[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  UNLEASHING AMERICA'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
                           HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 28, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-2

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


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

                               __________
                               

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-660 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania             Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
JIM BANKS, Indiana                     Northern Mariana Islands
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY MILLER, Illinois                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RON ESTES, Kansas                    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
AARON BEAN, Florida                  ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on March 28, 2023...................................     1

Statement of Members:
    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and 
      the Workforce..............................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' , Ranking Member, Committee 
      on 
      Education and the Workforce................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:
    Akers, Jerry, Small Business Owner and Franchisee, Palo, IA, 
      on Behalf of International Franchise Association...........    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30
    Moore, Stephen, Distinguished Fellow in Economics, The 
      Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC........................    53
        Prepared statement of....................................    56
    Shierholz, Heidi, President, Economic Policy Institute.......    39
        Prepared statement of....................................    42
    Spear, Chris, President and CEO of the American Trucking 
      Associations...............................................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10

Additional Submissions:
    Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon:
        Letter submitted by the AAFD dated December 7, 2022......   111
    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico:
        Report from the Economic Policy Institute dated March 14, 
          2023...................................................   117
    Questions submitted for the record by:
        Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
          the State of Pennsylvania 

       Mclain, Hon. Lisa, a Representative in Congress from the 
          State of Michigan 

    Response to question submitted for the record by:
        Mr. Spear................................................   135
        Mr. Akers................................................   137
        Mr. Moore................................................   140

 
      UNLEASHING AMERICA'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, March 28, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:28 a.m., 2175 
House Rayburn Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx, (Chairwoman of the 
Committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Foxx, Walberg, Grothman, Allen, 
Banks, Comer, Smucker, Owens, Good, Miller, Kiley, Bean, 
Burlison, Williams, Houchin, Scott, Courtney, Sablan, Bonamici, 
Adams, DeSaulnier, Jayapal, Wild, McBath, Hayes, Stevens, Leger 
Fernandez, Manning and Mrvan.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, Chief Counsel; 
Jackson Berryman, Speechwriter; Michael Davis, Legislative 
Assistant; Tyler Dufrene, Research Assistant; Cate Dillon, 
Director of Operations; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; 
Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Taylor 
Hittle, Professional Staff Member; Alex Knorr, Staff Assistant; 
Trey Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; Andrew Kuzy, Press 
Assistant; Marek Laco, Professional Staff Member; John Martin, 
Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/Counsel; Hannah Matesic, 
Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Audra McGeorge, 
Communications Director; Ben Ridder, Professional Staff Member; 
Kelly Tyroler, Professional Staff Member; Seth Waugh, Director 
of Workforce Policy; Joe Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; 
Kevin McDermott, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Jessica 
Schieder, Minority Economic Policy Advisor; Scott Estrada, 
Minority Professional Staff; Kyle deCant, Minority Labor Policy 
Counsel; Bob Shull, Minority Labor Policy Staff; Ilana Brunner, 
Minority General Counsel; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director; 
Kota Mizutani, Minority Deputy Communication Director; Sam 
Varie, Minority Press Secretary.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The Committee on Education and the 
Workforce will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess at 
any time. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's 
hearing.
    Our room this session seems to be plagued by all kinds of 
problems. Our IT area was flooded, and so that's why we have 
temporary mics, temporary cameras, and so today the air-
conditioning is not working, so we have some real issues, and 
I'll just ask everybody to bear with us on things we have 
absolutely no control over.
    One of the most troubling consequences of pandemic related 
closers and the left's failing policies, the decline of 
America's workforce. The Democrats controlled the House for 
three years of the pandemic and its aftermath. They oversaw the 
greatest spending spree by any nation in world history.
    When inevitable economic hardship followed, the American 
people had questions that deserved answers from the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce. What did the Democrat's 
oversight look like? In the 116th and 117th Congresses, 
Committee Democrats did not once conduct oversight of their 
economic shutdowns or the implications for our workforce.
    Did Democrats hold a hearing on inflation? The single 
greatest concern for the plurality of Americans? Never. How 
many times did Committee Democrats hold a hearing to address 
directly the nationwide supply chain disruption? Zero times. In 
response to the single, sharpest spike of unemployment in the 
21st Century the Democrat controlled Committee chose to hold 
hearings in support of closing Main Street small businesses, 
padding the pockets of big labor union bosses, and advocating 
for increased Federal spending and pandemic giveaways.
    In fact, Democrats have doubled down on attempts to 
eliminate opportunities for workers to choose how, when and 
where they work. The consequences of this job killing agenda 
are preventing small business owners and entrepreneurs from 
putting more Americans back to work.
    Instead of making the workforce system more responsive to 
worker and employer needs, Democrats push one size fits all 
registered apprenticeships while shuttering the industry 
recognized apprenticeship program. According to a National 
Association of Manufacturers survey, more than 62 percent of 
manufacturing leaders thought the U.S. economy would officially 
enter a recession in 2023.
    In February, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, NFIB, reported that expectations for better business 
conditions remained low. I, for one, am not shocked that the 
American public lost faith in Democrats to handle the economy. 
You'll hear arguments today from the other side that downplays 
the seriousness of the challenges we face and continue to face. 
Charitably put, they are inaccurate.
    To dispel just a few. While the unemployment figure is low, 
it doesn't paint a full picture. Millions exited the workforce 
during the pandemic. The economy has not recovered, and the 
workforce participation still lags behind pre-pandemic rates. 
All the while too many businesses are struggling to fill the 
nearly 11 million open positions.
    NFIB reported that inflation is the single most important 
problem facing its members. In June, inflation reached 9.1 
percent, the highest level since December 1981. More recently, 
the inflation rate has slowed and is now closer to the 
conditions experienced in the summer of 1982 and the winter of 
1990, but these times are better known for their economic 
downturns.
    In short, Democrats have created conditions for future 
unemployment through massive spending and increased 
regulations. Forcibly increasing union participation will not 
give this country a stronger workforce. Washington should not 
be in the business of picking winners and losers in our 
economy.
    Whether it be through overturning every right-to-work law 
in the country, eliminating independent contracting, 
jeopardizing franchise businesses, or rewarding union bosses 
with unchecked power by acquiescing to every item on their wish 
list. House Republicans were given a mandate by the American 
people to offer an alternative vision for our economy.
    We'll put forward solutions to reduce unnecessary 
regulations, control spending, offer more Americans 
opportunities for skills development, and remove impediments to 
hiring. Skills-based education is one pathway to prepare 
students for the job market. By increasing work-based learning 
opportunities and extending the Pell Grant to short-term high-
quality programs. We can help workers get the skills they need 
for lifelong success.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. With 
that, I yield to Ranking Member Scott for his opening remarks.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]

  Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Committee on Education 
                           and the Workforce

    One of the most troubling consequences of pandemic-related closures 
and the Left's failing polices: The decline of America's workforce.
    The Democrats controlled the House for 3 years of the pandemic and 
its aftermath. They oversaw the greatest spending spree by any nation 
in world history. When inevitable economic hardship followed, the 
American people had questions that deserved answers from the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
    What did the Democrats' oversight look like?
    In the 116th and 117th Congress, Committee Democrats did not once 
conduct oversight of their economic shutdowns or the implications for 
our workforce.
    Did Democrats hold a hearing on inflation--the single greatest 
concern for a plurality of Americans?
    Never.
    How many times did Committee Democrats hold a hearing to address 
directly the nationwide supply chain disruption?
    Zero times.
    In response to the single sharpest spike of unemployment in the 
21st century, the Democrat-controlled Committee chose to hold hearings 
in support of closing Main Street small businesses, padding the pockets 
of Big Labor union bosses, and advocating for increased Federal 
spending in pandemic giveaways. In fact, Democrats have doubled down on 
attempts to eliminate opportunities for workers to choose when, where, 
and how they work. The consequences of this job-killing agenda are 
preventing small business owners and entrepreneurs from putting more 
Americans back to work. Instead of making the workforce system more 
responsive to worker and employer needs, Democrats pushed one-size-
fits-all Registered Apprenticeships while shuttering the Industry-
Recognized Apprenticeship Program.
    According to a National Association of Manufacturers survey, more 
than 62 percent of manufacturing leaders thought the U.S. economy would 
officially enter a recession in 2023. In February, the National 
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reported that expectations 
for better business conditions remain low. I, for one, am not shocked 
that the American public lost faith in Democrats to handle the economy.
    You will hear arguments today from the other side that downplay the 
seriousness of the challenges we faced and continue to face. Charitably 
put, they are inaccurate.
    To dispel just a few:
    While the unemployment figure is low, it doesn't paint a full 
picture. Millions exited the workforce during the pandemic. The economy 
has not recovered, and workforce participation still lags behind pre-
pandemic rates. All the while, too many businesses are struggling to 
fill the nearly 11 million open positions.
    NFIB reported that inflation is the single most important problem 
facing its members. In June, inflation reached 9.1 percent-the highest 
level since December 1981. More recently, the inflation rate has slowed 
and is now closer to the conditions experienced in summer of 1982 and 
the winter of 1990-but these times are better known for their economic 
downturns. In short, Democrats have created conditions for future 
unemployment through massive spending and increased regulations.
    Forcefully increasing union participation will not give this 
country a stronger workforce. Washington should not be in the business 
of picking winners and losers in our economy-whether it be through 
overturning every right-to-work law in the country, eliminating 
independent contracting, jeopardizing franchise businesses, or 
rewarding union bosses with unchecked power by acquiescing to every 
item on their wish list.
    House Republicans were given a mandate by the American people to 
offer an alternative vision for our economy. We will put forward 
solutions to reduce unnecessary regulations, control spending, offer 
more Americans opportunities for skills development, and remove 
impediments to hiring. Skills-based education is one pathway to prepare 
students for the job market. By increasing work-based learning 
opportunities and extending the Pell Grant to short-term, high-quality 
programs, we can help workers get the skills they need for lifelong 
success.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, and good 
morning. I thought it would be helpful to show a chart of the 
economy that was just described as disparaged. But this chart 
behind me shows the average number of jobs per month in the 
last five Presidential administrations, and we can see the 
Biden administration's 495,000 jobs significantly higher than 
any administration in the last 30 years, certainly higher than 
the two Republican administrations in the last 30 years, but 
that's the economy that was just described.
    When President Biden took office, he inherited an economy 
that was thrown into disarray by the previous administration's 
mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, thanks to 
investments made by the Biden Harris administration, and 
congressional Democrats the economy has grown from the bottom 
up, and the middle out.
    Almost 3 years ago in April 2020, our Nation's unemployment 
rate was over 14 percent. In January 2021, the beginning of 
President Biden's term, the unemployment rate had fallen to 6.2 
percent, and according to the most recent job reports, the 
unemployment rate is now approximately 3.6 percent, one of the 
lowest in recent, in modern history.
    Additionally, the first 2 years of the Biden administration 
were respectively the first and second largest job growth years 
in American history. The economy under President Biden has 
added more than 12 million jobs. Economists had predicted that 
the jobs destroyed during the Trump administration would not be 
recovered until the summer of 2026.
    Instead, the economy bounced back to pre-pandemic levels by 
June 2022, 4 years earlier than expected. Finally, President 
Biden's economic policies have led to a historic boom for small 
businesses. In fact, the first 2 years in office have been two 
of the greatest years for small business applications on 
record. This recovery did not happen by accident.
    It is directly connected to the leadership of President 
Biden and congressional Democrats. Through several COVID-19 
relief packages, Congress delivered support to help workers and 
their families pay their bills, stay safely on the job, and 
access healthcare through the American Rescue Plan, which 
you'll remember passed without a single Republican vote, House 
or Senate. Congressional Democrats saved more than 1 million 
retirees hard-earned pensions. Had we not acted these pensions 
would have failed. Workers and retirees, from truckers to 
bricklayers--would lose nearly everything they had worked to 
save, and tens of thousands of participating employers may have 
been forced to close or cut jobs. And the Federal Government 
would have ended up paying more to have the pensions fail 
because of safety net expenses than we spent saving the 
pensions.
    While price increases caused by supply chain disruptions 
and global inflation forced many working families to stretch 
their dollar further, record wage increases over the past 3 
years have helped make up for these increased costs and 
buffered families from price shocks.
    Simply put, even in the face of rising interest rates, 
Americans are back to work, and businesses are thriving thanks 
to the Biden-Harris administration's economic agenda. President 
Biden has done all of this while delivering on his commitment 
to fiscal responsibility. In fact, President Biden cut the 
deficit by more than 1.7 trillion dollars during his first 2 
years in office.
    Fiscal year 2022 decline in Federal deficit was the largest 
one-year decline in American history, and with President 
Biden's track record, it is no surprise that a recent navigator 
poll shows that more Americans trust President Biden and 
congressional Democrats in handling job growth and the economy, 
than their colleagues.
    So, when we invest in students, workers, and families, 
America succeeds. At a minimum we shouldn't go backward and 
return to the failed Republican policies that mishandled the 
COVID-19 pandemic, prioritize regressive tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans, and unleash harmful deregulation. 
Unfortunately, during the House Republicans? first few months 
in the majority, they've prioritized divisive legislation that 
does nothing to help Americans get ahead.
    They also continue to use our Nation's full faith and 
credit as a bargaining chip to force devastating cuts in Social 
Security and Medicare and key Department of Labor priorities 
that protect our Nation's workers. By threatening to default on 
our Nation's debt, congressional Republicans are gambling with 
our fragile economic recovery in order to force through an 
unpopular and dangerous agenda.
    Furthermore, congressional Democrats remain focused on 
solutions to help every American succeed in the modern economy. 
That's why I reintroduced the bipartisan bicameral Protecting 
the Right to Organize, or the PRO Act alongside 200 Members of 
the House and Senate. Unions are essential for building a 
strong middle class and improving the lives of our workers and 
families.
    The PRO Act will ensure that every worker can reap benefits 
of a union, which means bigger paychecks, better benefits, and 
safer workplaces. I'm also committed to improving our workforce 
development programs by reauthorizing the National 
Apprenticeship Act and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act, and expanding the Pell Grant Program for short-term 
programs by which I believe we have good bipartisan support on 
that legislation, as well as legislation, which is bicameral 
and bipartisan called the Transformation to Competitive 
Integrated Employment Act because strong labor standards open a 
pathway to opportunity for all workers, but only if those 
standards actually apply to all workers.
    Taken together these priorities will help prepare workers 
for the modern economy and ensure employers have access to 
qualified candidates. So, I'm hopeful that all of our 
colleagues will join us in rejecting the failed policies of the 
past, and putting people over politics and delivering solutions 
that actually help workers and employers succeed. Thank you 
Madam Chair and I yield back
    [The statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]

Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Committee 
                     on Education and the Workforce

    Thank you, Dr. Foxx and good morning.
    I thought it would be helpful to show a chart of the economy that 
was just described as disparaged. This chart behind me shows the 
average number of jobs per month in the last five Presidential 
administrations. And we can see the Biden administration; 495,000 jobs, 
which is significantly higher than any administration in the last 30 
years-certainly better than the two Republican administrations in the 
last 30 years. That's the economy that was just described.
    When President Biden took office, he inherited an economy that was 
thrown into disarray by the previous Administration's mishandling of 
the COVID-19 pandemic. However, thanks to the investments made by the 
Biden-Harris Administration and congressional Democrats, the economy 
has grown from the bottom up and the middle out.
    Almost 3 years ago, in April 2020, our Nation's unemployment rate 
was over 14 percent. In January 2021, at the beginning of President 
Biden's term, the unemployment rate had fallen to 6.2 percent. And, 
according to the most recent jobs report, the unemployment rate is now 
approximately 3.6 percent-one of the lowest in modern history.
    Additionally, the first 2 years of the Biden administration were, 
respectively, the first and second largest job growth years in American 
history. The economy under President Biden has added more than 12 
million jobs.
    Economists had predicted that the jobs destroyed during the Trump 
administration would not be recovered until the Summer of 2026. 
Instead, the economy bounced back to pre-pandemic levels by June 2022-
four years earlier than expected.
    Finally, President Biden's economic policies have led to a historic 
boom for small businesses. In fact, his first 2 years in office have 
been two of the greatest years for new small business applications on 
record.
    This recovery did not happen by accident. It is directly connected 
to the leadership of President Biden and congressional Democrats.
    Through several COVID-19 relief packages, Congress delivered 
support to help workers and their families pay their bills, stay safe 
on the job, and access health care.
    Through the American Rescue Plan-which we will remember passed 
without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate-congressional 
Democrats saved more than one million retirees' hard-earned pensions. 
Had we not acted, these pensions would have failed, workers and 
retirees-from truckers to bricklayers-would havesmall business 
applications on record.
    This recovery did not happen by accident. It is directly connected 
to the leadership of President Biden and congressional Democrats.
    Through several COVID-19 relief packages, Congress delivered 
support to help workers and their families pay their bills, stay safe 
on the job, and access health care.
    Through the American Rescue Plan-which we will remember passed 
without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate-congressional 
Democrats saved more than one million retirees' hard-earned pensions. 
Had we not acted, these pensions would have failed, workers and 
retirees-from truckers to bricklayers-would have lost nearly everything 
they had worked to save, and tens of thousands of participating 
employers may have been forced to close or cut jobs. And the Federal 
Government would have ended up paying more to have the pensions fail-
because of safety net expenses-than we would have spent saving the 
pensions.
    While price increases caused by supply chain disruptions and global 
inflation forced many working families to stretch their dollar further, 
record wage increases over the past 3 years have helped make up for 
these increased costs and buffered families from price shocks.
    Simply put-even in the face of rising interest rates-Americans are 
back to work and businesses are thriving, thanks to the Biden-Harris 
administration's economic agenda.
    President Biden has done all of this while delivering on his 
commitment to fiscal responsibility. In fact, President Biden cut the 
deficit by more than $1.7 trillion during his first 2 years in office. 
The Fiscal Year 2022 decline in the Federal deficit was the largest 1-
year decline in American history.
    With President Biden's track record, it is no surprise that a 
recent Navigator poll shows that more Americans trust President Biden 
and congressional Democrats in handling job growth and the economy than 
their colleagues. So, when we invest in students, workers, and 
families, America succeeds.
    At a minimum, we shouldn't go backward and return to the failed 
Republican policies that mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritized 
regressive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and unleashed harmful 
deregulation.
    Unfortunately, during the House Republicans' first few months in 
the majority, they prioritized divisive legislation that does nothing 
to help Americans get ahead. They also continue to use our Nation's 
full faith and credit as a bargaining chip to force devastating cuts to 
Social Security and Medicare and key Department of Labor priorities 
that protect our Nation's workers. By threatening to default on our 
Nation's debt, congressional Republicans are gambling with our fragile 
economic recovery in order to force through an unpopular and dangerous 
agenda.
    Furthermore, Committee Democrats remain focused on solutions to 
help every American succeed in the modern economy.
    That's why I reintroduced the bipartisan, bicameral Protecting the 
Right to Organize (PRO) Act alongside 200 members of the House and 
Senate. Unions are essential for building a strong middle class and 
improving the lives of our workers and families. The PRO Act will 
ensure that every worker can reap the benefits of a union, which means 
bigger paychecks, better benefits, and safer workplaces.
    I am also committed to improving our workforce development programs 
by reauthorizing the National Apprenticeship Act and the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act, and expanding the Pell Grant program to 
short-term programs-I believe that we have good bipartisan support on 
that legislation-as well as legislation, which is bipartisan and 
bicameral, called the Transformation to Competitive Integrated 
Employment Act, because strong labor standards open a pathway to 
opportunity for all workers, but only if those standards actually apply 
to all workers.
    Taken together, these priorities will help prepare workers for the 
modern economy and ensure employers have access to qualified 
candidates.
    So, I am hopeful that all of our colleagues will join us in 
rejecting failed policies of the past, putting people over politics, 
and delivering solutions that actually help workers and employers 
succeed.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Foxx. I thank the Ranking Member for his 
comments. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c) all Members who wish 
to insert written statements into the record may do so by 
submitting them to the Committee Clerk electronically, in 
Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days after the date of this 
hearing, which is April 11, 2023.
    And without objection, the hearing record will remain open 
for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous 
material referenced in the hearing to be submitted for the 
official hearing record.
    I now turn to the introduction of our distinguished 
witnesses. Mr. Chris Spear is President and CEO of the American 
Trucking Association, ATA. Mr. Spear has worked in the 
transportation energy labor and technology sector, and he 
previously served as Assistant Secretary of Labor for policy 
and as professional staff in the U.S. Senate.
    Mr. Jerry Akers is a small business owner and franchisee 
from Palo, Iowa. With his wife and two daughters, he operates 
39 franchise locations in Iowa, Nebraska, and employs 220 
workers. Mr. Akers is testifying on behalf of the International 
Franchise Association.
    Dr. Heidi Shierholz is President of the Economic Policy 
Institute, EPI. Dr. Shierholz served as the Chief Economist at 
the U.S. Department of Labor during the Obama administration.
    Mr. Stephen Moore is a distinguished Fellow in economics at 
the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Moore focuses on advancing public 
policies that increase the rate of economic growth. He works on 
budget, fiscal, and monetary policy.
    We thank all the witnesses for being here today and look 
forward to your testimony. I'd like to remind the witnesses 
that we've read your written statements, and they will appear 
in full in the hearing record. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) 
and Committee practice I ask that you each limit your oral 
presentations to a five-minute summary of your written 
statement.
    I also would like to remind the witnesses to be aware of 
their responsibility to provide accurate information to the 
Committee. Before you begin your testimony, please remember to 
press the button on the microphones in front of you, so it will 
turn on and the Members can hear you. And I'll ask you to hold 
those mics fairly close as I said we're dealing with temporary 
things here and trying to make do. So, we want to be able to 
hear what you have to say.
    As you begin to speak the light in front of you will turn 
green. After four minutes the light will turn yellow to signal 
that you have one minute remaining. When the light turns red 
your five minutes have expired, and we ask that you please wrap 
up. Also, as a long-standing Committee practice, we'll let the 
entire panel make their presentations before we move to Member 
questions.
    When answering a question please remember once again to 
turn your microphone on and then off once finished. I first 
recognize Mr. Spear for five minutes.

  STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE AMERICAN 
                     TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS

    Mr. Spear. Madame Chair Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today on behalf of the ATA. For 90 years, the ATA has 
represented an industry that today employs nearly 8 million of 
the hardest working men and women in America. That's 1 in 18 
jobs where one of the top five jobs in 29 states is trucking 
related.
    They're husbands, they're wives, they're moms, they're 
dads, they're family members. And they're behind the wheel of 
every truck you see today. Throughout COVID, the global 
pandemic, our drivers continued to climb into their cabs 
delivering not milk, eggs, toilet paper, and fuel, but PPE, 
test kits and life-saving medications, including the vaccine 
itself.
    Our workforce shouldered this responsibility with the 
fortitude that being essential demands. And America was 
grateful. With billboards and corn fields to banners hanging 
off overpasses, all thanking a trucker. Our members, large, 
medium, and small businesses have presence in every State and 
congressional District in the country.
    More than 80 percent of the U.S. communities rely 
exclusively on trucking to meet their daily needs. Trucks now 
move more than 70 percent of our country's domestic freight as 
well as 73 percent of USMCA freight making trade and trucking 
synonymous.
    Over the next decade, trucks will be tasked with moving 2.4 
billion more tons of freight than they do today. For that to 
happen, we must continue to put safety and our workforce first. 
Today the trucking industry invests more than 10 billion 
dollars annually in safety, education, and employee 
development.
    And as innovation continues to shape our industry, the 
experience needed to operate and service our equipment will 
further benefit our workforce, both in terms of skill and 
competition. This is a good story, one we at ATA like sharing. 
Our workforce is committed to making a difference. To that end, 
our written testimony submits four recommendations for your 
consideration.
    First, we need to shore up the growing shortage of talent. 
Most notably 78,000 drivers and 41,000 technicians. Drivers on 
average earn $70,000.00 plus full benefits without a college 
degree and the debt that comes with it. That's up 19 percent 
over the last 5 years, higher than any other mode.
    We've launched initiatives to hire more veterans and 
exiting military personnel, more minorities, especially from 
urban communities with higher unemployment, and more women, a 
goal made possible by IJA moneys being used for new, safe and 
secure truck parking, and we're capitalizing on IIJ education 
development and technology for 18-to 20-year-olds that cross 
State lines, far exceeding all existing State requirements.
    Second, we need to end the unfounded assault on the nine 
decade-old independent contractor model jeopardizing not only 
the jobs and lives of 350,000 truck drivers throughout the 
country, but the millions of other American workers who 
willingly choose this professional path.
    Third, we need to untangle Federal and State regulations, 
from licensing and credentialing to State legalization of 
recreational marijuana and combatting opioid abuse. And last, 
we need to double down on our workforce development. It's what 
gives every employee job security and growth opportunities. A 
post-COVID WIOA makeover would ensure our industry is defined 
as essential, skilled, and in demand, and that local workforce 
boards resource trucking accordingly.
    And what gets us from here to there unites us all, not only 
elevating our economy, but every employee involved. Addressing 
these four recommendations would allow our workforce to safely 
and responsibly meet consumer and economic demands over the 
next decade. Do that, and you'll make a difference too. I thank 
you in advance for your consideration, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Chris Spear
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Akers, you're 
recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF JERRY AKERS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND FRANCHISEE, 
   PALO, IA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE 
                          ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Akers. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 
Scott, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is 
Jerry Akers, and I own and operate with my wife and two 
daughters, 39 Great Clip Salons and 5 The Joint Chiropractic 
Clinics in my home State of Iowa, as well as Nebraska.
    I appreciate the invitation to appear on behalf of the 
International Franchise Association to share my story of small 
business ownership and share the value proposition of the 
franchise business format. It is a particular privilege to 
testify at this time of year as Great Clips is the official 
hair care provider of March Madness, one of the many benefits 
of signing with a franchise brand.
    After all, if I opened my own salons, there's no way that I 
could afford to do March Madness for advertising. I have 
experienced first-hand the impact of the remarkable franchise 
model, and what it does to change the lives of aspiring 
entrepreneurs, employees, and local economies.
    Originally from Iowa, I grew up on a farm. Today, my wife 
and I have established an enterprise that now employs 220 team 
members, and as an area developer for the Joint Chiropractic, I 
also assist fellow franchisees to generate sustained success 
for their entrepreneurial journey.
    Our business is impacting four generations of my family, 
and up to three generations of employee's families as we speak. 
Franchising democratizes business ownership, perhaps more than 
any other business model in America. Around 26 percent of 
franchises are owned by people of color, compared with 17 
percent of independent businesses.
    Further, black owned franchise firms generate an average of 
2.2 times more in sales compared to black owned non-franchise 
businesses. The COVID-19 pandemic battered all small businesses 
in historic ways and caused us to permanently shut down five of 
our Great Clips salons.
    Our employees are literally a part of our family, and we 
had to furlough them because we had no revenue coming in to 
take care of them. During the early days of COVID, we held 
daily check-in calls with our entire staff across two states, 
with constant updates as to their potential return to work. We 
provided health insurance to those who had health insurance 
with us every day of the pandemic, despite our business being 
threatened.
    Being part of a franchise system helped us navigate the 
pandemic. In franchising, we say you go into business for 
yourself, but not by yourself. My fellow franchisees regularly 
shared best practices and brainstormed ideas on how to reopen 
and operate. Our systems help us access programs like the EIDL 
and the ERTC as well as the PPP loans. Each week our brand 
hosted weekly webinars to assist with operations, including how 
to find personal protection equipment, and the most current 
salon guidelines by recommendations of the CDC.
    Our brands also cut down on franchise fees, so we were able 
to focus more on the health precautions and safety for our 
employees and customers. The economic uncertainty initiated by 
COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the many benefits of the 
franchise business model.
    According to a recent survey, 50 percent of franchisees 
said they were better able to navigate inflationary pressures, 
and other pandemic area business challenges thanks to the 
support of their franchising network. While we are on a path to 
recovery from the devastating effects of the pandemic, we still 
have a long way to go. According to an IFA survey released 
earlier this month, the availability of workers remains the 
most important problem facing franchise businesses today.
    We want to hire 70 more staff members, but despite the fact 
we offer top wages, and exceptional benefits in comparison to 
other businesses in our area, we cannot. We also offer our 
employees an opportunity to pursue education at cosmetology 
schools, but Iowa is a challenging State. The industry faces 
some of the most onerous occupational licensing requirements of 
any business model.
    The unnecessary requirements to work in hair salons leaves 
significant economic development on the table in many states. 
Despite all these economic headwinds, if policymakers do no 
harm, franchise businesses and all business lines will surely 
accelerate the post-COVID economic recovery, but there is no 
more significant and avoidable threat to small businesses than 
the PRO Act.
    As a hotel owner testified before the Senate in 2021, the 
PRO Act is perhaps the single most anti-small business bill 
ever introduced in Congress. That's because as soon as 
legislation is signed into the law, the PRO Act's joint 
employer, and independent contractor provisions would combine 
to legislate away the ability to operate a franchise as a small 
business owner.
    There must be a better way to protect workers? rights that 
doesn't come at the expense of small businesses. In the face of 
the PRO Act in the National Labor Relations Board's forthcoming 
Joint Employer Rule, small business owners need legislation 
called the Save Local Business Act. This is the single most 
important Federal legislation for the 800,000 franchised 
businesses nationwide.
    As it would certainly provide guidance for misguided 
regulators who will legislate away the future of the business 
model. In conclusion, franchise businesses possess the unique 
ability to address the workforce challenges faced by our 
Nation. Franchise businesses also offer unparalleled 
opportunities for people of color, women, and veteran 
entrepreneurs, promoting a more inclusive and diverse business 
landscape. Thank you again Madam Chair for holding this 
hearing, and I'm happy to answer questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Akers follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Jerry Akers
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Akers. Dr. Shierholz, 
you're recognized for five minutes.

 STATEMENT OF DR. HEIDI SHIERHOLZ, PRESIDENT, ECONOMIC POLICY 
                           INSTITUTE

    Ms. Shierholz. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify here today. My name is Heidi Shierholz, I am an 
economist and President of the Economic Policy Institute. To 
talk about the State of the economy today, I want to start by 
backing up to the end of 2020, the end of the Trump 
administration.
    Three-quarters of a year after the start of COVID. So, this 
is after the initial rush of millions of jobs coming back as 
businesses that have been locked down were coming back online. 
By late 2020, the recovery was faltering. We actually lost jobs 
in December 2020, and we still had a gap in the labor market of 
10 million jobs.
    At a similar point in the recovery from the Great Recession 
of 2008 and 2009, Congress chose austerity. Starving the 
economy of aggregate demand, a dynamic that Republicans in 
Congress maintained until 2017. The result was an incredibly 
weak and slow recovery. It took a decade after that recession 
to get back down to the pre-recession unemployment rate.
    This time, however, Congress and President Biden chose a 
dramatically different path when the recovery was faltering. 
Additional fiscal support was passed in December 2020, and 
substantially more was passed in March 2021, with the American 
Rescue Plan, and the payoff to those choices has been mind-
boggling.
    We added 12.4 million jobs in the last 25 months. 2021 and 
2022 saw the single largest job growth of any 2-year period in 
U.S. history. In the past year, the unemployment rate has 
gotten down to 50-year lows, and the prime-age labor force 
participation rate is now back down to--now back up to where it 
was before COVID hit.
    Further, inflation-adjusted wage growth for low-wage 
workers was far faster over the last 3 years than at the same 
point in the recovery from any recession of the last 50 years. 
These are huge policy accomplishments. Talk about unleashing 
employment.
    One question, however, that often arises is whether our 
COVID relief and recovery measures, while clearly generating an 
incredibly fast jobs recovery, also perhaps caused the high 
inflation of the last 2 years, which has been a major challenge 
for American families.
    The answer to that is a resounding no. The acceleration of 
inflation was overwhelmingly the result of mammoth shocks to 
the economy by the pandemic, which caused both a dramatic 
shift--a dramatic increase in the demand for goods as people 
shifted spending away from face-to-face services, and toward 
goods, and huge snarls in precisely those global supply chains 
that need to function smoothly in order to meet the demand for 
goods.
    And then on top of that, the Russian invasion of Ukraine 
spiked energy and food prices, and those shocks set off 
substantial ripple effects throughout the economy, so employers 
had to raise wages to get and keep the workers that they 
needed, which is a very good thing, and firms also raised 
prices opportunistically to boost their profits.
    In this recovery, rising profits account for 40 percent of 
the increase in inflation, whereas in normal times, profits 
account for about a third that much. Basically, without the 
strong jobs recovery, and the critical expansions of the safety 
net created by our relief and recovery measures, the burst of 
inflation still would have happened, but would have been much 
more damaging to working families.
    Imagine if we had faced that burst of inflation, but with 
millions of more people out of work, and lower nominal wage 
growth for those with jobs. It is worth noting that as the 
labor market normalizes, job growth will slow to more normal 
levels. Nominal wage growth is already back down to basically 
where it was pre-recession, but we can lock in some of the 
gains that workers have experienced through tighter labor 
markets by enacting policies, like raising the minimum wage, 
expanding overtime and joint employer protections, 
strengthening unions, holding employers accountable for labor 
violations like misclassification and wage theft.
    The PRO Act is a crucial reform. The Independent Contractor 
Rule, being finalized at DOL will provide much needed clarity 
and reduced misclassification. The final thing I want to say is 
that stronger labor standards and unions will not only make our 
economy fair, they will make our economy stronger.
    Neo-liberal policies and deregulation of the last 40 years 
resulted in rising inequality over that period, and much slower 
overall growth. Spending falls as inequality increases because 
income is shifted away from low and middle-income workers, who 
are the ones who have to spend most of what they get on 
necessities, and toward higher-income workers who have the 
luxury to save.
    Inequality slows growth. Policies that help ensure that our 
economy works for everyone are the very policies that will make 
our economy stronger, more resilient and faster growing. Thank 
you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Shierholz follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Heidi Shierholz
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. And now Stephen Moore is 
recognized for five minutes.

         STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN MOORE, DISTINGUISHED 
         FELLOW IN ECONOMICS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman. It is a 
great honor to be here. The big question for the American 
economy right now is where are the American workers? Where are 
the workers? If you ask any small businessman or woman, I bet 
every one of you in your districts are facing the same issue. 
Businesses are saying that they're having a very difficult time 
getting workers back on the job.
    Heidi is right that it's a strong jobs market right now. 
The big problem is finding the workers to fill those jobs. Why 
are Americans not in the workforce at the rate that they have 
traditionally been? I would make two arguments. No. 1, real 
wages have declined very sharply in the last 2 years, and this 
is of course a result of the massive increase in inflation that 
hit 9.2 percent.
    So just to put this in perspective, the average worker in 
America, since Biden came into office, has lost somewhere in 
the neighborhood of $3,500 to $4,000 in annual income. That 
means work isn't paying because you know, even though wages are 
up nominally, as Heidi was saying, in real terms, people's 
purchasing power has gotten killed. And that's the reason 
you're seeing so much economic pessimism around the country. 
People are feeling it every day.
    The other problem is we're paying too much for people not 
to work, and I hope that this Committee will address that as 
one of the number-one problems in the country. In other words, 
we are not making work pay, we're making not working pay with 
the welfare benefits that have been provided.
    So quickly, one of the big mistakes that we made during 
COVID that led to--that accelerated the collapse in jobs, 
obviously shutting down the economy as we did, especially blue 
states, turned out to be one of the greatest catastrophes, I 
think in American history economically. It didn't have health 
benefits, but it sure did destroy small businesses and jobs for 
workers.
    What's happened since if you look at my testimony. If you 
look at this figure on page 3 if you have it in front of you. 
And this has been persistent for the last, you know, 30 months. 
The blue states that locked down their economies had 
persistently higher unemployment than the red states that 
remained open. It's also true that these blue states like New 
York and Connecticut and California, provide much, much higher 
benefits to people for not working than red states do, and 
that's caused the unemployment rate problem to be worse.
    It's frustrating to me because you know, when you look at 
2020, the beginning of 2020, the United States had probably the 
best--in many ways, the best economy ever, ever in the history 
of this country. We had the lowest unemployment rate for every 
group, for blacks, Hispanics, Asian, single mothers, we had the 
lowest poverty rate for blacks, Hispanics. Every demographic 
group, and of course we had very rapid rises in income.
    Subsequently, that has reversed, and so you're seeing these 
declines in income that are making working not pay. Now, a 
couple of other things that I'd like to point out quickly. One 
is we have to do welfare reform. We have to get back to the 
reforms that we put in place in 1996 under a Democratic 
President, Bill Clinton, and a republican Congress. It was 
headed by Newt Gingrich as the Speaker of the House.
    One of the most successful programs in the last 50 years in 
terms of social policy changes was that bipartisan welfare 
reform. And at the heart of that reform was two things. One, 
time limits on how long people could get welfare. We're not 
saying get rid of the social net. We're a wealthy country, 
absolutely safety net for people, but it should not be a way of 
life. It should be a temporary assistance program.
    So, we time-limited these programs, and the other thing 
that is absolutely critical, every single welfare payment 
program that you administer at the Federal level. Every program 
should require work or training. It was a huge success, and the 
benefits of welfare reform exceeded anybody's expectations. If 
you look at what happened after 1996, we saw the most dramatic 
decline in welfare--in people on welfare in the history of the 
welfare State.
    After welfare reform happened, what happened to those 
people? They got into the workforce. What happened to them when 
they got in the workforce, their earnings rose. It was a 
tremendous success. The child poverty rate after welfare reform 
was lower than it had ever been since the 1960's.
    So, huge, huge benefits across the board from welfare 
reform, not just for the overall economy, but the people who 
are on welfare because there is dignity in work, and as there 
is a lot of economic success on that.
    Three quick recommendations other than welfare reform, just 
for you all to think about. No. 1, we need more legal 
immigrants in this country. We should be increasing legal 
immigrant numbers very significantly. These are people who will 
enter the workforce. Immigrants have very high labor force 
participation rates.
    Our immigration levels have--I'm talking about legal. We 
need to increase that. No. 2, something to think about. You 
know there's an old saying that age 70 is the new 50. If you 
look at the social security program, there's a flaw in that 
program. Benefits for people who continue to work after 70 are 
not actually--so people are being punished in terms of working 
after the age of 70. We have to correct that.
    So, if somebody, you know, works to the age of 75 or 78, 
their benefits for their lifetime should be adjusted, so 
they're not reduced. Because you know what? We're an aging 
population. We need older people to be working. And by the way, 
people who work longer when they're old have higher life 
expectancies.
    And then finally, don't over tax investment. I know--just 
one quick point. The Biden tax plan, if you were to put that 
calamity into effect, the tax rate on investment would go to 80 
percent. Who is going to invest in a small business at an 80 
percent tax rate? OK. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Stephen Moore
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Foxx. Under Committee Rule 9(a) we'll now 
question witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'll wait to ask 
my questions and therefore recognize Mr. Walberg from Michigan 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. I thank the Madam Chairwoman, and thanks for 
the panel for being here today. And I would say to Mr. Moore 
that welfare reform--I'm over here.
    Mr. Moore. Oh sorry, I couldn't see you.
    Mr. Walberg. Welfare reform began in Michigan, under 
Engler.
    Mr. Moore. It did.
    Mr. Walberg. As an example, and it worked. Sadly, it's gone 
today.
    Mr. Moore. I believe John Engler was the Governor at that 
time.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes. I would like to discuss workforce 
challenges. Unfortunately, Michigan recently repealed its right 
to work law. The first State to do that in more than a half a 
century to take such action. In a recent town hall, I spoke 
with an independent electrical contractor who expressed her 
concern over this misguided approach, which will increase 
costs, and limit opportunity.
    Unfortunately, some here in Washington have proposed 
legislation that would nullify right-to-work laws in states all 
across the country. Mr. Spear, can you please expand a bit on 
how trucking industry uses the independent contractor business 
model, and why it's worked so well for your members, and the 
workers who willingly choose this professional path?
    And then second, could you please describe the impact 
legislation like the PRO Act would have on independent 
contractors in the trucking industry?
    Mr. Spear. Absolutely Congressman. I think the key word 
that you used with regards to independent contractors is 
choice. They choose that path for whatever reason. It could be 
seasonal work, had another business on the side, whatever the 
reason may be that's their decision, I think legislation 
starting with the PRO Act to the NLRA, you know, we're seeing 
AB5 in California, remove that choice.
    And this is a 90-year-old supportive business model in case 
law, and we want to remove that choice. Why? Because I think 
union rates have been cut in half since 1983. We were at 20.1 
public and private unions, we're down to 10.1 percent of the 
workforce, public and private unions today.
    And they want to bolster membership. They want to bolster 
dues. But you don't change the law to channel more people into 
unions. You want to belong to a union, belong to a union.
    Mr. Walberg. Right.
    Mr. Spear. But you should also have the right not to belong 
to a union. And those laws have existed since 1935. So, you 
know, I look at this assault on a 90-year-old business model, 
like independent contractors. It would be ridiculously 
impactful on our industry. We're already short 78,000 drivers. 
This is 350,000 independent contractors that chose that path. 
No one is forcing them to do it, they chose it. Talk to them.
    Go out and talk to the actual independent contractors and 
ask them is anybody forcing you to be in this category, so the 
employer can avoid paying you more, or avoid benefits? The 
answer is a resounding no. And for any abuse, we have laws in 
place for over nine decades to deal with that.
    The PRO Act would remove beyond the independent contractor 
legislation and regulations, the PRO Act would be an all-out 
assault, not just on independent contractors, but on states? 
right to work laws. Your State just revoked it. That's their 
decision. I don't agree with that.
    Any State has the right to put that in place. The PRO Act 
would eliminate half of the states in this country that have 
the right to work laws on the books.
    Mr. Walberg. And it's not as we found in Michigan, it 
wasn't the workers, or the independent contractors asking for 
the right-to-work law to be taken out, it was the union bosses, 
and the legislature gave in there. Thanks.
    Let me move on. Changing gears, franchises support nearly 8 
and a half million direct jobs in the U.S. economy. In Michigan 
alone, franchises support over 235,000 employees. Mr. Akers, 
can you tell us about the FTC franchise rule, and how it would 
continue to foster small business creation in the franchise 
space?
    Mr. Akers. Yes. Unfortunately, what those type of rules do 
is they turn me into a general manager, as opposed to being an 
entrepreneur. They put so much impact back on the corporate 
group, so everybody ends up working for a large corporation, 
rather than an independent person like myself, an entrepreneur.
    This takes away everything that I've worked my life for to 
try and build, and by the way, as with many things that come 
out of these kinds of regulations, we take better care of our 
employees than most of the rules end up putting in place anyhow 
right now today. We don't need all of those kinds of things.
    So, what that does is usurp the franchise model, which is 
one of the largest drivers of small business in the economy in 
the country today and puts us in a situation where we become 
employees instead of entrepreneurs. Thank you for your 
question.
    Mr. Walberg. My time has expired. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Walberg. I now 
recognize Mr. Takano from California for five minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you. Sorry, we're having trouble with it, 
as you know the technology here. Great. It is abundantly clear 
that the Biden administration inherited an economy in dire 
straits. As Republicans vocalize falsehoods about what has put 
the American economy back on track, the policies Democrats 
pursued speak for themselves, even despite the unique 
challenges global inflation has presented.
    As we discussed policies Democrats can pursue to help, it 
is imperative that we look at ways in which we can still 
improve. The Fair Labor Standards Act established an overtime 
compensation requirement for certain employees when they worked 
more than 40 hours, and the Labor Secretary has the authority 
to create the parameters relating to the white-collar 
exemption, meaning that certain professional employees are not 
eligible.
    This week I will be introducing the Restoring our Overtime 
Pay Act with Representative Adams and Senator Brown. The bill 
seeks to codify an enhanced overtime salary threshold, at a 
historic high of the 55th percentile of earnings of full-time 
salaried workers nationwide.
    This threshold would be at least $82,732.00 by 2026. 
Overtime standards are long overdue for a meaningful update. It 
is high time our country pursued powerful protections for 
workers, especially in the wake of COVID-19. So, Dr. Shierholz, 
would you agree that the current overtime standards are overdue 
to be updated?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. I would. And I thank you for that 
question, and I'm really happy to answer it, but I want to take 
1 second to just correct something that was stated earlier. The 
PRO Act would not destroy the independent contractor model. 
Anyone who is a bonafide independent contractor would not be 
affected. Those who are misclassified as independent 
contractors, the thing that they would be able to do is those 
who would be impacted, those who are misclassified, who want to 
be able to organize. That's what it does. It's not a wholesale 
redo.
    OK. Sorry for that divergence. So yes, we absolutely need 
to increase the overtime threshold. Right now, the overtime 
threshold is $35,568.00 a year, so basically anyone who makes 
over $36,000.00 can be asked to work 60, 70 hours, without 
getting any additional pay. It's really like the idea that 
somebody who makes $36,000.00 a year has enough bargaining 
power with respect to their employer, that they don't need the 
protections to keep them from being exploited from overwork is 
absolutely it's just I think everyone in this room would agree 
that that's not the case.
    Mr. Takano. Yes. It's my recollection that in the 70's the 
overtime pay threshold was at a level that included 70 percent 
of the salaried workforce. Is that right?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. It was. Our calculations put it at like 
63 percent of the full-time salary, of full-time salaried 
workers, earned below the threshold. In other words, it was 
high enough that it covered nearly two-thirds of full-time 
salary workers. Now----
    Mr. Takano. Those two-thirds, not 70 percent?
    Ms. Shierholz. You got it. You got it.
    Mr. Takano. But what is that percentage now of salaried 
workers today?
    Ms. Shierholz. I think--OK, I can make sure to check this 
for you for the record, but I think it's around 15 percent. 
It's a huge drop.
    Mr. Takano. Wow. We go from nearly two-thirds of the 
American workforce being covered by overtime pay. They were 
eligible for overtime pay, in fact they had a right to it, but 
that right has diminished from the 70's of two-thirds to 15 
percent?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yep.
    Mr. Takano. That's an incredible figure. You know from 
1938, I understand that a trucker who's paid $30,000.00 today--
which is lower, I mean I admit trucking salaries have gone up, 
but they would not be able to earn overtime pay. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Shierholz. If they----
    Mr. Takano. They're exempt.
    Ms. Shierholz. They're exempt. They're really open to 
misclassification. So, you're supposed to still get overtime 
protections if you earn $38,000.00 if you are, you know, if you 
are not a bonafide manager, or sort of highly paid 
professional, but there's a ton of misclassification. They're 
extremely vulnerable to being exploited by over work.
    Mr. Takano. So, if a trucker goes on an interState highway, 
they're exempt from overtime pay protections. Is that right?
    Ms. Shierholz. They likely wouldn't pass the duties test, 
so you're supposed to be a bonafide manager, where you get 
overtime even if you are paid over the threshold, but that is 
violated all the time, which one of the reasons we really need 
to raise the threshold in order to make sure that people have 
the protections.
    Mr. Takano. Well, I think with the shortage of truckers in 
this country, I'm all for the training and improving that 
industry, but I think it's high time that we stop exempting 
truckers from the FLSA. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Mr. Grothman, 
you're recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you. A couple questions. Some we've 
kind of already gone over, but with regard to the trucking 
industry, do you think we'd have more truckers if we would 
allow people to get a CDL and drive interState with a CDL at 
age 20 instead of 21.
    Mr. Spear. You're asking me Congressman?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    Mr. Spear. Listen, I think you have got to do a lot of 
things to shore up the shortage. You're looking at 78,000 
currently, 160,000 over the next 8 years. If this train 
continues. To maintain current economic demand, we need to add 
more talent behind the wheel. 18 to 20 is one of those 
solutions. You need to train them to safely and responsibly 
operate the equipment. Now 48 states currently allow an 18-
year-old to drive a Class A. You just can't cross State lines.
    Mr. Grothman. What in the world would be an impossible 
reason if that many states allow you to drive back and forth in 
your State, to bar you from crossing State lines?
    Mr. Spear. It's the difference between State and Federal 
jurisdiction. We're saying that let's train them. Let's give 
them the skillset.
    Mr. Grothman. So, in other words we're saying that 48 State 
legislatures are incompetent apparently. Is that what we're 
saying?
    Mr. Spear. No. I think that's their jurisdiction. You just 
can't cross State lines. We cross State lines every day, so to 
train somebody, to teach somebody how to operate this 
equipment, it doesn't matter if you're running from Sacramento 
down to San Diego, you should be.
    Mr. Grothman. You know we're trying to help you.
    Mr. Spear. Yep.
    Mr. Grothman. We even say that 48 State legislators are 
competent, and it's the U.S. Congress that's incompetent. We 
could say that.
    Mr. Spear. Well, we put 18 to 20 as a pilot in the IIJA. We 
supported that.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Now we don't have somebody up here who 
represents an airline, but I know a guy who does the annual 
inspections for airline pilots to make sure they can keep 
flying up to age 65. He doesn't know why that shouldn't be 67 
or 68. Mr. Moore, would it do something to solve the pilot 
shortage if we allowed the pilots to keep being pilots, 
commercial pilots to 67 or 68 provided somebody signs off?
    Mr. Moore. I think we just--hey look, I don't know the 
specific situation with pilots, but we need to have a cultural 
shift in America where Americans are rewarded for working more 
years. You know, we're healthier than ever before, we have 
longer life expectancies, and as I mentioned, please, please 
address that issue with social security because it's just not 
fair to people who work past the age of 70.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Mr. Akers, there are a variety of 
programs that are phased out as people make more money. Earned 
income tax credits starts going up, but I think it's obviously 
the biggest impact on society. It's to discourage people from 
making very much money, because you begin to make more money 
over the earned income tax credits.
    Low-income housing, food stamps, Medicaid, Pell Grants, are 
other programs that discourage people from working, or you're 
no longer considered poor. Do you see in your employees either 
people not working because of the generosity of those programs, 
or more likely want to stop working when they make say 
15,000.00 to $20,000.00 so they aren't phased out?
    Mr. Akers. Absolutely. And this has been going on for a 
long time. Literally, all the stylists that have discussions 
with me and they tell me they don't want to work full-time 
hours. They can only work 19 hours because that's the threshold 
where they lose some of the benefits.
    Mr. Grothman. Exactly. All over the place. All of these 
programs earned income tax credit, low-income housing, food 
stamps, Medicaid, Pell Grants, are designed by somebody who 
wanted to discourage people from working. And I'll point out 
all those programs are also designed by somebody who wants to 
discourage marriage.
    Another program for you in general as I'm sure you have 
tons of resumes cross your desk. Do people with psychology or 
communication arts, political science degrees, even a master's 
degree in business, do you view that as a positive when you're 
hiring somebody, or is it just largely irrelevance?
    Mr. Akers. It's largely irrelevant. I'm looking for skills 
and talents and the ability to get along with people primarily. 
We'll train them on the rest of it.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I heard one employer say that he didn't 
like to hire people with master's degrees because by then 
they've spent so long in college they had to be deprogrammed. 
Do you know anybody else in your profession----
    Mr. Akers. They don't know how to work anymore because 
they've been in school for their whole life.
    Mr. Grothman. My goodness. You're what one of my friends 
said, in other words, you viewed some case a master's degree is 
not only a non-existent qualification, but almost a minus. Is 
that true?
    Mr. Akers. Yes, I do. I'm sure it's great in their area of 
expertise if they can get a job in that area, but if they're 
trying to get a job anywhere else in another field it's a 
detriment.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Well thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Grothman. Ms. Jayapal, 
you're recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Under Democratic 
leadership the American economy rebounded from the pandemic, 
achieving record low unemployment and healthy productivity. And 
though we still face economic challenges, the answer is not 
austerity and reckless deregulation, but rather we've seen so 
much progress from investing in our future and strengthening 
worker protections to build an economy that works for everyone.
    In January, the Federal Trade Commission made a historic 
stride toward this goal, announcing its plan to ban the use of 
non-compete clauses. Contract terms prohibit employees from 
later working for or starting a competing business. Non-
competes, which cover nearly 1 in 5 workers, prevent workers 
from accepting a higher paying job in their chosen profession, 
or pursuing their own dream of starting their own company.
    By banning this course of practice, the FTC's proposed rule 
will promote worker freedom, invigorate the labor market and 
stimulate broad economic growth. The title of this hearing is 
Unleashing America's Opportunities for Hiring and Employment, 
so I want to just examine how non-competes unleash 
opportunities.
    So, Dr. Shierholz, do non-competes generally restrict or 
expand employment opportunities for workers?
    Ms. Shierholz. They absolutely restrict employment 
opportunities. You literally cannot take a job in your field 
for a certain period of time when you have to sign a non-
compete.
    Ms. Jayapal. And those who defend the use of non-competes 
give examples of top management executives who may have 
sensitive information about their employer. Is this 
representative of all the workers who are bound by non-
competes?
    Ms. Shierholz. No. It is not. There are a lot of workers 
who--there's just no way they have access to trade secrets, who 
are also bound by non-competes. So, for example, EPI did a 
study that showed, that looked at this and showed that a 
quarter of workplaces where the typical employee education 
level is a high school degree, everyone in that company is 
covered by a non-compete agreement.
    So, security guards, phlebotomists, factory employees, many 
of the occupations that are subject to non-competes. In fact, 
10 percent of food service workers are bound by non-competes as 
well. So, the FTC's proposed rule will empower roughly 30 
million workers to take new jobs that were previously off 
limits to them, unleashing new opportunities for workers.
    Dr. Shierholz, do you expect this rule to increase or 
decrease wages?
    Ms. Shierholz. The rule will absolutely increase wages for 
workers, so one of the key ways a non-unionized worker, 
essentially the only source of power they have with respect to 
their employer, is the fact that they could quit and take 
another job. Non-compete agreements cut that off, so it totally 
suppresses wage growth for those workers.
    The empirical evidence is really clear on this, banning 
non-competes would increase wages.
    Ms. Jayapal. And let's talk about employers for a second. 
Do non-competes generally restrict, or expand hiring pools for 
employers?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. When an employer wants to hire a worker 
in a certain field, the key pool of workers that they could 
look at are workers who are working in that field. Non-competes 
just make many of that, you know, that pool much, much smaller.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, it's good for employers as well. What 
about new startups and small businesses? Would the proposed FTC 
rule restrict or support, or hinder the creation of new 
startups and small businesses?
    Ms. Shierholz. The empirical evidence is really clear 
banning non-competes would increase business formation because 
non-competes mean that you can't start a business in that 
field. So, it inhibits innovation. It means, you know, if I 
have an idea of how to do something better, I actually can't go 
do that because I have signed a non-compete agreement.
    Ms. Jayapal. So good for workers, good for employers, good 
for wages, let's talk about the argument that non-competes are 
necessary to safeguard trade secrets and other sensitive 
information. But there's actually several laws on the books 
already protecting firms like intellectual property laws, the 
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the Economic Espionage Act.
    Are non-competes essential to protecting a firm's trade 
secrets?
    Ms. Shierholz. They totally are not, and we can look at the 
states that have made non-competes unenforceable, including 
California, which includes Silicon Valley to say are we really 
seeing this massive decrease in innovation because employers 
are getting their trade secrets stolen. That is just not the 
case. Employers can use these other intellectual property laws, 
and also one thing that they can do is still do tailored, non-
disclosure agreements without doing non-compete agreements that 
can also protect trade secrets.
    Ms. Jayapal. This is really a bipartisan issue. Three 
states, California, Oklahoma and North Dakota have all voided 
non-competes, and five more, including my home State of 
Washington, have significantly restricted them, and guess what? 
The sky didn't fall. This is an important rule that will help 
workers, help small businesses, and help employers. Thank you 
so much. I yield back Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Allen, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank 
our witnesses for being here today. I was a small business 
owner for over 40 years. Obviously, small business is the 
backbone of this economy. In fact, in the best economy in my 
generation, which Mr. Moore mentioned, 70 percent of all new 
jobs created were small business, and small business created 
over, you know, with working about 50 percent of the workforce 
at that time.
    The Biden Department of Labor, and let's talk about the PRO 
Act, and just clear this up a little bit. The Biden Department 
of Labor proposed independent contractor classification rule 
that would significantly muddy the waters on the standards used 
to determine independent contractor status, and would 
significantly undermine the independent contractor model, if 
not destroy it entirely.
    This attack on independent contractors by a Democratic 
administration is nothing new. We had the same challenge under 
the last term of the Obama administration when I was first 
elected to Congress. During the COVID pandemic we saw that 60 
plus million Americans wanted more flexibility, and their 
livelihoods depended on the flexibilities that being an 
independent contractor provides.
    My Employee Rights Act, which I have coauthored with Tim 
Scott in the last Congress, would codify the common law 
definition of an employee allowing independent contractors to 
keep the flexibility they currently enjoy. Mr. Akers, under 
this Labor Department rule, how would that impact your overall 
business operations?
    Mr. Akers. Excuse me. Dramatically impact it. We lose total 
control over employees. They're driven by other guidance 
outside of our sphere of influence. So, this takes away the 
opportunity for me as an entrepreneur to change the lives of my 
employees, to make, to give them a better existence, change the 
lives of their children because one size fits all doesn't work 
nationwide.
    The economic situation in Iowa is completely different than 
in other states.
    Mr. Allen. Well obviously, bottom up is better than top 
down. That's the way, you know, America runs is bottom up. And 
we are a grassroots country and thank you sir for what you're 
doing. Mr. Spear, what is your assessment on this proposed 
Biden independent contractor rule, and how it would impact your 
industry?
    Mr. Spear. In about 350,000 independent contractors 
nationwide. California, as mentioned, this AB5, 70,000 
independent contractors in California. And every day we're 
moving, you know, milk, eggs, bread, to vaccines. I mean if you 
want the things that you need and want, you're going to need a 
driver. We're already short 78,000. Now we're going to 
exacerbate that number with another 350,000 by making the 
requirements so vague that it literally, it makes the 
independent contractor the 90-year-old model irrelevant.
    This is about choice. Nobody is telling these people they 
have to go down this path. There're laws in place and 
enforcement to take care of any abuses that occur out there, 
not just those laws, but we've got boards, we've got 
commissions, Federal, State, local enforcement. That will be 
handled accordingly.
    Mr. Allen. And that's exactly why we wrote the Employee 
Rights Act.
    Mr. Spear. That's right.
    Mr. Allen. Was to give the American people choice. And the 
American people want choice, and I agree 100 percent with you. 
Mr. Moore, thank you for your great work in analyzing in our 
economic problems. I agree with you on workforce participation.
    You know the last time we balanced the budget in this 
country we had almost 70 percent workforce participation in 
this country. That was 2001. And that was as a result of the 
legislation that President Clinton signed to promote work in 
this country. And to get people out of poverty and into the 
workforce, and to move up the food chain as fast as possible.
    And there are so many opportunities out there today. How do 
we change this? I mean who is against giving somebody the 
opportunity and the dignity to hold a great job and provide for 
their family?
    Mr. Moore. Well, thank you, Congressman. The evidence is 
crystal clear that what we did back in 1996 was an overriding 
success in every way. And a lot of the opponents said there 
would be blood, and literally on the House floor in this 
chamber, said there would be blood in the streets if we passed 
welfare reform, and exactly the opposite happened.
    And by the way, you know, the biggest beneficiaries were a 
lot of the people who had been on welfare, who actually got in 
the workforce. I mean look, you can't climb the ladder of 
economic success if you're collecting economic benefits and not 
working. So, it is really critically important to just restore 
all of the rules that we had in 1996.
    These work requirements began to be eviscerated under the 
Obama administration, and then the Biden administration has 
completely gotten rid of all of those reforms and work 
requirements. We want a safety net, we want to make sure people 
don't go homeless or hungry, but we want to help them get in 
the workforce through training, and through they should be 
either looking for a job, and training, or in a job.
    Mr. Allen. That's what America is all about. Opportunity 
for all. Thank you very much and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Ms. Wild you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Everybody wants 
people to be able to have good jobs that pay well and wants 
opportunity for everyone. I think we on both sides of the aisle 
absolutely agree on that. But this is about things that cost 
working folks money quite frankly. And so, I want to ask you, 
Dr. Shierholz, about the joint employer rule. Your organization 
estimated that the Trump Department of Labor's joint employer 
rule would have cost American workers 1 billion dollars.
    And yet, some of my colleagues across the aisle continue to 
advocate for legislation that would put this Trump era rule 
into law. It would allow predatory companies to use 
contracting, and subcontracting, basically as a get out of jail 
free card. Can you tell us what that kind of legislation, 
passage of that kind of legislation would mean for America's 
working families?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. Thank you so much for that question, 
and I want to take another second first to correct something 
that was just stated. The welfare reform of 1996 was not a 
resounding success. It looked like a resounding success if you 
only measure until the year 2000, because we had the strongest 
labor market at that time than we have had until the last 2 
years.
    If you look past that, when the macro economy situation 
deteriorates, it does not look even close to being a success. 
That's just an important background that we need to have.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you.
    Ms. Shierholz. OK. On joint employer, yes, what the joint 
employer rule that's being debated, or that's being----
    Ms. Wild. Let me just reState because you answered 
something else, and that's great. It was helpful. So, what I'm 
really looking for, what would the consequences be of 
implementing this Trump era joint employer rule for working 
families?
    Ms. Shierholz. For implementing the Trump era rule. So, 
what that rule does is it makes it less possible for workers to 
uphold all--to get all employers that control the terms and 
conditions of their employment to the bargaining table. And 
that means they can less effectively collectively bargain, and 
that leads to lower wages, lower benefits.
    Ms. Wild. So, I like to put things in really clean terms. 
If you have multiple employers, it's really hard to get them 
all to the table to negotiate pay.
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes.
    Ms. Wild. The right to organize, benefits, working 
conditions, and other things. Is that fair to say?
    Ms. Shierholz. That's exactly right. An employer who is not 
the lead employer, if the union wants to negotiate over say 
health insurance, and they're like no, that's controlled by the 
lead employer, I can't negotiate over that. That means the 
union is less able to effectively negotiate.
    Ms. Wild. OK. Thank you for that. And I also wanted to ask 
you about something about rulemaking that the NLRB initiated 
last September to rescind and replace the Trump 
administration's joint employer status standard. The Economic 
Policy Institute estimated that if it was implemented the 
NLRB's proposed rule would increase annual worker earnings by 
over 1 billion dollars.
    Again, I like plain talk. We would like working people to 
make more money. Is that a fair statement?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes.
    Ms. Wild. And how would this proposed joint employer status 
rule empower workers?
    Ms. Shierholz. It's the opposite of what happened with the 
Trump rule. It would allow employees, workers who are in a 
union, to bring all the companies who control the terms and 
conditions of their employment to the bargaining table. That 
makes the bargaining more effective and leads to higher wages.
    Ms. Wild. So can I ask you this because I think sometimes 
there is this concern by small businesses, and quite frankly 
they are egged on by some of our colleagues across the aisle, 
and being concerned that it's somehow going to hurt them if 
they have this kind of rule. Can you tell us how small 
businesses might benefit under this rule?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. This is the thing that kind of boggles 
my mind in this discussion. Small businesses, franchisees, 
they're already on the hook for violations of labor law. I mean 
it could be something that they're getting pressure from the 
franchisor, or the lead company to violate labor law.
    But if the joint employer--they are the only ones currently 
who are accountable. If we have a strong joint employer 
standard, then the lead company will also be accountable as 
well. It strengthens the position of the small business.
    Ms. Wild. So, it would in a way reduce the potential 
liability of a small business?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. It means it's more broadly shared, yes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. With that I yield back Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much Ms.ld. Mr. Comer 
you're recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's go back to 2015, 
the National Labor Relations Board comprised entirely of 
President Obama's appointees, created a broad definition of 
joint employment that put the franchise model at risk, and 
threatened to erode small business owner's control of their 
operations.
    This action cost franchise businesses 33.3 billion dollars 
per year and prevented the creation of 376,000 jobs over the 
next 5 years. Then during the time of soaring prices, we saw 
the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour division rescind the 
narrowly tailored joint employment rulemaking published under 
the Trump administration and released a proposed rulemaking 
reverting once again to the harmful Obama era joint employer 
definition.
    Reversing the previous administration's action has once 
again upended business owner's stability and authority over 
settling the essential terms of employment for their employees. 
In my own State of Kentucky alone, any shift in the definition 
of joint employment affects 10,971 franchise locations, 
generating over 9.7 billion dollars.
    Time and time again those on the other side of the aisle 
have trampled on the rights of these small business owners and 
failed to provide clarity for their employees. That's why the 
Save Local Business Act is essential. Congress must codify a 
tailored consistent joint employers standard to prevent 
infringement from government bureaucrats on our Nation's 
entrepreneurs and job creators.
    To do this, I'm introducing the Save Local Business Act, 
which provides a stable definition of a joint employer as one 
which directly, actually, and immediately exercises significant 
control over the essential terms and conditions of employment. 
If this definition is not codified, franchisees across the 
country may be subject to further interference by future 
rulemakings, which could subject them to bargaining with unions 
for another employer's workers, making them targets of union 
dispute activities, or be held liable for another employer's 
unfair labor practices.
    Mr. Akers, can you explain how this legislation would help 
you grow your business?
    Mr. Akers. Absolutely. We choose whether we are going to 
grow and add locations based on staffing. When you take that 
opportunity away from us, why would we continue to grow when 
somebody else is going to have oversight on those staff 
members? The only way we can do this, and frankly, why would 
somebody buy a new business, a new franchise, if they learned 
that they're not going to be able to make decisions about their 
employees?
    Saving local businesses, especially through the franchise 
model, it's critical to have that law put into place.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Spear, can you provide us some context about 
joint employer relationships within the trucking industry, and 
how the Save Local Business Act would impact those wishing to 
franchise, or enter into a joint employer relationship?
    Mr. Spear. I think we need flexibility. I mean we're trying 
to attract more talent into the industry, and let's be really 
honest why this is actually happening, and why you have to 
introduce legislation like this. This is about increasing 
membership and unions. This is about generating more dues, and 
unions.
    They've halved the amount of membership over the last forty 
years, and yes, this is a concerted effort to change the rules, 
change the laws, and channel more people into unions. And 
eliminating flexibility is about the worst thing that you can 
do right now in an economy that's trying to recover from COVID, 
and trying to lead the world, candidly.
    Our industry is essential. And it proved that during COVID, 
and so any attempt to unravel our business models, eliminate 
our workforce by removing choice, we're going to oppose that 
rigorously. And just ask the employees. Just ask the 
independent contractors why did they choose this path? You'll 
get the answer that you're looking for, and I think your 
legislation will be on track to preserving that.
    Mr. Comer. Right. Well Madam Chair, someone who has had 
ownership interest in a couple of different franchises, I could 
tell you anyone who takes that significant risk of purchasing a 
franchise, and understands the terms and conditions of that 
franchise agreement, then they're blindsided by Federal 
bureaucrats on just out of the blue rulemaking that has a 
detrimental impact on their bottom line, and on the, you know, 
the significant risk and the work that they put in this. It's 
very unfortunate.
    It's a disincentive to attract investment to create new 
jobs to grow our economy. So, I look forward to working with 
you, Madam Chair, on this legislation. I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Comer. It's great when we 
have Members who have a wide ranging of experiences themselves. 
They can speak to the issues. Ms. Hayes, you're recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. Before I go into my 
questions I just would like to flag for the Committee, I 
represent the State of Connecticut, and I'd like to correct the 
record on some comments that were made in openings. 
Connecticut's unemployment rate is currently 4 percent as of 
February 2023.
    Our total unemployment in Connecticut is 16--I'm sorry, 
76,000 people. In September 2022, Connecticut saw a 27 percent 
decrease in unemployment, the third largest drop since 1987. As 
of September 2023, 16,500 jobs have been created in Connecticut 
since President Biden took office.
    And 83,700 jobs have been created statewide. As of 
September 2022, 1800 manufacturing jobs have been created in my 
district--I'm sorry, in Connecticut. In my district, and 8,400 
in statewide. In 2021, 27,000 workers in Connecticut were 
employed in clean energy and emerging sectors, and 9,600 
applications to start a new business were filed in Connecticut, 
up from 6,100 the year before the pandemic.
    So blue State shutdowns did not stifle the economy. In 
Connecticut, it is an example of how we have used American 
Rescue Plan Act funds and other incentives by the Biden 
administration to stimulate our economy and get people back to 
work.
    Since President Biden took office, the economy has created 
12.4 million jobs between 2019 and 2022. Low wage workers 
experienced historically fast, real wage growth, and wages at 
the 10 percentile grew 9 percent over the same 3-year period. 
The actions of congressional Democrats in the Biden 
administration have driven this wage growth.
    However, our work is not complete. Connecticut has 
recovered about 96 percent of the nearly 289,000 jobs lost 
during the pandemic, and job openings remain above pre-pandemic 
levels in Connecticut. Additional support from Congress can 
help fully equip workers with the skills they need to be 
competitive and provide employers with a highly productive 
workforce.
    Last year in Congress we passed the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act, or WIOA. This included my bill, the Youth 
Build for Futures Act, which would have provided 1 billion 
dollars over 6 years for Youth Build, and improved program 
support for vulnerable youth who are not in school or employed.
    Dr. Shierholz, can you tell me what are the risks to State 
and local workforce development programs without the passage of 
an updated WIOA Act, and how will a lack of congressional 
action affect current hiring and employment conditions, 
especially as we try to file these new and emerging economies?
    Ms. Shierholz. The making sure that we have a workforce 
that's prepared for the modern economy is so incredibly 
important. I also think about this as we shift to a clean 
energy economy, we're going to be needing to make sure that 
people are really trained. So, making sure these programs are 
really, really like the top-notch programs is incredibly 
important.
    One thing I really think that we need to focus on is union 
apprenticeship programs. Another key area is pre-apprenticeship 
programs. Pre-apprenticeship programs are one key way that you 
can get--that we can increase diversity in apprenticeships. You 
can really attract more women, black youth, other groups that 
may not otherwise end up in apprenticeship programs, and then 
setting up a pathway--a clear pathway to good jobs is crucial.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I really appreciate that because as 
a teacher I always believe that if we can expose young people 
to more opportunities much sooner, they would see all of the 
choices that are available to them. In the conclusion of your 
testimony, you emphasized the importance of expanding Federal 
funding for apprenticeships and other workforce training 
programs to create pathways to higher-paying jobs.
    Can you tell us how can workforce training apprenticeship 
programs provide more protection for workers, and what role can 
these programs play in helping workers increase career 
mobility?
    Ms. Shierholz. It creates opportunity. It means it gives a 
foot in the door. It creates the opportunity for being able to 
get on a career path that can lead to a family sustaining job. 
It's just a crucial step for a huge swath of our labor market.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you Dr. Shierholz, you're going to help 
me get a gold star. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Owens, you're recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you so much. Ms.ierholz, I just 
have a quick question for you. Have you ever run a business?
    Ms. Shierholz. Right now, I'm the President of an 
organization that has around 50 FTEs.
    Mr. Owens. No, no, I'm not talking about--a business, have 
you ever invested, had shareholders you have to kind of deal 
with, or look at your profit?
    Ms. Shierholz. I have not, but as I said I now run an 
organization with 50 FTEs.
    Mr. Owens. We're talking about business owners here. And 
I'll just say this because we do have people on this desk here 
that are experts at what they do for decades. A little bit of 
my history, and by the way there's nothing wrong with 
government and business owner. Either one is OK. I think it's 
important to understand there's a need for both.
    I came out of the NFL after 10 years and started a 
business, and 9 years failed totally big time. I went to being 
a security guard and a chimney sweep. I never, ever thought 
about being a government worker. I did decide--did get back in 
a corporate environment, and always had a business on the side 
as an independent contractor.
    The reason why because I wanted a choice. I wanted to have 
control, I wanted to have a dream path, another person's job. 
Do you think that being in your position it would be healthy to 
listen to other business owners, what they think since Mr. 
Spears how long have you been in your profession?
    Mr. Spears. I've been in this role 7 years, and 2 years 
prior in our congressional office, so nearly 10 years.
    Mr. Owens. OK. Franchise?
    Mr. Akers. Yes. I've been in the franchise world for 17 
years in corporate America running businesses for 30 years 
before that.
    Mr. Owens. Heritage, and Mr. Moore, how long have you been 
doing what you're doing?
    Mr. Moore. I run three non-profits, so I have not run a 
private, you know, a private for-process business. But I take 
your point. I mean this is, you know, one of the problems with 
the Biden administration. We did this famous study that came 
out 6 months ago that of the 75 top economic, financial, 
transportation, energy officials in the Biden administration 
the average number of years of business experience, median 
number is zero.
    Mr. Owens. OK. I think you made a good point. First of all, 
a shout out to every business owner up here that's taken a 
risk. For many people who don't understand our free market, our 
great society, our great country, our freedom was built on our 
middle class. Middle class are those folks that have empathy, 
they have a vision, they want a good name, and they look back 
and try to invest back in their community.
    That middle class is powered by business owners. The 
business owners and the middle class is what pays your salary. 
Because it's excess, it is a profit. I think when you talk 
about things like PRO Act, why don't you talk to the experts? 
I'm trying to understand how government workers get to this 
point where because you're good at one area, you're experts in 
everything else.
    We're telling you that this country's built on business 
ownership, on taking risk. I've been risk--and again, 
personalities, we have different personalities. Some are more 
risk adverse. I happen to be one of those guys. So, I like 
risk, because I think to get my dream I'll have to take some 
more.
    So, it's OK to not want to be a risk taker, but don't take 
away the dreams and hopes and choices for those who do. This 
country has always been built on business ownership, and we 
need to make sure that we understand the threat to our Nation 
today is this mentality that we have this central force that 
knows everything, and can dictate every single step in our 
lives, in terms of what we do and what we don't do.
    What choices we have, and what choices we don't, and we 
cannot afford to do that. I wanted to ask a real quick 
question. Mr. Akers, you stated in your testimony that it was 
790,000 franchise establishments employ 8.4 million workers. I 
want to keep in mind it's not government who hires these 
people. These are business owners.
    A lot of business work to serve millions of customers and 
help drive our economy. We need to ensure businesses like yours 
can expand higher and serve customers. As a franchisee, what 
specific regulations or policies do you believe are hindering 
your ability to address workforce challenges?
    Mr. Akers. Well, the No. 1 right now is the fear of the PRO 
Act going through because we certainly won't be able to do 
anything with that. We give better benefits and pay to our 
staff than anybody else could regulate, and we will lose that 
impact if we do this because it will be a one size fits all 
thing.
    And I thank you for what you're doing Mr. Owens.
    Mr. Owens. I'll say this. I'm so thankful the American 
people have given us an opportunity to stand for who they are. 
The Republican conference stands for faith, family, the free 
market, and education. It's the risk takers, and I could 
promise you we'll do everything we can to make sure we do not 
allow this PRO Act, this anti-American, anti-free market PRO 
Act to go through, and we'll make sure we educate the American 
people.
    Let them know you dream, go for it. If you want to work for 
the government, go for it. But do not stop those who empower 
the middle class. And with that I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Ms. Leger Fernandez, 
you're recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, thank you so very much Ranking 
Member Scott, and Chairwoman Foxx for putting together this 
panel, talking today. You know, I spent 2 days ago I spent time 
with Dolores Huerta, who as you know is such a champion for 
workers? rights and human rights.
    It was wonderful to be with her as she's 92 years old, and 
still marching for workers? rights, and spending the time 
talking to New Mexicans and others about the importance of 
unions. Dolores and Cesar understood what we do when faced with 
economic and income inequality. We give workers more power, we 
pay workers what they deserve.
    That's what we did with the billions of dollars in spending 
in the Infrastructure Bill. We wrote into the law a requirement 
that workers get paid what they deserve. Americans know that 
this is the right thing to do as well. We have the highest rate 
of approval for unions since 1965. 71 percent approval for 
unions. Americans recognize the value of unions.
    We know that they are key to achieving fair pay, to 
maintaining safe working conditions, to recognize the dignity 
of each person's work. That is key to our country's success. 
Dr. Shierholz, your organization has repeatedly found evidence 
that unions shrink both racial and gender wage gaps, while 
raising wages for all workers.
    The drop in union membership since the late 1970's as 
you've shown us, taking $58.00 a week out of the paycheck of 
non-union working without a college degree, so it's across the 
board. Can you tell us a bit more how collective bargaining 
levels the playing field for workers, especially those without 
a college degree?
    Ms. Shierholz. Thank you for that question. So, unions, the 
empirical evidence is just clear, unions--workers who are in a 
union make about 10 percent more than similar workers who are 
not in unions. They have higher benefits. They have better 
working conditions, better scheduling, more likely to have 
vacation, healthcare, retirement benefits, like the sort of 
list is endless.
    They have a voice on the job, so if there is an issue at 
work, they actually have a mechanism to be able to communicate 
to their employer, which can make the employer, make the 
workplace safer. It can provide real innovative ideas for the 
workplace. So, it is the--what they do is just provide some 
countervailing power to workers to sort of the inherent 
employer power, make the economy better off.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much. And you know 
the other major concern we have is protecting our babies, 
protecting our children. And many of whom are migrants from 
Latin America fleeing the worst horrors of egregious labor 
conditions. Dr. Shierholz, a new report from your organization 
finds that the number of minors employed in violation of child 
labor laws has increased 37 percent in the last year and 
skyrocketed 283 percent since 2015.
    Chair Foxx, I seek unanimous consent to enter this report 
into the record.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, I want to get to thanking Mr. 
Spear in your testimony for highlighting the safe driver 
apprenticeship program, and the Women of Trucking Advisement 
Board. Thank you very much for noting those. Both of these 
programs, I will note, were created by the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, as you pointed out, correct?
    I will note that not one of our Republican colleagues on 
this Committee voted for those important apprenticeship 
programs. But going back to you, Dr. Shierholz, how have recent 
State level rollbacks and child labor protections exacerbated 
the issue of child labor?
    Ms. Shierholz. There have been in ten states bills passed 
to roll back child labor standards over the last 2 years alone. 
It's just remarkable that we are now having this debate about 
whether 14-year-olds should work in meat packing plants, like 
that we're going back to this idea of children in factories is 
actually kind of mind-boggling.
    It's the idea that people are saying we need this is 
because of labor shortages. But the economics tells you there 
is a hard and fast way to solve a labor shortage. You raise 
wages. That's how you attract workers. So, the idea that 
instead of raising wages for grownups, we would instead use 
what is inevitably the most vulnerable, economically precarious 
youth to fill those roles. It's just--it's absolutely 
unthinkable.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much Dr. for that, and 
I would also note that we have passed the last session, the 
Congress, the House passed immigration reform, the Farm Worker 
Modernization Act, and various other acts that would also allow 
for immigrant workers to participate, which has impacted our 
labor force.
    It would be a 1.4 trillion dollars economic benefit if we 
did that. My time has passed, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Williams, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know before I 
entered here today, I actually was concerned about our economy, 
and concerned about inflation. I was concerned about real 
wages. I was concerned about a lot of things, but some of the 
testimony I've heard, and questions I've heard, we're living in 
the greatest economic time in history.
    And with practically full employment, and it's practically 
a worker's paradise. And I'm also ashamed to say that my 
children have held jobs since they were 16 of their own 
volition, and it's too late now to go back and stop them from 
the enormous success that they're having in academics, and in 
their professional lives to prevent the scarring that obviously 
was done by this terrible tragedy.
    So, my own personal experience is actually quite different. 
Mr. Moore, we've heard this celebration of the unemployment 
rates, and yet it seems maybe not all is well. Can you talk 
about the employment participation rates, and what your 
observation has been, and why that's important please sir?
    Mr. Moore. Just a word about what you said about people 
working at younger ages. You know, the statistics are pretty 
clear that the earlier you start working the more successful 
you are in your life. When I worked for 10 years at the Wall 
Street Journal, we had so many successful people come in. Every 
area of life, whether it was music, arts, finance, business, 
and I'd always ask them what did you do when you were growing 
up.
    And I was struck by how many people grew up on farms 
because if you're someone like my wife who grew up on a farm, 
you start working when you're 7, or 8, or 9 or 10 years old. 
And you work, you establish a work habit. I'm not saying I'm 
for child--against, you know, getting rid of child labor laws.
    I'm just saying you're right. 13, 14, 15-year-olds probably 
should be doing after schoolwork and things like that to 
buildup their skills to be more successful in life. Look, the 
economy is--I'm with the, you know, 67 percent of Americans who 
just think this economy is really fragile.
    The labor market is strong. The job market is strong today. 
There's no question about it. It's about as strong as I've 
seen. The problem is people are getting poorer. Every month 
that Joe Biden has been in office the average Americans get 
poorer and poorer and poorer and poorer.
    Because when you have inflation running, you know, at 15 
percent over the last 2 years, in other words over that whole 
period, and wages are only up by 10 percent, guess what? Your 
purchasing power declines. It's exactly what happened in the 
1970's by the way. And then the economy collapsed. So, I don't 
think Americans are feeling the love for this economy, and I 
think we have to do real reforms, and you know, the main point 
is let's encourage people to get into the workforce.
    You're not going to get out of poverty if you don't have a 
job. And the jobs are out there. So that's my take on where we 
are, and I--look, if we continue to spend and borrow as we've 
done with this 6 trillion-dollar massive increase in our debt, 
and I find that to be incredibly dangerous. I think we will 
have a financial crisis in this country if we don't start 
balancing our budget right away.
    Mr. Williams. This is a true statement. It doesn't matter 
what side of the aisle you're on. You can't lie to the American 
people about the economy. They live it every day. The truth is 
working Americans have fallen 10 years behind in wages, in real 
wages, and that's a shame. And it's because of inflation, it's 
because of the policies, particularly the last 2 years, but not 
exclusively the last 2 years.
    Right now, 63 percent of Americans live paycheck to 
paycheck, and with the rising costs that are rising faster than 
their wages, they're falling further and further behind through 
no fault of their own. And we, Members of Congress, and 
yourselves, even as business owners, or policy experts, really 
deserve, or really owe working Americans an answer on why 
that's true.
    And there's a certain compact that we've made with working 
Americans. If you finish high school, if you get a job, if you 
show up, if you continue to add skills, you're going to be OK. 
And you're going to be able to support a family. You're going 
to be able to have maybe a nicer car than your neighbor.
    Maybe you can get a few toys along the way. This is really 
what people in my district live for. And God bless them for it. 
And through no fault of their own, because of our energy 
policies, this goes is sliding further and further away. And 
they want to know what happened. They're not political 
activists, they're not Ph. Ds in economics.
    They didn't go to Wharton. And they really want some 
answers, and they want some actions. Right now, we are telling 
ourselves fibs about the economy. We are saying that we're 
bridging to a new golden carbon free economy that will 
impoverish the middle class.
    We're saying that there's a worker nirvana just over the 
horizon, if we just had more regulation, and that is not true. 
And it's been proven false throughout all of history. So, I 
appreciate your comments, and I appreciate your standing up 
here and speaking the truth about the economy, where it can be 
discerned. Thank you. I yield back Madam.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Ms. Stevens, 
you're recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our 
distinguished panelists for being with us here this morning on 
the Education and Labor Committee hearing for this topic of 
Unleashing America's Opportunities for Hiring and Employment. 
It is something that is quite acute to us in southeastern 
Michigan, Oakland County, where I represent a manufacturing 
destination with 2 and a half percent unemployment.
    We got a tight labor market, and frankly, I believe that we 
have the best practice example of American Rescue Act dollars 
at play. And look, we have been through a tumultuous season, 
with the COVID-19 pandemic. We've also had economic turbulence, 
for markers throughout this century, if it is the great 
recession which took us time to dig out of.
    You know, it wasn't until April 2014, when total employment 
reached its pre-recession level, and that was after actions 
that we took with the Recovery Act. This is work that we heard 
from at the local level where it said, hey, it's time to invest 
right? We've got to invest fully to fully be able to recover.
    And certainly, on this Committee, we're looking at and 
evaluating the experience of our low wage workers, our lower 
wage workers, and how to lift people out of poverty, and bring 
people into the middle class, which is why many of us have 
pushed for a long time to raise the minimum wage.
    But Dr. Shierholz, we recently marked the 2-year 
anniversary of President Biden's American Rescue Plan. I know 
we're talking about this in today's hearing. And I wanted to 
just directly ask you that in terms of the harm to workers that 
was avoided because of the important investments that were made 
in this package, we believe, and many of us in this Committee 
believe, tie people to jobs, right?
    Let's make sure that people stay tethered to jobs. Let's 
not leave people in long-term unemployment. But could you speak 
to the experience of workers in harm that was avoided because 
of the steps that were taken with the American Rescue?
    Ms. Shierholz. I totally appreciate this question, and I 
just want to quickly correct something that was just said 
before I do that. That this idea that U.S. workers have fallen 
10 years behind in real wages, that's just empirically false. 
If you look since 2019, workers at every point of the wage 
distribution have higher wages now than they did then.
    And those at the very bottom of the wage distribution have 
wages now that are 9 percent higher than they were then, so.
    Ms. Stevens. So, people are making more money.
    Ms. Shierholz. They are making more money than they did 
pre-COVID. I'm not saying inflation wasn't a big hit, but over 
that period wages--nominal wages have grown enough to make up 
for that. OK. ARPA. So, I think this question, we only have to 
look to what happened after the great recession to show what we 
just avoided, by passing ARPA.
    In the aftermath of the great recession, it took 10 years 
to get back down to the pre-recession unemployment rate. Weak 
recoveries, which is what we saw then, they churn out 
inequality. They churn out racial inequity, they churn out lost 
opportunities. ARPA kept that from happening. Like the scale of 
the inequality that didn't widen, the racial inequities that 
didn't get worse, like the opportunities that were not lost are 
just pretty staggering to think about.
    Ms. Stevens. And we're utilizing ongoing ARP investments to 
rebuild the State and local private sector workforce. You know, 
it's just a place where we've partnered with AFSCME and heard 
from AFSCME very directly on. And so, are there other examples 
of how ARP has supported lower wage workers, particularly of 
the State and local level to continue to grow that workforce?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. That's actually, that's a mixed bag, 
right? Like and when we look at the private sector has just 
gone like gangbusters over the last 2 years. The public sector 
is growing, but not as fast of a rate, in that there's still a 
really big gap, so State and local governments, particularly, 
some of them are using the relief that was in the American 
Rescue Plan to raise pay and hire those workers back.
    But others aren't doing that as much and should be doing 
that more. You know, it's K through 12. It's teachers. Those 
are the--we absolutely----
    Ms. Stevens. Stabilizing our schools?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. We need schools.
    Ms. Stevens. Are you familiar with the statistic that our 
country rebounded economically the fastest of any nation coming 
out of COVID-19?
    Ms. Shierholz. You know, I haven't looked at the global 
stuff, but you can look at history in the U.S., and that is 
true for past recessions in the U.S. Like what we did now it 
was just an unbelievable policy achievement.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Unbelievable policy achievement. 
And with that, I yield back Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Banks, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Mr. Spear, Indiana is one of the most 
active trucking industries in the United States. In late 2021, 
the ATA put out the following press release on the Biden 
administration's vaccine mandate, and how it would threaten the 
trucking industry, and cripple the Nation's supply chain. Can 
you elaborate more on those mandates, or even just the threat 
of those mandates, and how they impacted your industry and our 
supply chain?
    Mr. Spear. I'm quick to point out that the Trump 
administration, President Trump, Biden administration, 
President Biden didn't create the global pandemic. OK. You play 
the hand you're dealt, and you know, when you're trying to 
recover economically, you're trying to navigate the pitfalls of 
a pandemic like this, get people vaccinated, keep it from 
spreading.
    You don't make it worse. And this is an administration that 
well exceeded the statutory authority of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970. OSHA does not have the authority 
to regulate vaccine mandates. So, when this was put out, we 
joined a number of others in suing, took it through two Federal 
District Courts to the Supreme Court, and got a 6-3 decision, 
and bounced it.
    Because we knew they didn't have the authority. We knew 
this was semantics. But this wasn't going to solve the problem. 
Our drivers, by the way, throughout COVID, got in the truck and 
delivered everything that we need, including the vaccine, the 
PPE. We did that. You know, you're welcome. You're welcome.
    So, to put out a mandate for people that are getting in the 
cab that are isolated largely, from being exposed to COVID, and 
are keeping our economy glued together had to be one of the 
most ridiculous policy ideas I have ever heard. And they 
deserve to get bounced to the Supreme Court, and we as an 
industry, will continue to exercise our legal rights when we 
see it's warranted.
    Mr. Banks. Well, I agree with you. It remains unclear if 
the border vaccine requirements for non-U.S. citizens coming to 
the United States is going to end on May 11. The Canadian 
Trucking Alliance has said this mandate has affected thousands 
of unvaccinated truck drivers in Canada and Mexico, by 
preventing them from entering the United States.
    If the Biden administration's border vaccine requirements 
remain in place, and truckers from Canada and Mexico remain 
unable to come to the United States, how will that affect our 
trucking industry and the supply chains throughout North 
America?
    Mr. Spear. It's a dramatic impact. Removing literally 73 
percent of the USMCA freight, so we were supporting NAFTA, and 
now USMCA there isn't really anything that we don't eat, drink 
or wear that doesn't come off a truck. There's a driver behind 
the wheel to make sure that happens, and yes, we rely on 
Canadian and Mexican drivers to support that.
    To support the supply chain. So, these mandates matter, and 
it really comes down to diplomacy. Work with your Canadian 
counterparts and your Mexican counterparts, so that we can 
maintain seamless policies with respect to vaccinations that 
don't have an adverse impact on the economy. It's not that 
difficult, but we're not communicating with our counterparts, 
and that's a big problem where you have these disparities.
    It has a measurable impact on trade and the economy, and 
we're the ones to bear it as an industry. We feel it first 
before anybody else.
    Mr. Banks. It seems like common sense. We appreciate all 
you do to represent Hoosier truck drivers. With that, Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Banks. Mr. Mrvan, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Shierholz, some 
70 percent of Americans have a favorable view of unions and 
some 48 percent of workers who are not in unions, would like to 
belong to one. However, union density is only at about 10 
percent. Why is there such a wide gap?
    Ms. Shierholz. Yes. That's--oops sorry. I got it. Thank you 
for that question. I think it's really important. There is just 
that gap between the share of workers who want to be in the 
union, and the share of workers who are actually in a union. 
That's policy. That gap is policy. That is policy that has not 
kept up with employer aggressiveness in fighting unions, that 
has really undermined workers' actual right to be in a union.
    Mr. Mrvan. OK. So, I represent Northwest Indiana, heavy on 
industry, manufacturing, and have a strong union presence. And 
the ability to collectively bargain and create a safe workplace 
is extremely important. And so, from my perspective there is 
absolutely a role for union.
    And of course, there's a role for small businesses also. 
And I just also want to say as a local elected official, I was 
a North Township Trustee, and we were in charge of emergency 
poor relief. I did that for 15 years. And one of the programs 
that we worked with, with Ivy Tech, which is a community 
college, this was in 2006. It was to train and operate people 
to get their CDL license, to have a pipeline so people would 
come into our office, and we would try and find people instead 
of giving out direct aid, try and help them find a job.
    But the trucking industry in 2006 was in great need of 
drivers. So, when you, Mr. Spears, utilized the 78,000 drivers 
needed now, and 136,000 needed 10 years down the line, that is 
actually really a cycle that has existed for a long time. The 
trucking industry has been in great need of drivers at least 
since 2006. Is that correct?
    Mr. Spears. That is correct. We like to say post-COVID, 
welcome to the show. We've been short for a very long time.
    Mr. Mrvan. Right. And there are multiple things that get in 
the way of CDLs, and those opportunities, which is a phenomenal 
career path for those individuals. And I guess what my point is 
today is we do all have to work together in order to shore up 
the workforce to be able to create synergies that allow people 
to get into the CDLs and to drive, so that our freight is able 
to maneuver around.
    And when it comes to unionized labor, there is a role in 
our country because there has been exploitation of workers, and 
our history has shown that. And that's why it's so vitally 
important within my district to be able to protect working men 
and women. And just taking this opportunity also, closing the 
wage gap for African American and women, unions have done a 
great job in that.
    Union women who are of color make 93 cents on the dollar, 
where those who are non-union make about 78 percent, 78 cents 
on the dollar. So as a father of two daughters, I want to make 
sure that there's equality throughout all of that, and unions 
have helped do that. And so, part of this Committee's ability 
is to make sure that we are, or our mission, from my view, is 
to make sure that we have equality and opportunity for all 
workers.
    So, I thank you all very much for your testimony, and with 
that I yield back Chairwoman Foxx.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan. Ms. Miller, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you for yielding and thank you to all of 
our witnesses for being here today. My first question is for 
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, my constituents are very concerned about 
the collapse of the U.S. dollar. How do you think President 
Biden's proposal to spend 82.2 trillion dollars over the next 
10 years including 2.5 trillion in new mandatory spending, is 
going to impact the dollar in the long run?
    Mr. Moore. Well, Congressman, inflation is by definition a 
reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar, and that's 
what your constituents are seeing, month after month after 
month. It is not true that real wages are rising. Real wages 
have fallen in the last 2 years. There's a lot of different 
estimates, but the kind of median one that we looked at, at 
Heritage, is that the average worker has lost about $3,500 to 
$4,000 in 2 years.
    And look if you're making $70,000 a year, that's a lot of 
money. That's a lot of money that people are losing because 
of--and I think the inflation is a direct result. It's like the 
sun rising in the east and setting in the west. If you spend 6 
trillion dollars you don't have, you're going to get inflation 
right?
    We predicted it would happen and it did happen. It went up 
to 9.1 percent in the summer of 2020. Fortunately, it's come 
down to 6 percent. I think it's going to continue to drift 
down, but the damage has really been done. So, there's been 
long-lasting negative effects to this 6 trillion-dollar 
spending spree.
    We will, in my opinion, Congresswoman, be spending decades 
to undo the damage that has been done in the last 2 years.
    Mrs. Miller. We need to add the study of economics into our 
required courses. Maybe that will help us there. Thank you. 
Could you tell us how President Biden's reckless spending and 
foreign policy incompetence could lead to the Chinese currency 
replacing the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency?
    Mr. Moore. I'll answer your question this way. I think I 
would love it if every decision that you made here in Congress 
on both sides of the aisle was about how do we make the United 
States and the American workers the most competitive in the 
world. We all agree in this room we want the American workers 
to be the highest paid workers in the world.
    And the most skilled workers. Frankly, we're not taking 
competitiveness seriously right now as a country. When you're 
running a 6 trillion dollars in debt, do you think that makes 
America more competitive? Obviously not. When you dismantle a 
lot of American energy we get 75 percent of our energy folks 
from fossil fuels, oil, gas, and coal. That's how we provide 
the power that keeps our trucks running, and our factories 
running.
    You know, look, we're not going to run a 23 trillion 
dollars economy on windmills. It's just a stupid idea, and it 
just plays into the hands of our enemies. So, who has benefited 
from these anti-American energy policies? Well let's see, 
China, Russia, the OPEC countries and so on.
    So, one of my frustrations, having worked in the Trump 
administration, you know the last 6 months I mean look the last 
6 months that Trump was in office the economy grew by 11 
percent. The economy was booming. We saw huge, huge, nobody 
thought the recovery could happen a quickly from when we shut 
down the American economy.
    So, if we just stuck with the Trump policies, I happen to 
think the U.S. economy, we wouldn't be talking about you know, 
the high inflation. We wouldn't be talking about massive 
increases in debt. We wouldn't be talking about these problems 
with small businesses.
    So, the policies worked that we put in place in Trump. I'm 
a little biased. I helped put those in place, but as I said you 
know, earlier, we had the best economy ever right before COVID. 
And we've got to get back to the things that work.
    Mrs. Miller. If the Chinese currently does replace the U.S. 
dollar, what kind of risks are we looking at if that actually 
happens?
    Mr. Moore. It's a security crisis. It's an economic crisis. 
It is incredibly important for the whole security of the world, 
not just the United States. And the economic well-being of the 
world that the United States retain its world economic 
superpower status, and that the dollar remains the dominant 
currency.
    Now I don't think there's an immediate danger of some other 
country, like the Euro or the you know, or the Yuan, or these 
other countries taking over the United States currency, but if 
we continue to rack up our debt--because as you know, 
Congresswoman, we're up to--we're headed to 50 trillion dollars 
in debt in less than 10 years.
    If that happens, then I think that America's status as the 
world reserve currency will be put in great danger.
    Mrs. Stevens. Thank you. Moving on. Mr. Spear, given the 
workforce challenges your industry is facing, can you offer any 
specific ideas or suggestions to this Committee and Congress 
might consider that would make the workforce development system 
and overall pipeline for the next generation of American 
workers, more efficient for them and their employers?
    Mr. Spear. Yes. I appreciate that Congresswoman. In brief, 
I can provide more detail on what our recommendations with WIOA 
and reauthorization. Let's try to turn COVID into something a 
little more positive. This is a global pandemic. None of us 
have ever experienced it. And we witnessed something, you know, 
tragic, but also pretty phenomenal. We saw a lot of sectors of 
our workforce come together and support our economy. Got us 
through the pandemic.
    Isolate those, work with your other fellow committees to 
understand what segments of our workforce really contributed 
when it mattered most. Yes, I'm pretty darn proud of our 3.8 
million drivers, getting into their cabs, getting the food, the 
toilet paper where it needed to be, but also the vaccines, the 
PPE, the test kits.
    We did all of that. And it's a remarkable contribution. If 
you look at the nurses, the doctors, the EMTs, the people that 
went to people's doors and helped them get to the hospital and 
get the care they needed. These are segments of our workforce 
that contributed when it mattered most. We've identified them 
and rewarded and incentivize them.
    Chairwoman Foxx. I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up 
Ms. Miller, because your time is over.
    Ms. Miller. OK, thank you and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Courtney, you're recognized.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Dr. Shierholz, 
when we're talking about protecting the U.S. currency, the 600-
pound gorilla right now is the approaching default, in terms of 
the full faith and credit of our paper. Last January, the 
Treasury Secretary notified the world that we actually had hit 
the debt limit cap, and that special measures are the only 
thing that right now protects the dollar and protects our paper 
from really getting degraded and down valued, which is exactly 
what happened in 2011, when the brinksmanship was played here.
    I was around for that and remember it well. So again, if 
you could just sort of clarify that. If we're talking about, 
you know, protecting the currency of this country, which is a 
very valid concern because China would like to take over as the 
dominant currency, allowing this country to sleepwalk into a 
full default is the quickest way to have that nightmare occur; 
is that correct?
    Dr. Shierholz. That's right. Defaulting on the debt would 
be just an absolute catastrophe, for sure cause a deep 
recession. Like there's no question that that would be an 
unbelievably, an unbelievably catastrophic self-inflicted 
wound. Making, making, cutting a big deal to keep that from 
happening also would be a big self-inflicted wound like we did 
in 2011, where like that 2011 deal to increase the debt 
ceiling, but at the same time impose massive austerity was the 
thing that led to the incredibly weak and slow recovery that we 
had from the Great Recession.
    Mr. Courtney. And thank you for mentioning that, because 
you're right. The sequestration agreement that was put into 
place again suppressed growth in terms of both the defense and 
non-defense portions of the Federal budget, and as a result 
depressed growth. Ironically, when President Trump was elected, 
one of the first things that the Republicans did was to lift 
sequestration, which again--there again crisis that they 
created back in 2011, you know, that's where the fingerprints 
were in terms of putting that into place.
    But actually, lifting sequestration benefited the economy, 
as you I think noted in your testimony.
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes, absolutely. It was like Republicans 
held the austerity stance until Trump was in office, lifted 
that and it actually provided substantial stimulus to the 
economy in the final years of the Trump administration.
    Mr. Courtney. And as long as we're talking about those 4 
years, we actually voted as a Congress really with no drama in 
terms of lifting the debt limit three times, to the tune of $8 
trillion. Again, I think, you know, we should have a legitimate 
debate in this country about reducing the deficit. But using 
the lever of default as a way of basically, you know, putting 
this country at gunpoint, in terms of having to adopt policies 
that fall outside the appropriations process and the 
authorizing process, is again another recipe for again 
suppressing growth in this country, isn't that correct?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes, and the debt limit makes no economic 
sense. Like it is not empirically correlated with any measure 
of actual fiscal health in the economy. It is just an 
absolutely arbitrary number. To have so much be at stake 
because of such an arbitrary level, it's just--it's just 
unthinkable. But that's how we--but that's where we are.
    Mr. Courtney. And again, so to me there's just no question 
that, you know, if we really want to do something to help this 
country, is we need to fix this problem, because the Chinese 
would love to de-dollarize the world economy in terms of being 
again, the international standard, in terms of every 
transaction, whether it's energy, trade, I mean you name it.
    Again, talking about how we deal with the labor 
participation rate in this country, which is--I think that's a 
valid concern that everybody, regardless of party, should be 
focused on. I would note, to followup Mr. Moore's kind of 
rabbit punch on Connecticut, actually our labor participation 
rate is higher than other parts of the country.
    Again, I represent a district which is very defense heavy. 
We have Electric Boat shipyard, which right now because of the 
Biden defense budgets over the last 2 years, actually has a 
stable horizon in terms of submarine production. Last year they 
hired just shy of 4,000 workers. The total shipyard is at 
19,500 workers. This year's projected hiring rate is 5,750. 
Those are metal trades, design, engineering, and 
administration.
    Again, they are doing great with job fairs. There's one 
tomorrow actually in New London. If anyone's listening, you 
know, you're welcome to stop in, and they also are using the 
WIOA Workforce Board Pre-apprenticeship training pathway, in 
terms of connecting people, and again increasing the 
participation rate in the region.
    Ten weeks for a welder, 8 weeks for an electrician, 8 weeks 
for a CNC machinist. And again, if we're talking about ways to 
try and raise participation rate, there's a skills gap that is 
definitely holding people back. That is precisely what domestic 
spending and the Department of Labor through WIOA actually 
addresses. Maybe you can comment on that.
    Dr. Shierholz. You know what? That just made me think of 
another, because I totally agree with what you said, and then 
another key reason if we really want to raise the labor force 
participation rate, is we need to do things like maternity 
leave, paternity leave, childcare, paid leave. Like those are 
the things that are keeping people out of the labor force when 
they aren't, when they're not there, particularly women.
    Like women's labor force participation rate in the U.S. is 
falling so far behind our peer countries, who have all of those 
things and that's the difference. So that's another--like 
they're both avenues to really get, in the long run get labor 
participation up.
    Mr. Courtney. So again, there is just no question that if 
we increase the number of slots for pre-apprenticeship training 
in the metal trades, you know, we would hit that goal this year 
of 5,700 hires. I would just note, because I just was the 
speaker at an apprenticeship graduating class 3 weeks ago, 
which again it was folks in the metal trades. It was very--I 
mean I've been to UConn, go Huskies, you know, commencement 
ceremoneys, to you know, a lot of other universities that are 
there.
    Going to an apprenticeship graduation ceremony in some ways 
is the most inspiring, to see how people have transformed their 
lives using a pathway out of sort of traditional education and 
connecting to high value, good-paying jobs that can support 
themselves and their family and do something really important 
for our Nation. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Courtney, I want to note that we 
failed to turn the clock on when you began, so you had about 
seven and a half minutes. OK. Ms. Houchin, you're recognized 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for 
coming to testify before us today. We appreciate your time. As 
you may know, Indiana's State motto is the Crossroads of 
America. Hoosiers take pride in the fact that Highways 40 and 
41 were part of the original Federal highway system in 1926, 
and today 724 million tons of freight travels through our 
State, making us the fifth busiest State for commercial freight 
traffic.
    Mr. Spear, I want to thank the trucking industry for what 
our American truckers did to contribute a great deal during 
COVID, to get products on store shelves and to our homes. I 
want to express our thanks for the hard work of truckers 
working through the pandemic, to make sure that things were 
delivered. It wasn't perfect. Supply chain issues persist, but 
the trucking industry did not let us down during COVID, and we 
thank you.
    Mr. Spear, in your written testimony you mentioned a talent 
shortage of nearly 78,000 drivers and 41,000 of the severe 
workforce challenge to the trucking industry. Those numbers are 
a bit shocking, particularly considering that drivers in 
Indiana now average about $60,000 a year and can access full 
benefits. So, could you touch on some of the other factors that 
contribute to your workforce challenges?
    Mr. Spear. Yes. As we said earlier, we've been dealing with 
the shortage of talent for a number of years, certainly 
predating COVID. It certainly got worse post-pandemic, as fewer 
people were returning to work across all sectors of the 
economy, and trucking was certainly not isolated from that. So, 
it inflated from about 50,000 drivers to 78,000. Our technician 
shortage is from 29,000 to 41,000. We're even short on 
dockworkers. It is very difficult to get people to come back 
into the workforce.
    Pay has gone up over the last 5 years for drivers, 19 
percent higher than any other mode, any other mode in 
transportation. So, you don't have to have a college degree. 
You don't carry all the debt that comes with it. You know, we 
really need to make this an attractive place for all ages, 18 
to 20. If you're in your latter years, we have an aging 
workforce, higher than the national average. We need to provide 
wellness programs.
    We provide the health benefits. We provide the paid leave. 
We provide all of that, and yet we're still short of talent. 
So, this is problematic. Training, certainly investing in 
education and workforce development is going to be key. We're 
going to be really focused on WIOA and helping you design a 
bill that really focuses on the segments of our workforce that 
not only contributed through COVID, but are instrumental for 
our supply chain, our economy, and the ability to get those 40-
year highs in inflation down.
    Ms. Houchin. So, recognizing there's no silver bullet, a 
couple of things that may help would be the Drive Safe Act, or 
one thing that has been discussed during my time in government 
is transferring military CDLs to a civilian CDL. So those are 
some of the things, would you agree, that would be helpful?
    Mr. Spear. Absolutely. I mean this is one of many things, 
but the 18 to 20 populace, I said earlier, in exchange 48-49 
states allow an 18-year-old to drive. They can't cross State 
lines. We want them to do that, but we want them to do it 
safely and responsibly. So, the training and the technology 
that was in IIJ is something we support, but we need to do it 
responsibly.
    But looking at the military, I mean nobody in Congress I 
have heard is arguing against sending an 18-year-old over to 
protect our freedom, yet we do it all the time. The key there 
is teaching young people how to do their job safely and 
responsibly, and that's no different than what the trucking 
industry is asking for with respect to that talent pool.
    Ms. Houchin. OK, thank you. With my remaining Mr. Akers, 
Iowa has been a right-to-work State since 1947. Indiana has 
been a right-to-work State since 2012, and we were the 23d 
State in the Nation to be right-to-work. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics reported that in Indiana, manufacturing employment 
increased by 13.5 percent following right to work, compared to 
an average of just .5 percent during the same period for non-
right to work states.
    When we provide workers with fundamental free choice rights 
through right to work, aren't we opening up economic 
opportunity, and if we had something like the PRO Act, wouldn't 
we stifle economic opportunity in your opinion?
    Mr. Akers. Absolutely, absolutely. Our workers move all the 
time. We're in a business where they can go down the street and 
get another job right now. So frankly, they are making more 
money than they ever made before. Our wages are up close to 30 
percent. So, the PRO Act really just adds a regulation. 
Frankly, the cost of regulation to small business comes from 
employees and customers, because we have to pay for that 
somehow, that's where it's going to come from. Thank you.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. DeSaulnier, 
you're recognized for five minutes, if you're good you get a 
gold star.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm still waiting 
for my last gold star, but I trust you. Dr. Shierholz, I was 
taken by you alluded to John Kenneth Galbreath's 
``Countervailing Institutions,'' which I'm a big believer in. 
And so, from a historical perspective, it's frustrating that we 
get into these arguments and, you know you don't have to read 
all of Thomas Piketty to accept that an accurate objective 
analysis, there's going to be a balance. We're not looking at, 
I mean, and I get frustrated with free market as designed in 
this building, institution, that we live in a mixed market.
    We've gone a long way from people are going to get sick of 
me using the Eisenhower quote, where he said, at the greatest 
expansion period in the history of this country or probably any 
economy, when we had a vibrant middle class during his 
administration. And he said, President Eisenhower said only a 
fool would try to stop an American man or woman from attempting 
to organize if they choose.
    So, I agree with the other people. It should be a choice, 
but we have to have these countervailing institutions. I worry 
about this economy, and I agree with Mr. Moore on the 
purchasing power of middle-class people. But my perspective is 
the causes are different, which I believe you share. So how do 
we deal with the inequality in terms of capital versus wages, 
that has gotten worse in the last 3 years?
    And that's the way I perceive President Biden's 
initiatives. It's not trying to get, empower unions for the 
sake of unions. You need these countervailing institutions in 
order to get real purchasing power up, that hasn't been up 
since the ?70's.
    Dr. Shierholz. You said it perfectly. Like I think--like 
when you think of an employer, an employer has inherent power 
of an individual worker. The employer loses the worker, it's 
just one worker. The worker loses the employer, loses their 
job, that's their livelihood. There's just an inherent 
imbalance of power. Things like unions, things like minimum 
wages provide a countervailing power to workers, to create more 
balance, to create a fair and stronger growing economy. But the 
sort of neo-liberal deregulatory policies of the last 40 years 
has really broken that down, and we have seen the result.
    Skyrocketing inequality and much slower growth, because we 
didn't have that bottom-up, middle-out growth that really fuels 
strong growth. And so, we can kind of--we know the playbook, 
right, like to reverse the things that were undone to create 
the scene we're in now. So, raise the minimum wage, raise 
overtime protections, change labor laws so workers who want to 
join a union are able to join a union and on and on and on. 
Those things will make a massive difference.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. And for the middle class and for consumers, 
I'm sorry that my colleague isn't still here, but having owned 
small businesses for 35 years, a restaurant business that has 
amongst the higher mortality rates, I always looked at my 
employees being paid well, but I had to be competitive for 
people who are playing by the rules.
    Sometimes in California, almost a third of the small 
businesses were in the underground economy. So, we knew that 
they weren't paying their sales tax, they weren't paying it. 
Well, I had to compete with them, and it drove this dynamic. 
But my question is, consistent with what Nobel prize-winning 
Mr. Stiglitz says, you've got to have enough money for your 
employees to go out and buy the product. It's the Ford rule, 
right?
    If my workers can't buy the Model T, I'm not going to be 
successful. So again, could you respond to that?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yep, it really is that getting money in the 
pockets of people who are very likely to spend it, low-and 
middle-income workers. That is--that makes our economy 
stronger, more resilient, faster-growing. That is where we need 
to go from here, to sort of reverse, halt, and reverse some of 
the trends of rising inequality and weak growth that we've seen 
over the last 4 years.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Moore, you have had some controversy in 
things that you have said vis-a-vis the labor laws. There is a 
lot of information. I think the New York Times, or the Post is 
doing stories now about the tension, where more and more young 
people are working. I won't remind you of your quote, but I 
could give it to you that you did at the 2016 GOP Convention.
    How do we keep a balance here? I don't disagree with 
everything you say, but clearly that quote, you've got to make 
sure that people are protected as well. Would you care to 
respond to that?'
    Mr. Moore. Well, one of the things that we were proudest of 
in the Trump administration was the record high expansion of 
middle-class income. So median household income prior to COVID 
hitting; COVID changed everything. Median household income grew 
by $6,200, which was almost twice as much as in 8 years under 
Obama.
    So, we kind of know what works. I completely agree with 
what you're all saying, that yes, let's build a middle class--
--
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Moore, I was asking about the 
disenfranchising of the labor laws, taking away of the labor 
laws. So, I'll remind you of your quote. ``I'm a radical on 
this, and I'd like to have 11-year-olds be able to work.''
    Mr. Moore. Sir, I would defer to my colleagues. They know 
much more about that issue than I do. I'm not an expert on that 
by any means.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Artfully done. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Burlison, 
you're recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Spear, I want 
to point you to I think it is what is my new constituent.
    Mr. Spear. Dee Sova.
    Mr. Burlison. Her name is Dee Sova, and I'm proud to have 
her as a constituent because if you look at her record, it's 
impeccable. This is a person who has 27 years of driving 
experience, over two million accident-free miles, and she 
established the Divas Rock organization to encourage more women 
to get in the trucking industry, which is--she's just a real 
leader.
    But sadly, she made the news, and this is why I know about 
her, she made the news because she left California and moved to 
southwest Missouri, God's country, to work with Prime Trucking. 
And tell me about why did she do that?
    Mr. Spear. Well, I guess California's loss is Missouri's 
gain. She's a wonderful contributor to the economy, certainly 
to Prime. But she's an independent contractor. She's an 
independent contractor. African American, mother, putting her 
kids through college. She understands what it takes to be 
successful, not just as a mother but as a businessperson.
    And she left California simply because of the regulatory 
headwinds that were put on independent contractors, this AB5 
included, and relocated to Missouri, because she knew she could 
have a successful business model working for Prime, raising her 
kids, being responsible. But that was her choice. Nobody told 
her to do that, to pay her less or to deny her medical 
benefits. She got all of that in spades.
    She also knows that her work satisfaction, her pay, her 
benefits are actually higher under the business model she chose 
than if she drove as a fleet. It works for her, and it should 
be her decision, not the government's.
    Mr. Burlison. Right, but we in government like to think 
that we're smarter than folks like Dee Sova, right. We'd like 
to think that she shouldn't be doing this. She should be a 
captive employee and pay--so that she can probably pay dues.
    Mr. Spear. Well, it's certainly to bolster the union 
membership and dues. I think that's--this is pandering. I mean 
these bills are designed for that purpose alone. If you talk to 
Dee Sova, it's her choice. If she wants to be in the union, she 
can be in the union. She could certainly make that decision on 
her own.
    Mr. Burlison. And she couldn't have made the choice to 
become an employee and stay in California and receive those 
benefits, because they were offered. That's a path that was 
fully available, that she chose, like many people. What has 
been the impact of California? We're talking about the 
anecdote, but what is the full----
    Mr. Spear. Oh, the bottom line. When you're short 78,000 
drivers nationwide, 350,000 drivers in the country are 
independent contractors. If AB5 goes forward, that's 70,000 
independent contractors in California. You almost doubled, 
doubled just from that bill becoming law, the number of drivers 
we're short. She wants to be successful. It's her choice. She's 
very savvy. She's an America's Road Team captain. We pick them 
every 2 years. They're the best of the best. They have the best 
safety records of any drivers out there.
    She is a success story, and like many drivers, owner-
operators, independent contractors and fleet drivers, some of 
the smartest businesspeople you will ever come across.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Spear. I'm actually looking 
forward hopefully to meeting her someday. Mr. Moore, I think in 
Congress we have a lot of what I would call economic science 
deniers, right? At the end of the day, economics is a study. 
It's a scientific field; correct?
    Mr. Moore: You know, that's a good question. Is it a 
science or a theology? I think a little bit of both.
    Mr. Burlison. So let me ask you this question. Can we end 
poverty by raising the minimum wage? Let's say we wanted 
everyone in America to make $50 an hour. Certainly, that would 
end poverty, would it not?
    Mr. Spear. You know look. My opinion on the minimum wage is 
the best way to get wages up in America is to have better-
skilled, better trained, better educated workers. We have the 
highest paid workers in the world because, you know, we do have 
highly skilled workers and we need to--and by the way, the 
other thing you need that really hasn't been talked enough 
about at this hearing is you need vibrant, small businesses.
    One of your colleagues was saying that 65-70 percent of all 
jobs do come from businesses with less than 100 employees. So, 
we need to make sure that all the policies are not just 
oriented toward labor, but also the people, the employers who 
actually provide the jobs in the first place.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Manning, you're recognized 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Spear, let me 
just start by agreeing with you on one thing, and that is that 
the American people do want choice. I believe that was 
evidenced by the last election. It's just that you and I, I 
think, have a different understanding of what kind of choice 
the American people want.
    So let me move on, Dr. Shierholz, in my district, we have 
seen a surge of jobs growing in advanced manufacturing and 
other industries that require skilled labor. In the previous 
Congress, I was proud to support bills to expand and streamline 
registered apprenticeship programs like the National 
Apprenticeship Act. I was also proud to secure funding for 
North Carolina A&T State University to implement educational 
and training opportunities for people who are not full-time 
college students but want to secure education and training in 
the STEM fields, so they can fill some of the good, good-paying 
manufacturing jobs out there.
    What additional steps do you believe we should be taking to 
expand access to skilled training and apprenticeship programs?
    Dr. Shierholz. So I think things--I'm not a, I'm not a 
workforce expert, but I will say things like making sure that 
we have good access to union apprenticeships, pre-
apprenticeship programs, which really help with diversity, is a 
way to get like women, people of color into the pipeline, 
making sure that there's good pathways to--make sure there's 
good pathways to good jobs following the apprenticeship.
    Then can I say just one other thing? When I think about--
when I think about increasing labor force participation, it's 
not just about skills. It's also about making people who have 
care responsibilities, have them taking--like an ability to 
take care of them so that they can work. So, things like 
childcare, paid leave, paternity leave, maternity leave are 
also just a crucial like stool, of like what is it called, leg 
of that stool to increase our labor force participation.
    Ms. Manning. So those wraparound services are things that 
make it possible for people to work, and is it--is it true that 
we saw more women fail to come back into the workforce during 
the pandemic and at the end of the pandemic, and do you 
attribute it to those kinds of factors?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes it--you know what? I'm not sure exactly 
where it is right now, but we definitely saw that at least at 
one point in the pandemic, where you saw women's labor force 
participation drop more. Basically, labor force participation 
now is essentially back to where it was pre-pandemic, but it 
really kept people out during that period, and those with the 
care responsibilities were the ones that were hardest-hit. As 
we know, that tends to fall on women.
    Ms. Manning. So, no matter where I go in my district, from 
hospitals, to schools, to farms, to restaurants, I have 
employers tell me they simply cannot find enough workers to 
hire. Do you believe the lack of pathways to legal immigration 
and the virtual shutting down of immigration by the prior 
administration has had a negative impact on our workforce?
    Dr. Shierholz. It definitely has. You can just see the 
numbers, and I think I agree with Mr. Moore here, who also said 
that like in order to increase our labor force, one of the 
things that we really need is immigration. Like that's a core 
part of meeting U.S. workforce needs.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. Let me ask you about another area, 
and that is the mental health crisis that millions of Americans 
are facing in today's environment. The demand for mental health 
services has steadily increased due to--due to the awareness of 
COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid crisis. We've had all kinds of 
factors attributing to mental health crises, and of course, 
we're seeing, particularly with young people, the impact of 
social media.
    According to the Health Resources and Services 
Administration, our national shortage of psychiatrists, 
psychologists, and addiction counselors will be extremely 
exacerbated by 2035. Can you describe what the economic effects 
would be if workers couldn't access the mental health services 
they need, and what can we be doing to attract more people to 
go into these critical fields?
    Dr. Shierholz. That's a fine question, and I'll just say 
that we need to make sure that all kinds of health care, mental 
health services, other kinds of health care that make it 
possible for people to work, that that is there. So it's just 
absolutely important that we invest in those things. I think of 
the decline in State and local government jobs around this, 
where we know that a lot of that is teachers, but a lot of that 
is people who provide other services, including things like 
mental health services.
    We need to make sure that the pay for those jobs is good 
enough that it's really attracting people in.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you so much. My time is about to expire. 
I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Kiley, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Kiley. Dr. Shierholz, you were the chief economist for 
the Labor Department during the Obama administration; is that 
correct?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes.
    Mr. Kiley. And you are a supporter of the PRO Act. You 
testified today that it is a crucial reform; is that correct?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes, yes.
    Mr. Kiley. And you also testified that anyone who is a bona 
fide independent contractor will not be affected by the PRO 
Act. Was that your testimony?
    Dr. Shierholz. That's right.
    Mr. Kiley. So, as you're aware, the legal standard for 
independent contracting that is part of the PRO Act has already 
been implemented in California under State law, the law known 
as AB5. It contains the same ABC test. So, in reaching your 
conclusion that anyone who is a bona fide independent 
contractor will not be affected by the PRO Act, did you speak 
with the independent contractors who have been affected by AB5 
in California?
    Dr. Shierholz. I did not, but I can look at what the AB5, 
the ABC test actually does. It's a three-pronged test that----
    Mr. Kiley. I understand.
    Dr. Shierholz [continuing]. a bona fide contractor really 
would fit under.
    Mr. Kiley. My question was whether--I understand. But my 
question was whether you spoke with anyone who was affected by 
AB5 in California as an independent contractor, and your answer 
was no, is that right?
    Dr. Shierholz. That's true.
    Mr. Kiley. So, I have spoken with many of these folks. I'm 
from California, and as a matter of fact, shortly after that 
law went into effect, we compiled a whole book of their stories 
about how they have been affected by this law. AB5 Stories: 
Testimonials of Californians Who Have Lost Their Livelihoods. 
This was just in a few days after the law was out there. You 
could fill many more volumes by this point.
    And so, since you didn't have the opportunity to speak with 
those who have been affected in reaching your conclusion that 
those who are bona fide independent contractors will not be 
affected by the PRO Act, I thought maybe I'd share with you a 
few of their stories.
    For example, here is testimony from Colleen. Colleen says 
``I am a court reporter in California that does depositions. I 
do work for many different firms. Two firms have already 
notified me that they can no longer give me work. I am the one 
who supports my family, and I have been doing this work for 
over 30 years. I'm not sure what to do now.''
    Dr. Shierholz, does the testimony of Colleen in any way 
change your conclusion that anyone who is a bona fide 
independent contractor will not be affected by the PRO Act?
    Dr. Shierholz. It does not, because one of the things 
that's core, is does Colleen want to organize, because that's 
what will be affected under the PRO Act. What it does is, it 
means that people who are misclassified as independent 
contractors, who are not independent contractors will--the only 
way it affects them is if they actually want to organize. 
That's the thing. So, if there's people who are--yes. If 
Colleen wanted to organize, then I could say maybe that would 
be an impact.
    Mr. Kiley. OK. So, here's another person, Esther. She says 
``I help people who don't speak English communicate with 
medical providers. I'm a proud senior, independent and self-
sufficient. AB5 leaves me out of work, unprotected and 
isolated. It takes away my pride. It was passed without taking 
people like me into account.'' Does the testimony of Esther 
affect your conclusion that anyone who is a bona fide 
independent contractor will not be affected by the PRO Act?
    Dr. Shierholz. Not by the PRO Act.
    Mr. Kiley. This is from Jody. ``I worked years to gain my 
skills in American Sign Language interpreter. It was my goal 
since I was 9 years old. After AB5, I lost all three of my 
agencies. The dream I worked for is lost. I can't provide for 
my family and thousands of California deaf won't be serviced.'' 
Does the testimony of Jody affect your conclusion that anyone 
who is bona fide independent contractor will not be affected?
    Dr. Shierholz. I have heard anything that what is going on 
in the PRO Act is going to affect those folks.
    Mr. Kiley. The PRO Act contains the same ABC test as AB5, 
does it not?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes, but it doesn't affect like wage and 
hour law. Like it is only for--it only affects your status vis-
a-vis the NLRA.
    Mr. Kiley. This is from John. ``I am a guest orchestral 
conductor. Because of this bill, I just lost my first scheduled 
job with an orchestra, $9,000 that would have been a dent in my 
student loans or help pay my insurance, or pay for food and 
shelter is now gone, all because of AB5.'' Are you still sure 
that adopting this legal standard for independent contracting 
on a nationwide basis either for the PRO Act or the Department 
of Labor's proposed rule is not going to affect any bona fide 
independent contractor?
    Dr. Shierholz. Again, we're talking--the PRO Act, the 
Department of Labor's rule, the proposed rule that they just 
put out, does not implement the ABC rule. So that's not what 
we're talking about. We're talking about the PRO Act, which 
does implement the ABC rule only for the NLRA and none of the 
examples that you have given me----
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you.
    Dr. Shierholz [continuing]. have had anything to do with 
labor laws.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Spear, you've testified as the head of the 
American Trucking Association about the potential losses of 
livelihoods from the PRO Act. What were the numbers that you 
gave?
    Mr. Spear. Well just on ICs alone, you've got 350,000 
drivers operating under that model nationwide, 70,000 in 
California alone. We're right now short 78,000 drivers. So, you 
want to continue inflation at 40-year highs? Start getting rid 
of more of our drivers. I guarantee you you're going to pay 
double if not triple what you're paying at the shelf right now.
    Mr. Kiley. And so, despite whatever limitations Dr. 
Shierholz just tried to tell us, you think that these impacts 
would be felt as a result of----
    Mr. Spear. You've got a live rulemaking over at the 
Department of Labor right now that deals with this. So, it's 
not just the PRO Act. This is an all-out assault on a 90-year-
old case law supported business model. Why is that? Why is 
that? It's because union rates have dropped to half of what 
they were in 1983. They're struggling for membership; they're 
struggling for dues. So, what better way to change that than to 
change the laws, change the rule so you can channel more people 
into unions.
    I don't care if you're a union member or not. You should 
have the right to belong or not belong. That doesn't--just 
because you're struggling to organize doesn't mean you get to 
change the rules in your favor. These laws have been around for 
90 years. NLRA was passed in 1935. FSLA 1938, relatively 
unchanged. Why? Because they maintain the balance between 
employers and employees.
    This is a concerted effort to change that, and the only 
reason I can see doing so is to up membership and dues. That's 
it.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Spear, Mr. Kiley, I'm hoping to get 
this hearing done before 1:30 and the votes are coming. So, I'm 
going to ask people to please stay within their time. Ms. 
Bonamici, you're recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm really 
appreciative of the Committee's focus on workforce development. 
But I have to say I'm disappointed that many of my colleagues 
seem to be decoupling workforce development from workforce 
protections, and I really see finding solutions to grow the 
workforce and implementing fair labor standards should not be 
mutually exclusive. I think that those fair labor standards, 
fair wages, safe working conditions, the right to organize, 
those should be part of workforce development.
    You know last Congress, we passed the Infrastructure and 
Investment in Jobs Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, both on a 
bipartisan basis. We continue our commitment to American 
workers by creating pathways to good-paying family jobs. The 
Inflation Reduction Act, for example, lots of jobs there. We 
also advanced the bipartisan National Apprenticeship Act 
reauthorization in the House, and Committee Democrats also 
advanced a comprehensive reauthorization of the Workforce 
Innovation Opportunity Act.
    So, I just want to note quickly they had a lot of 
conversations about apprenticeships, and I know Dr. Shierholz 
you mentioned pre-apprenticeships. Those are really critical 
too in conversations I've had with pre-apprentices, a huge 
deal. Mr. Spear, you correctly described the important role 
that truck drivers fill in our economy by delivering critical 
goods relied on by families in my State of Oregon and around 
the country. So, thank you for keeping our economy moving 
forward.
    And I'm also glad to see in your testimony you are 
recognized as a--you are a registered apprenticeship program 
sponsor. Registered apprenticeships are good for workers and 
employers because of the high-quality training standards and 
strong protections, but also provide a return on investment. 
So, your testimony mentioned there were delays in the 
registration process.
    Well, the bipartisan National Apprenticeship Act helped 
streamline that registration process, actually requires that 
the Department of Labor give provisional approval within a 
month and final approval within a year. Would that be helpful 
in access to registered apprenticeships, would it to help fill 
the truck driver shortage?
    Mr. Spear. Yes. It's instrumental. It's one of the things 
that we've promoted and advocated for several years throughout 
the Trump administration, Biden administration. Finally got it 
done, finally got it done. And by the way, it's an 
apprenticeship program. There are union apprenticeship programs 
and there are non-union apprenticeship programs.
    Ms. Bonamici. Right. I appreciate that, and I want to ask a 
question of Mr. Akers. I just wanted to make sure that that 
provision was going to be helpful.
    Mr. Spear. Absolutely correct.
    Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Akers, in my former life I was a 
practicing lawyer, and I represented franchisees. So, I very 
much appreciate the franchise model. I had a lot of clients who 
are franchisees. So, your testimony claims that this PRO Act's 
joint employer standard and the standard that the NLRB is 
considering reinstating would undermine the franchise 
relationship.
    But in reality, the joint employer standard was around for 
years before, and holds companies accountable only if they 
control the employment relationship of another employer's 
workers. The wages, the hours, the working conditions. So, I'd 
like to ask you a few questions. These are yes or no questions. 
Does your franchisor control the hiring and firing of your 
employees?
    Mr. Akers. No.
    Ms. Bonamici. And does your franchisor set your employees' 
wages?
    Mr. Akers. No.
    Ms. Bonamici. And does your franchisor set your employees' 
schedules?
    Mr. Akers. No.
    Ms. Bonamici. OK. So, Mr. Akers, to the best of my 
knowledge, the NLRB has never issued a decision finding a 
franchisor to be a joint employer of its franchisees' 
employees, because that's not the kind of relationship. And in 
fact, if your franchisor does not control your employees' 
working conditions, does not control those issues, the wages 
and schedules, then the joint employer standard doesn't affect 
you or other franchisees.
    In fact, a strong joint employer standard actually protects 
you, because it makes it more likely that franchisors won't try 
to control your practices and your employment practices, and if 
they do, they'll be on the hook for liability. So that's why 
the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers, which is a 
franchisee organization, supports the PRO Act's joint employer 
standard and supports the current rulemaking that would restore 
the Browning-Ferris decision.
    So, Madam Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into 
the record letters from the American Association of Franchisees 
and Dealers into the record.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, and I just want to reiterate the 
importance of these workforce protections, the right to 
organize, the right for fair wages, the right for safe working 
conditions, and we have had a conversation today. One of my 
colleagues talked about how, you know, wages haven't kept up 
with costs. We need to raise the minimum wage. $7.25 is our 
national minimum wage, and that's unacceptable, so that's 
something we should be talking about as well.
    I hope we can work together Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
Scott on bipartisan solutions like we did with the National 
Apprenticeship Act. I hope we can get that over the finish line 
in the House and the Senate, because it's really going to make 
a difference not only to the people who go through the 
apprenticeships, but also to their families and set a good 
example of getting people back to work. So, with that Madam 
Chair, I will submit the letters and yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Good, you're recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Chairman Foxx. Thank you to all of our 
witnesses here today, and my questions will be primarily 
directed to Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, I think perhaps the most 
under-appreciated in terms of its harm of all Democrat 
legislation in the last Congress was the PRO Act, what it would 
do to just destroy the gig economy, subcontractors, independent 
contractors, you know, require--eliminate secret ballots, 
eliminate right to work, I mean force the payment of union dues 
from payroll deduction and so much more.
    At 10 percent for all sectors on average, the Nation's 
union membership is declining thankfully. It's at its lowest 
level ever, thankfully. But that is skewed because it's 33 
percent for public sector employees, and it's about 6 percent 
for private sector. I would submit that public sector union 
membership should be illegal. It's contrary to the interests of 
the taxpayer, the country and the citizens that we are supposed 
to serve, and not to mention the fact that public sector 
employees have, you know, highly desirable salaries and 
benefits, retirement programs, and job security compared to the 
private sector.
    Our President promised to be the most pro-union president 
in history. He kept that promise, along with his promise to 
eliminate reliable energy, his promise to open the border, not 
to mention the bonus of the unprecedented spending. The 
administration is trying to follow through, is trying to take 
action through NLRB and the Department of Labor to implement 
provisions of the PRO Act because it hasn't been able to 
successfully become law thankfully.
    What do you think is the impact of these pro-union 
policies, the administration putting their thumb on the scale, 
trying to force union membership increase in the private 
sector? What do you think is the--what are your concerns on 
that impact primarily on businesses and employers?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, I agree with everything that you 
just said, that the real problem is public sector unionism. The 
problem is you don't have anybody protecting the taxpayer 
interests, you know, in the negotiations of the contract. 
That's why, you know, most public employees, with respect to 
how they compare with their private sector counterparts, 
depending on the State or whether it's Federal, get 20 percent 
bonus in terms of salaries and much, much higher benefits. 
That's not fair to the people who are paying their salaries.
    I just want to make it very clear. I don't think anybody in 
this room is against unions. Are you against unions?
    Mr. Good. I am against unions, yes sir.
    Mr. Moore. OK. Well, I mean I----
    Mr. Good. I worked in a union shop in college.
    Mr. Moore. I believe in the First Amendment, that people 
have a right of association. Unions are associations.
    Mr. Good. I am not against the right to unionize, but I 
think it's a terrible decision when you do.
    Mr. Moore. OK, well that's it. But my point is look, I'm 
very much--if people want to form a union, if six people want 
to get together and collectively bargain, that's your right as 
an American. I'm just outraged by the idea that anyone in 
America should be forced to join a union.
    Mr. Good. That's right.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, why? Why should someone be forced to join a 
union if they don't want to. I mean pro-choice. So, and just 
one last point about this. I mean the evidence is crystal 
clear, undeniable. We have half the states in the United States 
are right to work states, and half the states are forced union 
states. Guess where all the jobs are going, you know? Twice as 
many jobs are being created in the states that have right to 
work laws.
    When I worked at the Wall Street Journal, as I was saying 
earlier, we talked to, you know, major employers all the time. 
They said you know what? If a State is a forced union State, we 
don't even think about putting a factory there and so on. The 
tragedy unfortunately, what happened to Michigan just a week 
ago, which had been a right to work State and has now turned 
into a forced union State, and that's going to really hurt the 
great State of Michigan.
    Mr. Good. Yes. Businesses and citizens are voting with 
their feet and fleeing these terrible blue State, blue 
Democrat-run blue states and these pro-union states and going 
to right-to-work states, as you said. I would submit that 
unions have far outlived their usefulness and this us against 
them mentality is just a terrible thing in the workplace, and 
again I experienced that as a college kid working in an auto 
factory.
    I want to switch gears for a moment and talk about the 
labor participation rate. You know, the Biden administration 
likes to talk about low unemployment. We've got an estimated 
seven million able-bodied men ages 25 to 54 not in the 
workplace, 11 million open jobs, lowest historical labor 
participation rate. How have the elimination of work 
requirements and enhanced unemployment, all of that? What are 
your thoughts on the policies that have caused the low labor 
participation rate over the last couple of years in particular?
    Mr. Moore. So, I'm so glad you asked that, because there's 
been some misinformation here about the work requirements that 
were put in place in 1996, which I said the greatest social 
policy achievement we've made in 50 years. So, I'm just going 
to really just quickly rattle off the four effects of that 
after 8 years, OK, and then you can decide whether you think it 
was a success or not.
    And these are based on, you know, scientific studies. One, 
welfare caseloads were reduced by 60 percent, 60 percent after 
welfare reform and work reform was put into effect. Two, 60 to 
70 percent of those who left welfare went into jobs.
    Mr. Good. How about that?
    Mr. Moore. It went into jobs. They got a paycheck. Third, 
the CBO and the Congressional Budget Office says that those 
reforms saved taxpayers and the Federal Government $50 billion. 
In today's dollars, that would be a saving of $100 billion. And 
fourth, and maybe most importantly, child poverty fell every 
year. Child poverty fell every year after we passed welfare 
reform. Somebody tell me how that's not----
    Mr. Good. The case is clear. I'm past my time. Thank you, 
Mr. Moore. You're exactly right. Thanks for sharing that. I 
yield back, Chairman.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Ms. McBath, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 
Scott and your staff, and all of you that are giving testimony 
for us today. I'd like to say to my Republican colleagues, if 
you truly want to unleash America's opportunities for hiring 
and employment, the solution is not to villainize and victimize 
our unions and our working people, because oftentimes, you 
know, their only real voice is in the workplace.
    The real solution to this problem is empowering and 
investing in our workers and our workforce development system. 
And I look forward to doing that very thing with my Republican 
colleagues at the earliest point that we're able to find that 
we have an opportunity to do so. However, the solutions that 
are being touted by Republicans today will do nothing more than 
to solve the major--do nothing to solve the major issues that 
are facing our employers.
    They'll do nothing to reverse the decades-long trend of 
declining public investment in our workforce development 
programs and initiatives across the country. Instead, they will 
only do more to tip the scale even further against working 
families and everyday Americans, who are punching the clock 
just to get by. Since it was signed into law in 2014, the 
Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act or WIOA has assisted 
millions of American workers in learning more about obtaining 
the skills and training required to succeed in today's economy.
    While this was an important bipartisan step in the right 
direction, WIOA has unfortunately never been fully funded and 
able to live up to its full potential to serve the American 
public. In fact, the Federal Government spends significantly 
far less today on workforce development programs than it did 
over 20 years ago in 2001.
    So, it's vitally important that we reauthorize WIOA and 
ensure that this program gets the secured funding necessary to 
fulfill its intended purpose. And my bill, the Train for a 
Better America Act, which was included in the WIOA Act of 2022 
that passed the House last Congress, would assist community 
colleges and technical training schools and connecting recent 
and upcoming graduates with local employers in high demand 
fields, by codifying the Department of Labor's Strengthening 
Community Colleges Training Grant Program.
    It would take real tangible steps to fix our workforce 
pipeline and make it easier on companies that are looking for 
talent, and on workers that are seeking to better themselves 
through hard work and education. So instead of playing politics 
and sending messaging bills to die on the--die with the Senate, 
we can expand upon these programs and efforts like this.
    Programs that are already on the ground and proven to help 
fill the very real workforce shortages in areas like 
construction, which we're talking about today and nursing, that 
we all hear about when we meet our constituents back in our 
districts. I talk to people in my district all the time that 
talk about all of the really difficult ways that they're being 
able to find work. Well, when they take the time away from 
their families to fly up here and to sit in these hearings and 
to tell us the same stories.
    So, Mr. Spears, I mentioned in my remarks we've seen a 
declining investment in our country's workforce programs for 
decades. Because of these funding shortfalls, many local 
workforce boards are forced to cap the funding mechanisms that 
they use to train workers, and this is also, you know, the 
ITAs. So, should Congress expand funding to ITAs to help cover 
the full cost of these training programs?
    Mr. Spear. I think there's a role to play as you consider 
reauthorization too, you really have better alignment and 
cohesion between the Federal, State and the local workforce 
boards, identifying those pockets of need, where those dollars 
are going. They're valuable dollars, and they need to be going 
to employment sectors that are going to not only to support 
that local economy, but State and national economy.
    So, I think the alignment and cohesion between Federal, 
State and local boards is absolutely essential. Channel that 
money as wisely as you can down, and making certain it gets to 
people that not only get a job, but a job that's going to 
contribute, you know, to the economy going forward is really, 
in my view, the essence of WIOA.
    Mrs. McBath. And so, the ITAs are only worth about $2,000. 
Is that sufficient? Is that enough money to enhance training 
for workforce development?
    Mr. Spear. We have everything that could cover. You know, a 
lot of our training does take more than just that amount. I do 
think we have a lot of employers that want to support covering 
the cost of employees that, you know, get their CDL, get that 
training.
    You know, I think there is prioritization at the workforce 
boards of truck drivers, for instance, the skills they're going 
to need, designating them as essential skills in demand, and 
reimbursing them for the cost that it takes to get those CDLs. 
Those costs have gone up, and I think the bill needs to reflect 
that.
    Mrs. McBath. Well, thank you. My time is up. I yield back 
the balance.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Smucker, you're recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the 
opportunity to hear from each of our witnesses today regarding 
the opportunities that we have to unleash our workforce and get 
our economy back on track. Two years into the Biden 
administration, we're still facing significant problems 
encouraging American workers to return to work.
    And in fact, as some of our witnesses have pointed out, 
there are roughly ten million open jobs in our country today, 
and only about five million people, are looking for employment. 
We heard earlier from one of our witnesses that our labor force 
participation rate seems to have reached its highest, seems to 
be higher than the highest participation rate just prior to the 
pandemic.
    That same idea was presented by Secretary Yellen at a Ways 
and Means Committee hearing. But this chart shows otherwise, 
and this chart shows labor force participation rate prior to 
the pandemic. You'll see the high. Top is women and men. It 
shows that in both cases, we have not achieved the labor force 
participation rate that we'd seen prior to the pandemic. This 
by the way is millions of workers who haven't returned to work.
    We really need more people entering the workforce, rather 
than leaving. I do believe there are multiple reasons for this, 
but one of the reasons is the Democrat policies that are 
disincentivizing work. In fact, as we heard in Mr. Moore's 
testimony, if you add up normal unemployment benefits, health 
insurance benefits, unemployed individuals in the State that I 
represent, Pennsylvania, would receive a benefit equal to an 
earned income of $82,888. Now tell me how that encourages work? 
You can make a great living just by staying home apparently.
    And as I travel around my district and I've heard from all 
of you here, workforce shortages are the No. 1 issue that I 
hear about from small business owners, followed by inflation 
and also supply chain issues. During the pandemic, Democrats 
enacted policies in the bloated American Rescue Plan which paid 
workers more to stay home than to return to their jobs. In 
Pennsylvania, that was about 42 percent, literally could make 
more staying at home than returning to their jobs.
    I don't fault anyone for making that decision. I've often 
said it was a deeply unfair position for the Federal Government 
to put families in, to tell workers that to stay home is a 
better way to provide for their families. I was encouraged by 
some of the comments from my Democrat colleagues, talking about 
we all understand the need to return people to work. We 
understand the best way out of poverty is to provide an 
individual, help an individual connect with a great-paying job.
    There's an inherent dignity in that work and it provides 
that first rung in that upward ladder of mobility. The current 
workforce shortages that we're facing, as I said, are directly 
tied to Democrats' failed pandemic-era policies that closed our 
businesses, closed our schools and shuttered our economy. All 
of our witnesses have agreed that skills development is a 
necessary component of our economic recovery, and I believe 
that we should enact policies that put job creators and 
businesses in the driver's seat, because local businesses know 
best what kind of workers and qualifications, they need to fill 
those open positions.
    I want to just mention a bill I recently reintroduced, the 
USA Workforce Tax Credits Act, which would create a new tax 
credit for charitable donations to community-based 
apprenticeship initiatives, career technical education and 
workforce development programs. This legislation is modeled, 
it's similar to a K through 12 EITC program in Pennsylvania 
that works very effectively, creates strong partnerships 
between local businesses and in this case K through 12 
programs, and leads to direct benefits for our communities.
    For far too long at the Federal level, we focused all of 
our dollars only on those individuals who are attending 
college. We've encouraged everything to do that. We need to 
rebalance that. This would be a way of doing that, while 
utilizing those partnerships between businesses and those who 
provide those services.
    I also want to mention, proud to co-sponsor the Pell Act 
legislation, which would expand Pell grant eligibility to high 
quality, short-term educational credentialing opportunity. 
There is bipartisan support for that. These two pieces of 
legislation will expand opportunities for Americans to get 
training, so they can start in-demand careers with family 
sustaining wages, grow our economic output and our GDP. I think 
I'm already out of time. I was looking forward to getting some 
questions, but I took all of my time. Thank you for being here.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Smucker. Mr. Moran, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Akers, I want to 
address you for a few minutes and ask some questions, but 
before I do, I just want to thank you for being here on behalf 
of the International Franchise Association. I also was a 
franchise business owner before I came to Congress and was 
privileged to be in the staffing company business and 
understand a lot of what's being said today firsthand and have 
a lot of great concerns about what I see in the PRO Act, and 
what I see with the proposed NLRB rule for joint employers.
    It gives me great concern, and it did before I came to 
Congress. As a small business owner, what I found out pretty 
quickly was if I had good control on the local level, and if my 
business was able to do better, I had better opportunity, more 
opportunity to do better for my employees. In fact, that's what 
we did. Whether it was through rent assistance or clothing or 
pay advances or frankly even purchasing automobiles for people 
so they can have reliable transportation.
    As the employer of record, I wanted to do that for my 
employees because I could build into them, and then that 
created a partnership between my employees and me, and it 
created longevity in that relationship. I didn't need the 
government to tell me what a minimum wage should be, because 
frankly the market set that. I wanted to pay folks enough so 
that they could stay, and they would stay and be loyal to me, 
and provide a great service to our community.
    As a result, we would place hundreds of people in work 
daily in multiple states, and I was proud to be able to do 
that. So, I want to go back to you and talk to you about your 
statement and your written statement that says, ``Franchising 
is perhaps the most important business growth strategy in 
American history.'' Tell us a little bit about what you've seen 
firsthand, about what that franchise business model allows you 
to do for your employees and for your clients?
    Mr. Akers. Oh, great question. Thank you for that. We love 
our employees. Our employees are part of our family. We take 
care of them like they are family members. My wife's title on 
her business card is chief hugs officer, and every month she 
goes around to all the salons and talks to the staff. So, we 
pay above normal wages. We've got--I've got stylists that 
barely graduated high school that are making 65 to 80 thousand 
dollars a year plus a full slate of benefits including 401(k), 
which I contribute to, and recently we went out and bought a 
daycare so we could subsidize daycare for our single moms and 
so on.
    So, we really believe we give them the best we possibly 
can. We do lend money, do payroll lending. We allow them, we 
allow them to buy products that they can pay over a period of 
time for, you know, tools and things like that. We have loaned 
literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to our staff for 
those short-term issues with rent and things like that. I mean 
it really is a big family where we're helping each other out.
    When you put more regulation on that as I mentioned before 
that money got to come from somewhere. Truthfully, the same 
thing happened with Obamacare, because we were giving amazing 
care to our staff, and we had to take--we didn't take it back, 
but we were forced into a pigeonhole with what was offered, 
that didn't meet what we were already doing. But by law, we 
were regulated to do it.
    Mr. Moran. So, if we take away this franchise business 
model, who is it that's going to be harmed the most, and who is 
it that benefits? Because I think that that informs really the 
behind-the-scenes motivation for this push.
    Mr. Akers. Well, you're going to stifle the growth of 
business. Why would people buy a franchise when they're going 
to be under that kind of regulation? But mainly you're going to 
hurt employees, because we create jobs. We've created hundreds 
of jobs in the last few years by opening new locations and so 
on, and there is really no incentive to do that once you put 
this in place.
    I was a proud union member when I was very young for about 
6 months, and I discovered I could go down the road and get the 
same job for the same money or more money, and frankly right 
now there are jobs available on every corner in Iowa and 
Nebraska. So, if somebody wants a better-paying job, even if 
they're not skilled in that area they can go down the road. Our 
staff stays with us long term, because they can't find what we 
offer anywhere else.
    Mr. Moran. And Dr. Shierholz earlier said, and I wrote this 
quote down. We need to ``get more minorities into the pipeline, 
the pipeline of owning businesses.'' Do you think that the 
franchise business model provides those opportunities for 
minorities, for women, for veterans to start a business and to 
begin a business and to grow a business?
    Mr. Akers. The percentages are clear. IFA did a study a 
couple of years ago, Oxford Economics. The percentages are much 
higher. I think it's 25 percent owned by people of color, as 
opposed to 19 percent in the normal world we look at in 
business. Profitability is higher, revenue is higher, and it 
allows people who couldn't go out and open their own business a 
pathway to do that, which is why there's a much larger 
percentage of the underserved population going into the 
business world.
    Mr. Moran. Well Mr. Akers, I certainly appreciate what 
you've done for your employees, for your clients, and your 
testimony here today. I completely agree with you. I think this 
business model's imperative to allowing folks an easier way 
into owning their own business down the line.
    Mr. Akers. And if I could tag on that, this FTC franchise 
rule is the No. 1 way you protect business owners when they're 
looking at becoming a franchisee, that you know what the 
revenue is, you know what the profits are because of the 
guidelines that are covered under the FTC franchise rule. So as 
an entrepreneur, I can make a logical decision about buying a 
business or going to another one.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Akers. I yield.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Scott, you're 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot has been said 
about the PRO Act, and how it makes the--undermines the right 
to work law. The PRO Act does not require you to join a union. 
It does require you to pay your fair share of the expenses 
generated, the things you benefit from when the union hires 
lawyers and accountants, and you get higher pay or if you get 
individual representation, because they provide individual 
representation to union members.
    Those costs cost money and the PRO Act just requires you to 
pay your fair share of those expenses. Not the cost of the 
holiday party or the union cookout in the middle of the summer 
or voter registration activities. Those things that you're 
actually benefiting from, but you're not required to join the 
union.
    Ms. Shierholz, on independent contractor we've heard a lot. 
If you're misclassified as an independent contractor rather 
than an employee, do you lose you right to minimum wage and 
overtime?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes, you do.
    Mr. Scott. Do you lose your right to unemployment insurance 
if you lose your job?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes, you do.
    Mr. Scott. And worker's comp if you get hurt on the job?
    Dr. Shierholz. You lose that too.
    Mr. Scott. So, who is actually choosing to classify people 
as independent contractors?
    Dr. Shierholz. It's a good----
    Mr. Scott. We hear that--it sounds like the employees are 
choosing, wanting to be independent contractors. Is that the 
case?
    Dr. Shierholz. What we see is that workers, when they are 
misclassified as independent contractors, lose thousands every 
year like truckers. We did an analysis, I can put it in the 
record, that truckers lose 11 to 18 thousand dollars a year 
when they're misclassified as independent contractors. It is 
not a model that works for workers.
    We don't have any workers on this panel. If we asked the 
workers, we know what they know that they lose, and then the 
other thing that I just wanted to make sure to correct, because 
there were some mistakes talked about. There was a comment that 
the joint employer rule, that the NLRB joint employer rule 
would cost franchisors $33 billion. That was an IFA study that 
was terribly designed. It had a sample size of 54 and they were 
all IFA members.
    So, we did a really rigorous analysis showing that the NLRB 
joint employer rule would raise wages for workers by $1 
billion.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. We've heard social supports. People 
don't work because they're getting social support. Was there a 
study done about the impact of some states eliminating the $600 
plus up for unemployment compensation, and other states not 
doing it? What was the result?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes, that's one of the things. If it were 
true that pandemic unemployment insurance benefits really were 
keeping people out of the labor force en masse, then you should 
have seen a flooding back into the labor force once those 
things expired, and that did not happen. If you look at like a 
time series of what happened with the labor force when pandemic 
unemployment insurance expired, you can't see a blip. It just 
does not show up. It did, it was not the thing that was keeping 
people out of the labor force. It was the pandemic.
    Mr. Scott. Is there any evidence that raising the minimum 
wage gradually costs jobs?
    Dr. Shierholz. What we know from the vast evidence in labor 
economics of what the economic impacts of increasing the 
minimum wage is that they raise wages, they reduce inequality 
and they do not cause substantial job loss.
    Mr. Scott. Now we've heard a lot of disparaging comments 
about today's economy. I'd just refer people to the chart 
behind me, the pre-pandemic economy versus the post-pandemic 
economy. Can you make any comments, and I'll also point out 
that President Biden produced almost 500,000 jobs a month 
during a pandemic, when President Trump was losing a record 
number of jobs during the pandemic, and he did it--President 
Biden did it while he was lowering the deficit? Can you make 
any comments about the relative economy?
    Dr. Shierholz. Yes. One of the things that we've heard is 
that the Trump--the economy going like at the end of the Trump 
administration was really strong. That's actually true, but it 
wasn't because of Trump policies. Trump inherited an 
unemployment rate that was steadily going down, an employment 
rate that was steadily going up.
    If you look at those time series, you can't see where Trump 
took office. Nobody gets to take credit for just sustaining an 
existing trend. Then what we do know is that the Biden 
administration, with like the American Recovery Plan, 
absolutely drove the incredibly strong jobs recovery that we 
have.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. Mr. Spear, 
with nearly 11 million unfilled jobs in the United States, many 
critical industries are facing a significant shortage of 
skilled workers. Yet only a third of individuals in the WIOA 
program are participating in skilled development activities, 
with some local workforce boards spending less than 20 percent 
of their funding on reskilling workers.
    Do you agree that WIOA must place a greater emphasis on 
skills development if we're going to address our Nation's 
worker shortage?
    Mr. Spear. I do. I do, Madam Chair. I'm very fond of this 
law. I actually worked on it back in 1998 when it was called 
WIA, Workforce Investment Act, and it's an evolution. This is a 
law that needs to reflect the latest trends in your workforce. 
Just keeping up on innovation is tough enough for Congress. 
It's happening so fast.
    You know, we didn't predict that we'd have a global 
pandemic, and it caused a lot of shifts in our workforce, and 
our business model in trucking for that matter, and how we 
serve people that order everything now from home, and they want 
it in less than 2 days. So, these shifts are really recent. So, 
updating this law and empowering those local workforce boards 
to really focus on the segments of the workforce that got us 
through the pandemic, that matter most, that pay well with 
benefits.
    We're not paying minimum wage in trucking. We're paying 
nearly 70 grand plus benefits, and we're talking paid holidays, 
paid leave, lodging, meals and incidentals, life insurance, 
health insurance and retirement plans. This is a good 
occupation.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Spear. Mr. 
Akers, very quickly, because I'm running out of time. Very 
quickly, our economy needs small business owners like yourself, 
and many of your franchisees. Give me two of the most 
significant workforce challenges you face as a franchise owner. 
Just name them.
    Mr. Akers. Two. Staffing, No. 1. No. 2 is regulations that 
we're already putting in place ways to deal with.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Right. Thank you very much. Mr. Moore, 
just now my colleague from Virginia, has talked about pre-
pandemic and post-pandemic job numbers. By the chart, they've 
compared the jobs record of the Trump and Biden administration. 
At the beginning of the hearing and now again, what are your 
thoughts about their characteristics of the Biden and Trump 
administration, in terms of the job record?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I'm looking at the chart. You know, the 
problem of course is we lost, I don't even know how many. How 
many jobs did we lose during the pandemic? I mean it was in the 
millions of jobs. So, you know, obviously that changed 
everything. Trump had a very, very positive jobs record until 
COVID hit.
    So, I guess that's my attitude. Look, I do think that if 
you look at what happened, there were two factors that really 
affected employment. One was obviously the shutting down of the 
economy, and the blue states remained closed much longer than 
the red states did, and the other factor is the supplemental 
unemployment benefits and other benefits that were five or six 
additional--if you look at my testimony, you'll see during that 
period, people could make like well over $100,000 in all the 
benefits that we were providing for people not work.
    One piece of evidence that it really mattered was that when 
red states got rid of the supplemental benefits faster than 
blue states did, their unemployment rates went down, and the 
blue states' benefits stayed high.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. I also want to point 
out that in your testimony, you talked about there being 
dignity in work. I cannot agree more. I believe that work is 
inherently dignifying. However, too many Americans were 
encouraged to stay out of the workforce following the pandemic, 
and I think it's important that we now encourage people again 
to get back into the workforce, because the long-term benefits 
of work, as you pointed out with the welfare reforms that were 
made in the 1990's--under the Clinton administration in 1996, I 
think it changed people's lives for the better. I yield back my 
time.
    I want to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to 
testify before the Committee today. It's been a very energetic 
set of testimonies and questions. Without objection, there 
being no further business, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Additional submission by Ms. Bonamici follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Additional submission by Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by 
follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]