[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.]