additional questions for you, and we ask the witnesses to 
please respond to those in writing. The hearing record will be 
held open for 14 days in order to receive those responses.
    I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee 
practice witness questions for the hearing record must be 
submitted to the Majority Committee Staff by Committee Clerk 
within 7 days. The questions submitted must address the subject 
matter of the hearing.
    I want to recognize the distinguished Chair of the CRHS 
Subcommittee Ranking Member, I'm sorry the Chair of the 
committee, the Ranking Member for a closing statement, that's 
Representative Keller, Representative McClain? Representative 
Keller OK, thank you sir, go ahead you're recognized.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'd like to thank 
the witnesses for your testimony today, and for being here to 
help us understand more about your experiences. The hearing 
made one thing clear--both democrats and republicans want 
people with disabilities to reach their fullest potential.
    While we may disagree about potential public policy 
changes, I hope we can agree that we should avoid actions here 
in Washington, DC. that foreclose opportunities for our 
constituents. Sadly, H.R. 2373 would have many potentially 
detrimental consequences for workers with disabilities, and I 
do not believe my democratic colleagues take these downstream 
costs seriously.
    And I am not alone. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record three letters and two statements, all 
supporting the 14(c) program. The first letter is from the 
Rehabilitation and Community Providers Association in 
Pennsylvania.
    The second letter is from members of the Missouri 
congressional Delegation to congressional Leadership. The third 
letter is from Rep Vicky Hartzler to the Chair of the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights. The first of the two statements is 
from Project CU Incorporated in St. Louis, Missouri, and the 
second is from Access in Washington, DC.
    Chairwoman Adams. So noted.
    Mr. Keller. And additionally, I would ask unanimous consent 
to enter into the record documents for Mr. Grothman.
    Chairwoman Adams. Yes, so noted.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you. All of these statements and letters 
for the record plead with Congress to protect the over 100,000 
14(c) employees from becoming unemployed. Let me be clear, 
republicans support the ability of individuals with 
disabilities to work in a setting of their choice, reaching 
their fullest potential, including under 14(c) certificates.
    Eliminating 14(c) is wrong. People with disabilities find 
meaning in these jobs, and it's heartbreaking that democrats 
want to take that away from them. I want to help individuals 
with disabilities find the best and highest paying jobs 
possible for their unique circumstances.
    I thank you, thank the witnesses and I appreciate the 
helpful testimony. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I want to recognize now the 
distinguished Chair of the Civil Rights and Human Services 
Subcommittee, Chair Bonamici for your closing statement.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much Chair Adams. And 
thank you again to our witnesses for your insight, for your 
expertise, really sharing your stories with us. It really makes 
a difference. And as we heard today clearly, the 14(c) 
subminimum wage is a relic of an era when employers were 
legally permitted to discriminate against individuals with 
disabilities in the workplace.
    That era is long over. Since the passage of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938, Congress has taken several historic 
steps to make sure that children with disabilities have access 
to free and appropriate education. That people with development 
disabilities can access services and individualized support, 
and that all Americans with disabilities have equal 
opportunities.
    And despite this progress workers with disabilities in some 
states continue to legally be paid less than $2.00 an hour. 
It's unacceptable. Now we have the ability to rectify this 
injustice by passing the Transformation and Competitive 
Employment Act we can protect the Civil Rights of workers with 
disabilities and join states across the country in supporting 
workers with disabilities and helping them succeed in 
competitive and integrated work.
    So thank you again to our witnesses, and I yield back now 
to Chair Adams.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you Chair Bonamici. I want to 
recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of the Civil Rights 
and Human Services Subcommittee, Ranking Member McClain, you're 
recognized for your closing statement now.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I said during my 
question time Members of Congress must not let our passions get 
the best of us. We need to evaluate legislation using facts. 
Feelings are not important in determining legislation, but our 
constituents care more about how our actions, actions affect 
them, then they do about how we felt about our vote.
    And the facts show that democrats will eliminate jobs for 
individuals with disability if they pass H.R. 2373. Dr. Putts 
acknowledged some 14(c)(3) employees may secure competitive 
integrated employment, but a majority--a majority of them will 
not. Eliminating job opportunities is not why our constituents 
sent us to Congress.
    Democrats' attempt to institute a one size fits all 
competitive integrated employment world, ignores the legitimate 
instances when 14(c)(3) environment is appropriate. The 
democrats' bill will also fail to consider other important 
entity in the equation--employers.
    Businesses do not have unlimited resources, and not all of 
them will be able to afford to offer individuals with 
disabilities a position on staff if the democrats' proposal is 
enacted. I believe current law offers individuals with 
disabilities the chance to contribute, engage with other 
workers, and develop new skills. There is dignity in work, and 
no amount of taxpayer funding can change the fact that H.R. 
2373 will strip this dignity away from too many workers.
    We must respect workers' choices. We must make sure 
different workers have different work environments to pick 
from. We must carefully weigh the evidence, and the facts do 
not support the democrats' position. Thank you to all of the 
witnesses for your contributions today. I wish you the absolute 
very best, and thank you Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. And thank you. I want to recognize myself 
now for the purpose of making my closing statement. Thank you 
all for an engaging conversation. Thank you to our witnesses 
for sharing your expertise and advocacy. Today's discussions 
and expert testimony reaffirms our responsibility to not only 
end the 14(c) subminimum wage, but also to help providers and 
workers with disabilities transition to competitive integrated 
employment.
    As we heard many states and cities across the country have 
already taken the initiative to phaseout the 14(c) subminimum 
wage. Integrated workplaces in these states prove that with the 
necessary investments it's possible to create an inclusive 
workforce in which all workers can meaningfully contribute to 
their communities.
    And this is why we must pass Federal legislation, including 
the Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act, to 
ensure that all working Americans with disabilities are given 
the tools that they need to succeed in our economy.
    And finally, I'm submitting two statements for the record. 
One from the National Council on Disability, an independent 
Federal agency that has recommended the phaseout of 14(c) since 
2012. And one from Melwood, a non-profit employer of people 
with disabilities that stopped using 14(c) certificates 5 years 
ago and has been a leading voice for the transformation to 
competitive integrated employment ever since. Without objection 
so ordered.
    Chairwoman Adams. The letter from the NCD's Chair states 
that the Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment, 
H.R. 2373 would provide, ``Safe and individual providers with 
resources from subject matter experts in order to transform 
their business and program models away from the outdated 
subminimum wage model and into a new model that supports 
opportunities to enter competitive integrated employment.''
    The letter from CEO of Melwood states that, ``As one of the 
largest employers of people with disabilities on the east 
coast, and as an employer that formerly held a 14(c) 
certificate, we firmly believe Congress should act to end the 
use of these certificates and embrace the future of disability 
employment policy that acknowledges all the work over the past 
many decades to improve opportunities for people to live, work 
and to play in their communities.
    As so as we approach the anniversary of the ADA next week, 
this is a timely moment to take stock of how we move past this 
antiquated provision of the FLSA, and work to achieve the goals 
of the ADA by committing to opportunities for competitive 
integrated employment for people with disabilities.
    If there is no further business, then without objection the 
joint Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    [Additional submissions by Chairman Scott follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    [Additional submission by Ranking Member Foxx follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    [Additional submissions by Mr. Keller follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    [Additional submissions by Mr. Grothman follow:]
  
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
   
    
    [Additional submissions by Mr. Thompson follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by 
Mr. Lewis follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    [Question submitted for the record and the responses by 
Mr. Putts follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    [Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Subcommittees were 
adjourned.]