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





                                 

 
                  ESSENTIAL BUT UNDERVALUED: EXAMINING
                       WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS FOR
                            DOMESTIC WORKERS

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

                                HEARING

                               Before The

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                 of the

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

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________



             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 28, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-53

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
    
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    
    
    


        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
        
                                   _______
	
	             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
	 58-475          WASHINGTON : 2025

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

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

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

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

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                 ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman

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

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on July 28, 2022....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Adams, Hon. Alma, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce 
      Protections:...............................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     5
    Keller, Hon. Fred, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 
      Protections:...............................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

                               WITNESSES

    Poo, Ai-jen, President, National Domestic Workers Alliance...     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Mason, Dr. C. Nicole, President, Institute for Women's Policy 
      Research...................................................    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    25
    DeCamp, Paul, Member, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C...........    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
    Barnett, Dana, Washington State Organizer, Hand in Hand, The 
      Domestic Employers Network.................................    41
        Prepared statement of....................................    43

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Ranking Member Keller:
        Letter dated July 27, 2022, from the Home Care 
          Association of America (HCAOA).........................    62
        Letter dated July 26, 2022, from the Private Care 
          Association, Inc.......................................    64
        Additional materials submitted by Dana Barnett...........    74
    Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington:
        Statement of June Barrett dated July 28, 2022............    71


                  ESSENTIAL BUT UNDERVALUED: EXAMINING



                       WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS FOR



                            DOMESTIC WORKERS

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, July 28, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
                          Committee on Education and Labor,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., 
2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Alma 
Adams (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Adams, Takano, Jayapal, Stevens, 
Scott (Ex Officio), Keller, Stefanik, Miller-Meeks, Good, 
Cawthorn, Steel, and Foxx (Ex Officio).
    Staff present: Brittany Alston, Staff Assistant; Nekea 
Brown, Director of Operations; Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; 
Rashage Green, Director of Education Policy; Rasheedah Hasan, 
Chief Clerk; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information 
Technology; Eli Hovland, Policy Associate; Stephanie Lalle, 
Communications Director; Kevin McDermott, Director of Labor 
Policy; Kota Mizutani, Deputy Communication Director; Max 
Moore, Policy Associate; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff Assistant; 
Mason Pesek, Labor Policy Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Staff 
Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Staff Assistant; Banyon Vassar, 
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Sam Varie, Press 
Secretary; ArRone Washington, Clerk/Special Assistant to the 
Staff Director; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; Caitlin 
Burke, Minority Professional Staff Member; Michael Davis, 
Minority Legislative Assistant; Cate Dillon, Minority Director 
of Operations; Mini Ganesh, Minority Staff Assistant; Trey 
Kovacs, Minority Professional Staff Member; John Martin, 
Minority Deputy Director of Workplace Policy/ Counsel; Hannah 
Matesic, Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions; 
Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications Director; and Ethan 
Pann, Minority Press Assistant; Gabriella Pistone, Minority 
Staff Assistant; Krystina Skurk, Minority Speechwriter; Ben 
Ridder, Minority Professional Staff Member; Kelly Tyroler, 
Minority Professional Staff Member; Joe Wheeler, Minority 
Professional Staff Member.
    Chairwoman Adams. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
will come to order. Welcome everyone. I note that a quorum is 
present. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
``Essential But Undervalued: Examining Workplace Protections 
for Domestic Workers''. This is a hybrid hearing pursuant to 
House Resolution 8 and the regulations thereto. All microphones 
both in the room and on the platform will be kept muted as a 
general rule to avoid unnecessary background noise.
    Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting 
themselves when they are recognized to speak or when they wish 
to seek recognition. When members wish to speak or seek 
recognition, they should unmute themselves and allow a pause of 
2 seconds to ensure the microphone picks up their speech. I 
also ask that members please identify themselves before they 
speak. Members who are participating in person should not be 
logged onto remote platform--should not be logged onto the 
remote platform, in order to avoid feedback, echoes, and 
distortion.
    Members participating remotely shall be considered present 
in the proceeding when they are visible on camera, and they 
shall be considered not present when they are not visible on 
camera. The only exception to this is if they are experiencing 
technical difficulty and inform the Committee staff of such 
difficulty. If any member experiences technical difficulty 
during the hearing, you should stay connected on the platform, 
make sure you are muted, and use your phone to immediately call 
the Committee's IT director, whose number was provided in 
advance.
    Should the Chair need to step away for any reason, another 
Majority member is hereby authorized to assume the gavel in the 
Chair's absence. In order to ensure that the Committee's 5-
minute rule is adhered to, staff will be keeping track of time 
using the Committee's digital timer on the remote platform. For 
members participating in person, the timer will be broadcast in 
the Committee room on the television monitor as part of the 
platform gallery view, and visible in its own thumbnail window. 
The Committee room timer will not be in use. For members 
participating remotely, this will be visible in gallery view in 
its own thumbnail window on the remote platform.
    Members are asked to wrap up promptly when their time has 
expired. Finally, when the recent guidance--while the recent 
guidance from the Office of the Attending Physician has made 
mask-wearing optional at this time, please know that we have in 
our midst at both the member and staff levels individuals who 
are immune-compromised, and who will have immediate--and who 
may have immediate family members who are immune compromised as 
well, or those who are not vaccinated either due to medical 
reasons or because the vaccine is not yet available to children 
under 6 months of age.
    Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that masks 
continue to be worn out of concern for the safety of 
unvaccinated and immune-compromised Committee members and staff 
and their families.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), opening statements are 
limited to the Chair, excuse me, and the Ranking Member. This 
allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all 
members with adequate time to ask questions. I recognize myself 
now for the purpose of making an opening statement.
    Today, we are meeting to examine the important role 
domestic workers play in our Nation's households and economy, 
as well as our responsibility to better meet their needs. As a 
daughter of a domestic worker, I am proud to serve as Chair for 
this hearing. Across the country, domestic workers are the 
professionals who care for our children, support our older or 
disabled family members, and care for our homes. Most of these 
workers serve as home care aides and direct support 
professionals, helping older and disabled Americans with daily 
tasks, including preparing meals, managing medications, and 
providing transportation.
    No matter who they support, domestic workers' services are 
incredibly valuable not only to those who receive them, but 
also to the family caregivers who would otherwise spend their 
time on this important work. In other words, domestic workers 
allow Americans to live with dignity and independence and make 
it possible for family caretakers to contribute to their 
communities. Although domestic workers vital to the everyday 
lives of countless Americans, Federal labor laws do not 
sufficiently protect domestic workers.
    In fact, employment protections for domestic workers were 
explicitly carved out for our foundational labor and employment 
law in the 1930's, the result of racist efforts to exclude 
industries in which Black workers were concentrated. To this 
day, domestic workers who remain overwhelmingly women of color, 
are denied collective bargaining rights, safety and hazard 
protections, and protections against discrimination, 
harassment, or retaliation.
    The lack of basic protections and the historic segregation 
of women of color in employment has created a severe wealth gap 
for domestic workers and left them with vulnerable--and left 
them vulnerable to abuse and discriminate. For example, on 
average domestic workers earn just over $12 per hour, compared 
to a median wage of nearly $20 for other workers. Even worse, 
reports have found high rates of wage theft against domestic 
workers. As a result, domestic workers are three times as 
likely to be living in poverty as other workers, and almost 
three times as likely to either be in poverty or be above the 
poverty line but still without sufficient income to make ends 
meet. Tragically, we know domestic workers are also vulnerable 
to sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and other forms of physical 
violence. Simply put, our Nation relies on domestic workers to 
care for our children, families, and homes, without giving them 
the basic resources to care for themselves and their families.
    This injustice does not just hurt domestic workers. It also 
directly affects those who rely on them, particularly as the 
demand for domestic workers rapidly increases. Over the next 
decade, domestic worker occupations are expected to increase 
more than three times faster than other occupations. According 
to the Service Employees International Union, the country will 
require 4.7 million domestic workers by 2028. In 2019, there 
were only roughly 2.2 million domestic workers.
    If we want to meet this expected demand and successfully 
recruit and retain domestic workers to address this care 
deficient, and if we believe these professionals deserve fair 
pay and decent working conditions, then we must give greater 
attention to legislative solutions. To that end, Representative 
Jayapal's Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act would take 
critical steps to support these invaluable workers.
    I applaud Representative Jayapal's leadership, and her 
long-standing commitment to fighting for our domestic workers, 
and I'm glad to be a co-sponsor on this important legislation. 
As we will hear today, Representative Jayapal's legislation 
would finally extend basic workplace protections to domestic 
workers and strengthen the means to enforce those protections. 
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working with 
my colleagues on improving the lives of domestic workers and 
ensuring that our loved ones can access the care they need. I 
now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for the purpose 
of making an opening statement.
    [The Statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. All work and all people 
have dignity and respect. The last thing in-home care providers 
and employers need is more government mandates such as H.R. 
4826. Instead, Congress should advance pro-growth policies that 
reflect the needs of our modern economy and workforce. 
Unfortunately, many of the Nation's workforce laws and policies 
are outdated. The Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA was enacted 
84 years ago and affects nearly every workplace across the 
country.
    Committee Republicans understand the reality and are ready 
to work to streamline and modernize Federal wage and hour 
policies to meet the needs of our 21st century workforce. H.R. 
4826 fails to do this. This legislation looks backward, harms 
every worker's--the very workers Democrats claim they intend to 
help, and limits consumer access to desperately needed in-home 
care services. This excessively broad legislation also wrongly 
lumps health care workers and home health aides in with workers 
traditionally considered domestic staff.
    The legislation goes too far. It authorizes the Labor 
Department to enter and inspect individuals' homes. H.R. 4826 
also applies Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to all employers 
with just one employee instead of 15. This unprecedented law, 
few families have the resources to navigate complex wage and 
hour laws. This could drive Americans to find alternatives that 
put home health aides and personal care assistants out of work, 
exacerbating the existing labor shortage of in-home care 
workers.
    Less access to home health care will force more Americans 
into institutionalized settings, which will hurt the 
individuals who prefer to remain at home. This legislation is 
overly punitive, threatens American families with massive 
regulatory penalties for first-time violations, and puts 
families at greater risk of lawsuits. This kind of punitive 
enforcement is not the answer, particularly for families 
already struggling to navigate a worker shortage, record high 
inflation, and rising labor costs.
    Republicans are committed to a forward-looking agenda that 
will offer all Americans more opportunities to achieve success. 
Modernizing the FLSA to meet the ever-evolving needs of a 
workforce that increasingly desires flexibility, choice and 
mobility will be an important part of that effort. In contrast, 
Democrats are pushing legislation that will take decisions out 
of the hands of workers and job creators and put them in the 
hands of Washington politicians. Thank you, and I yield back.
    [Pause.]
    [The Statement of Ranking Member Keller follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Ms. Jayapal. Without objection, all other members who wish 
to insert written statements into the record may do so by 
submitting them to the Committee Clerk electronically in 
Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on August 11th. I will now 
introduce the witnesses.
    Ms. Ai-jen Poo is the president of the National Domestic 
Workers Alliance and the executive director of Caring Across 
Generations. Ms. Poo is a nationally recognized expert on elder 
and family care and a leading advocate for the rights of 
domestic workers.
    Dr. C. Nicole Mason is the president and chief executive 
officer of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Dr. Mason 
is an expert, one of the Nation's more foremost experts on 
intersectional research and has spearheaded research on issues 
relating to economic security, poverty, and women's issues. Her 
expertise provides a deep understanding of the issues facing 
our Nation's domestic workers, and the potential policy 
solutions to address them.
    Mr. Paul DeCamp is a member of the law firm Epstein Becker 
and Green PC. Mr. Decamp is an expert on wage and hour issues 
and has previously served as the administrator of the 
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division under the George 
W. Bush administration.
    Ms. Dana Barnett is the Washington State organizer for Hand 
in Hand, the Domestic Employers Network. As an employer of a 
domestic worker herself, Ms. Barnett is an advocate for strong 
labor standards for domestic workers and has previously served 
as chair of Seattle's Domestic Workers Standards Board and of 
course that is my district. Thank you so much to you for being 
with us and thank you to all of our witnesses for being with 
us.
    We appreciate all of you for participating today, and we 
look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses 
that we have read your written statements and they will appear 
in full in the hearing record. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) 
and Committee practice, each of you is asked to limit your oral 
presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written statement. 
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to unmute your 
microphone and during your testimony staff will be keeping 
track of your time, and the timer is visible to you at the 
witness table.
    Please be attentive to the time, wrap up when your time is 
over and remute your microphone. We will let all the witnesses 
make their presentations before we move to member questions. 
When answering a question, please remember to unmute your 
microphone. The witnesses are aware of their responsibility to 
provide accurate information to the Subcommittee, and therefore 
we will proceed with their testimony. I will first recognize 
with Ms. Poo.

 STATEMENT OF AI-JEN POO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DOMESTIC WORKERS 
                            ALLIANCE

    Ms. Poo. Thank you Congresswoman, Congresswoman Adams, 
Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member Keller, Chairman Scott, 
Ranking Member Foxx and members of the Committee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify in support of the Domestic Workers 
Bill of Rights, introduced by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, 
and by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Ben Ray Lujan. I commend 
you for holding this groundbreaking hearing today for a 
workforce composed overwhelmingly of women, majority women of 
color, and immigrants who have struggled for generations to be 
recognized as workers equal to others.
    This moment is historic. To all the domestic workers who 
are watching and to all who have come before, this is your 
moment. Thank you for the essential work you do. As we speak, 
there are millions of working parents and family caregivers 
counting on nannies, home care workers and cleaners to enable 
them to work. This is the work that produces the human 
potential of our children, the quality of life of our aging 
elders, and supports the dignity and independence of our loved 
ones with disabilities.
    The act of caring for others is what makes us human, and 
the COVID-19 pandemic helped us remember how essential care is 
to our lives, especially for women. It remains some of the most 
insecure and undervalued work in the economy. Rather than the 
dignified profession it is, domestic work is still treated as 
``help'' and less than real work. The jobs are low-quality, 
low-wage jobs, where women work incredibly hard and still live 
in poverty, face rampant discrimination and harassment, and 
find themselves without a simple sick day when a pandemic hits.
    This is due in part to a long history of exclusion from 
foundational labor laws rooted in the legacy of slavery in 
America, and because this workplace is hidden, isolated behind 
closed doors in private homes. The Domestic Workers Bill of 
Rights Act, H.R. 4826, is designed to specifically address this 
reality. It will ensure the workforce is treated like other 
workers in our economy, with access to safe workplaces, sick 
leave, overtime pay and protection from discrimination and 
harassment.
    A standards board will allow employers, enforcement 
agencies, and workers to work together to improve the industry, 
and finally this bill makes these protections real by providing 
resources for implementation. Ever since they were carved out 
of protections in the 1930's, domestic workers have sought to 
reverse their exclusion. Nearly a 100 years later, domestic 
workers are galvanized behind this bill, building upon years of 
legislative progress we have made in ten states and two major 
cities.
    Employers, family caregivers and consumers also support 
this bill, recognizing that a protected care workforce is the 
backbone of a strong economy. As the Nation ages, we will need 
this workforce more than ever, and because this work cannot be 
automated or outsourced, care jobs will be a large share of the 
jobs of the future and must be protected.
    In the 24 years I have organized alongside domestic 
workers, I have seen nannies show up for every milestone in a 
child's life, decades after they are no longer in their care. 
Home care workers who are the most emotional person at a 
funeral of a client that they have just lost. House cleaners 
who are the last to be evacuated during a fire, and the first 
to return to clean in the aftermath. I would like to recommend 
this Committee hear directly from the women who care for the 
most precious elements of our lives. You will find domestic 
work is much more than meets the eye. They are teachers, 
nurses, confidantes, coaches, event planners and much more. We 
must pass the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights to help 
make these jobs good jobs, and to finally recognize this 
essential workforce for the dignified profession it is. I look 
forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ai-jen Poo follows:]
    [ GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  
    
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Poo. The Chair now recognizes 
Dr. Mason for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF DR. C. NICOLE MASON, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF 
             INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH

    Dr. Mason. Good afternoon, Chair Adams, Ranking Member 
Keller, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. C. 
Nicole Mason, and I am the president and CEO of the Institute 
for Women's Policy Research, an economic think tank focused on 
women's economic security, and understanding women's labor 
force participation.
    Thank you for holding this hearing and for the invitation 
to testify today about essential workplace protections for 
domestic workers. The title of this hearing, ``Essential But 
Undervalued,'' regrettably but aptly describes the situation 
facing domestic workers. This work, ranging from caring for our 
children to caring for our homes, to ensuring the health of our 
elders, makes all other work possible.
    While the pandemic shined a light on the harm resulting 
from the lack of employment protections for this workforce, it 
is important to note that this harm long predates the pandemic. 
Despite the essential nature of domestic work, it is and has 
been undervalued in our economy due to its roots, enforced 
enslavement, and indentured servitude. As a result, domestic 
workers, who are disproportionately women of color, were left 
out of a variety of Federal labor protections throughout the 
20th century, leaving these workers particularly vulnerable to 
poverty and exploitation.
    The vulnerability of this workforce due to the lack of 
labor protections was exposed clearly during the COVID-19 
``she-cession.'' Domestic workers were among those most 
impacted as employers closed their homes. Many of these workers 
were unable to access unemployment support and did not have 
sufficient access to paid sick leave or health insurance. 
Nevertheless, domestic workers are a growing segment of the 
economy, and the demand for such care work will continue to 
increase as our population ages. The most recent data from the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 15,000 home health care 
jobs have been added since February 2020. The International 
Labor Organization estimates that domestic workers make up 2.3 
percent of total employment worldwide, with more than 2.2 
million workers in the United States.
    Over 90 percent of these workers are women, and more than 
half are black, Latina, or Asian American/Pacific Islander. The 
domestic worker labor force is a clear example of occupational 
segregation, resulting in women's work being undervalued and 
Congress can and should act to address these issues. The 
Institute for Women's Policy Research has long researched many 
of the labor issues included in Congresswoman Jayapal's 
legislation, The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, and we 
support the inclusion of domestic workers in common workplace 
rights and protections, such as paid sick days and protection 
from harassment and discrimination.
    We also support the establishment of additional protections 
such as fair scheduling and access to affordable health care 
and retirement benefits. We have been advocating for paid 
family and medical leave since 1987. A 2021 IWPR survey of 
women workers found that over one-third, 37.5 percent, employed 
full-time report they do not have paid sick leave, and 65 
percent of full-time workers surveyed report they do not have 
paid family leave.
    Domestic workers are significantly less likely to have 
access to paid sick days or family and medical leave, a problem 
that this legislation would address. Additionally, domestic 
workers often lack clearly defined working hours and control 
over their schedules, resulting in low wages, uncompensated 
overtime and fickle scheduling. Literature, the literature 
consistently show that temporal instability in the workforce is 
associated with psychological distress, poor sleep quality and 
unhappiness. Unpredictable work schedules have been found to 
increase workers reporting work/life conflict. Just-in-time 
scheduling practices put workers in a vulnerable financial 
position, both by destabilizing earnings and by disrupting 
their access to safety net programs, and make it difficult for 
them to arrange childcare, attend school or pick up a second 
job.
    Domestic workers experience multiple compounding negative 
consequences due to the lack of necessary workplace 
protections, many of which we have studied. For example, in 
2018 we found that only 13 percent of women domestic workers 
had access to a pension plan, and only 24 percent had access to 
employer-provided insurance. In 2020, we conducted a study that 
estimated the lifetime cost of sexual harassment on workers and 
found that physically isolated workplaces rife with power 
imbalances were the No. 1 risk factor for sexual harassment.
    Fundamentally, the workplace structure of domestic worker--
domestic work systematically creates vulnerability for workers. 
We estimate that the cost of sexual harassment for a home 
health aide was more than $128,000 over the course of a 
lifetime. These costs further exacerbate an economically 
insecure situation for domestic workers. These women face a 
workplace in which many of our basic, many of our basic labor 
rights do not apply, and their wages consistently fall behind 
the wages of all other workers.
    Domestic workers make at least $7 an hour less than all 
other workers. This is the widest gap--this gap is widest for 
nannies, who make a median average of $11.60. Enacting the 
Domestic Workers Bill of Rights is essential, and will ensure 
domestic workers receive basic workplace----
    Ms. Jayapal. Dr. Mason, if you could just wrap up. Your 
time has expired.
    Dr. Mason. Yes, oh, oh, goodness. In addition to the 
important provisions of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, 
IWPR supports pay equity, enhanced enforcement of anti-
harassment law and other protections. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. C. Nicole Mason follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Dr. Mason. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. DeCamp for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF PAUL DeCAMP, MEMBER OF THE FIRM, EPSTEIN, BECKER & 
                             GREEN.

    Mr. DeCamp. Good morning, Chair Adams, Ranking Member 
Keller and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 
for inviting me to testify at this hearing to address H.R. 
4826, the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act. I am here today 
to express my opposition to this bill. I would like to begin by 
stating my support for a number of the policy goals reflected 
in the legislation. Domestic service workers are an important 
part of the workforce, and they deserve the opportunity to 
perform their work free of harassment, discrimination or 
deprivation of the wages they have earned.
    This particular bill, however, is not the way to further 
these goals. H.R. 4826 would impose extraordinary costs and 
burdens on the individuals and families who employ these 
workers, far out of proportion to any benefit the workers would 
receive, while at the same time all but ensuring a 
constitutional challenge that could result in the sharp 
curtailing of congressional power under the Commerce clause. In 
this instance, Federal legislation is not the answer.
    A few of the provisions of H.R. 4826, which would apply to 
families who employ a covered nanny, babysitter, housekeeper, 
nurse, home health aide or personal care assistant in their 
home for as little as 8 hours a week, illustrate the sweeping 
nature of what the bill would require. Detailed written 
agreements setting forth all job duties, the frequency of those 
duties and the worker's schedule or anticipated hours of work; 
paid sick leave of up to 56 hours per year; written notice of 
any change in scheduled working hours at least 72 hours in 
advance; uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks for each 5 hours' 
work and uninterrupted 10-minute rest breaks for each 4 hours' 
work.
    Damages and penalties under the bill include such items as 
economic damages and recovery for non-monetary injury, 
including injury to reputation, character, or feelings. 
Interest-liquidated damages, attorney fees, expert witness fees 
and litigation costs. An hour of pay for each meal or rest 
period missed, up to two total hours of additional pay per 
workday. A $5,000 penalty for any flaw in the mandatory written 
agreement, and civil money penalties of up to $15,000 for each 
and every violation of these new requirements, or up to $25,000 
for any subsequent violation, without any requirement that the 
violation was intentional or willful.
    In addition, this bill would change the definition of 
employer in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 
currently applies only to businesses that employ 15 or more 
employees, by lowering that threshold to just a single 
employee. That change would apply to every industry and worker, 
not just to domestic service employment. This enormous 
expansion of Federal authority into household employment and 
into plainly local arrangements raises at least two significant 
problems.
    The first is a practical one. Most Federal employment laws 
have long-excluded small employers for a variety of reasons, 
mainly involving the disproportionate burden that compliance 
imposes on small businesses. The rights reflected in our laws 
are very important to workers, but they come at a cost in terms 
of added expense and time employers must spend in learning the 
laws, maintaining proper records, and responding to allegations 
of violations.
    In short, our legal system is not particularly efficient at 
sorting out which employment law claims have or lack merit. As 
a society, we tend to view coping with inefficient agency and 
judicial proceedings as a cost of doing business, an obligation 
that companies of a certain size need to shoulder as part of 
participating in our economy. Congress has also long understood 
that employment law compliance and defending against claims can 
overwhelm and destroy a small business, the typical mom-and-pop 
operation. This is true with much greater force with respect to 
household employment, where it is literally individuals, 
mothers, fathers and other family members who will shoulder the 
burdens under H.R. 4826.
    These burdens will arise in the context where the 
households are not conducting a business and cannot simply 
adjust their prices to make up for these compliance costs.
    The second major problem with such a dramatic extension of 
Federal regulatory authority into people's homes is that it 
pushes and likely exceeds the boundaries of congressional 
authority under the Commerce clause. Given the current 
configuration of the Supreme Court, along with Justice Thomas's 
long-standing and clearly expressed desire to rewrite entirely 
the Court's approach to interpreting the Commerce clause, 
enacting this bill would likely result in a pyrrhic victory.
    Congress may find itself with substantially less authority 
to legislate, and with many current statutes vulnerable to 
challenge. This concludes my prepared remarks. I welcome any 
questions the members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Paul DeCamp follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. DeCamp. We will now hear from 
Ms. Barnett. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DANA BARNETT, WASHINGTON STATE ORGANIZER, HAND IN 
              HAND, THE DOMESTIC EMPLOYER NETWORK

    Ms. Barnett. Thank you to Chair Adams, Ranking Member 
Keller and members of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee for 
inviting me to speak today and thank you Representative Jayapal 
for your leadership on this issue. I am here today to provide 
testimony in support of creating rights and protections for 
domestic workers through a National Domestic Workers Bill of 
Rights, and to share my experiences both as a nanny and house 
cleaner employer, and as an advocate for the rights of domestic 
workers.
    My husband Dan and I moved to Seattle from Philadelphia 10 
years ago for his job. A couple of years after we moved, we 
were overjoyed to welcome our child. Being new to Seattle, 
however, we did not have a local support network of family and 
friends, and we felt overwhelmed juggling childcare and 
returning to work outside the home. When my maternity leave 
ended, we decided to hire a nanny to take care of our newborn. 
Our nanny took amazing care of our 3-month-old and made us feel 
he was safe and in good hands.
    Initially it was challenging, because we had never employed 
someone in our home. I later found a sample work contract from 
Hand in Hand. The contract provided guidance on wages, 
benefits, working conditions, and other employer 
responsibilities. In the stress of transitioning from being 
with my new baby full time to going back to working outside the 
home, it was so helpful to have clear guidelines and 
expectations for managing his care with our nanny, work that I 
was already doing.
    Later, we hired a house cleaner to come to our home once a 
month. Having a house professionally cleaned helped us balance 
our work and parenting schedules and brought more order to our 
household. Our son was touched by the care that she took in 
assembling his stuffed animals on his freshly made bed. Once 
again, we used the resources from Hand in Hand to create clear 
agreements, as well as to understand local labor law.
    Seattle was the first city to pass a municipal law creating 
protections for domestic workers. The domestic workers' 
ordinance created a Domestic Workers Standards Board of workers 
and employers. In 2019, I had the honor of being appointed to 
the Standards Board, where I then served as the co-chair for 2 
years alongside Silvia Gonzalez, an extraordinary domestic 
worker leader. The Board held focus groups and conducted 
surveys with workers and employers in Seattle. We conducted 
outreach and education to inform the community about the law. 
We made additional policy recommendations based on the input 
that we gathered.
    The Board also created, provided critical feedback to the 
City about how to best implement and enforce the ordinance. A 
domestic workers' standards board is one way that a disparate 
industry can come together to discuss challenges and 
opportunities. In Seattle, our outreach implementation support 
and recommendations to the City Council and Mayor's Office have 
provided much-needed clarity for employers and workers.
    A national standards board is part of the Domestic Worker 
Bill of Rights and would ensure that the workers are not--and 
employers are not struggling to find information and resources, 
and that employees can understand their rights at work.
    The ordinance is making a difference for domestic workers. 
Just this past month, a live-in domestic worker won a 
settlement of over $71,000, because her household employer had 
not paid the minimum wage and overtime mandated by law. It is 
critical that bad actors in industries, all industries, face 
consequences. The ordinance is not just about providing 
accountability for bad actors. The employers I speak with every 
day want to know their responsibilities and how to comply with 
them. They are relieved to know the workers in their homes have 
protections. The ordinance is also making a difference for 
employers. I now work with Hand in Hand, where I conduct 
education and outreach to domestic employers in Seattle. I hear 
time and time again that the guidance created by the law is 
beneficial to them. It leads to better care, better quality of 
work and less stress for everyone involved, worker and 
employer.
    The pandemic has brought into sharper relief what we have 
always known that care is essential and that domestic workers 
are essential workers. Domestic work takes place in our homes, 
our most intimate space. These are the workers who are taking 
care of our children, our elders, ourselves. Why would we not 
want to ensure that we take care of the people who are taking 
care of us? Everyone benefits when domestic workers have 
rights. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dana Barnett follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much Ms. Barnett, and I see that 
our wonderful Chairwoman Adams has returned, so let me return 
the gavel back to you, Madam Chair, and inform the Chair that 
we are at member questions.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much and thank you 
Representative Jayapal for helping out. Under Rule Committee 
9(a), we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I 
will be recognizing Subcommittee members in seniority order. 
Again, to ensure that the members' 5-minute rule is adhered to, 
staff will be keeping track of time. Please be attentive to the 
time, wrap up when your time is over and remute your 
microphone. As Chair, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Mason, domestic workers are especially vulnerable to 
being misclassified as independent contractors rather than 
employees, stripping them of the few existing rights under the 
law, such as minimum wage and overtime. Can you talk more about 
the impact that this misclassification has on domestic workers 
in terms of underpayment of wages?
    Dr. Mason. Thank you so much for this question. When 
domestic workers are excluded from basic protections, we saw 
what happened during the COVID-19 recession. Many domestic 
workers did not have access to unemployment insurance. They 
also, during a health care--a global pandemic, did not have 
paid sick or family medical leave or health insurance. When we 
think about and talk about the wages, we know that domestic 
workers are paid significantly less than other workers on 
average by $7.
    The lack of basic protections that we are advocating for in 
the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights would remedy that, 
and provide very basic protections for domestic workers, 
including higher wages, paid sick and family leave, and 
flexible and fair scheduling.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Ms. Poo, can you talk more in 
detail about why domestic workers are more vulnerable to 
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and how is the 
bill addressing these issues?
    Ms. Poo. Yes, Madam Chair. Domestic workers, it has been 
well-documented that there is a long history of exclusion of 
basic, from basic rights and protections that Dr. Mason 
mentioned. What it creates is a power imbalance in the 
workplace, which makes it extraordinarily difficult for 
domestic workers to negotiate for something as simple as a sick 
day or a morning to go to a child's PTO meeting. The 
vulnerability is really heightened with lack of job security, 
and therefore rights are incredibly hard to enforce, and many 
rights that most of us take for granted simply don't exist.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Dr. Mason, what is the cost to 
families, especially to women, in terms of labor force 
participation and earnings if they cannot work because they do 
not have someone to take care of the children, elders, and 
disabled relatives at home?
    Dr. Mason. At the start of the pandemic, women made up more 
than 50 percent of the U.S. workforce. Two months later, many 
millions of women had exited the workforce, and a lot of it is 
due to the lack of care, employers closing their homes, and so 
women were not able, you know, excuse me, remote work, women 
having to stay home. Right now, we are in a place where women 
are trying to reenter the workforce but without care and 
workers, they will not be able to not only reenter the 
workforce but sustain employment.
    Many workers, care workers, because of the lack of 
protections, were forced out of the labor force. We lost a 
significant number of care workers over the pandemic when 
employers closed their homes and childcare centers closed down. 
Many of those workers have not returned to the workforce, and 
what became really crystal clear during the pandemic is that 
those workers were underpaid, they did not have access to paid 
sick and family leave, and they were having trouble providing 
for their own families.
    Many of those workers have not returned. This bill would 
make sure that workers are paid fairly, they have access to 
benefits like paid sick and family leave and health insurance, 
those things that all workers need in order to not only provide 
for their families, but make sure they have adequate care for 
themselves.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you so much. I want to thank both 
of you for underscoring the importance of this vital workforce. 
They do so much to ensure our society functions smoothly, and 
we as Congress now must do it with them to protect and support 
them. I want to now recognize the Ranking Member for the 
purpose of questioning the witnesses.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. DeCamp, a provision 
in this bill gives domestic employees a right of action to 
recover damages for the cost reasonably related to any injury, 
to their reputation, character or feelings sustained. Could you 
discuss some of the unintended consequences of providing 
employees the right to recover damages related to the injury of 
their feelings?
    Mr. DeCamp. Expanding recoveries into that sort of area 
invites litigation. It invites adversarial relationships 
between the workers and the employers. It creates dollar signs 
in the eyes of plaintiffs' lawyers when workers have an issue 
with their employer, to go out and make demands for very large 
sums of money. These are not figures that are capped in the 
bill. It is not $50 or $100; it could be millions of dollars.
    We do not know, and that presents enormous pressure and 
challenges for a small employer when that small employer is 
literally a household, to deal with that kind of pressure. It 
creates all kinds of additional costs associated with employing 
individuals.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you. Also, Mr. DeCamp, it has been well-
documented that there is a shortage of home health care aides 
across the country, forcing many individuals with disabilities, 
people that are sick and the elderly out of their homes into 
institutional settings. As America's population ages, there 
will be an increased demand for home health aides. If Congress 
were to pass H.R. 4826, what impact do you believe this radical 
policy change would have on the domestic services industry?
    Mr. DeCamp. I think it could have a lot of consequences, 
the first of which would be to increase the cost to employers 
of having these workers come and do their work in the first 
place. I think the bill creates lots of challenges with regard 
to who exactly is the employer when we are talking about home 
health aides and we are talking about personal care assistants. 
That is separate from the issue of nannies and housekeepers and 
the like.
    When we are talking about individuals who are often 
employed by third parties, oftentimes paid in part through 
Federal funds, it can create blurred lines as to who is even 
the employer. When you are creating this kind of liability 
here, and you are increasing the costs to employers of even 
having this work available, you price people, consumers out of 
the market for those services. I think that puts pressure on 
the market. It makes the services less accessible to the 
individuals who need them.
    Mr. Keller. Okay, the other thing that I would just say is 
the Fair Labor Standards Act is over 80 years old, and there is 
bipartisan agreement that many of the FLSA's provisions and 
regulations are outdated and overly complex. Do you agree with 
that view?
    Mr. DeCamp. Yes.
    Mr. Keller. Okay, and can you identify elements of the FLSA 
that should be updated to meet the needs of our 21st-century 
workforce?
    Mr. DeCamp. We are 84 years into the statute, and we still 
have serious challenges identifying who is even a covered 
employee under the statute, in terms of who is an employee 
versus who is an independent contractor or other type of 
worker, who is a joint employer. These are largely unsettled 
issues. There are some clear lines, but there are a lot of gray 
lines, especially when we are talking about smaller employers 
and this type of informal relationship.
    The standards for figuring out what is compensable work. We 
still see cases going to the Supreme Court on that issue, 
identifying what counts as work, how we count--how we identify 
and pay for that. We also see significant challenges figuring 
out who ought to be exempt from the overtime provisions, the 
standards regarding who is exempt. Who is an exempt 
administrative employee, for example, is--it befuddles 
everyone, including the Department of Labor.
    I think the clearest example of this is that the U.S. 
Department of Labor itself, the Wage and Hour Division, the 
agency that I used to run, misclassified its own investigators 
for the first 30 plus years of the agency's existence. That was 
not through any kind of willful intention; that was not through 
any desire on the part of the agency to cheat its workers. It 
just did not know what the administrative exemption meant and 
got it wrong with regard to its investigators.
    If the Wage and Hour Division cannot get these issues 
right, what hope does the moms and pops have in their household 
for applying these rules?
    Mr. Keller. There would be additional rules then under this 
legislation that people would have to try and navigate and 
determine how to apply?
    Mr. DeCamp. On top of their day job and on top of managing 
their household, yes.
    Mr. Keller. It certainly does not seem to be conducive to 
making sure people have the care they need in their homes, but 
also are able to treat the people that come in fairly. There 
are people that if they treat somebody else unfairly, that's 
tragic and should not happen. I think there is a better way to 
do things, and I appreciate your time today. Thank you.
    Mr. DeCamp. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much, and I want to now 
recognize the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes ma'am.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much 
for your leadership and for bringing into the room your own 
personal story, being the daughter of domestic workers. I 
actually think there are a number of people. I remember the 
late, great, wonderful colleagues of ours John Lewis when I 
introduced the bill, telling me about his mother, who was a 
domestic worker as well. I also want to thank Chairman Scott 
for making this hearing happen today, and for his leadership on 
this issue.
    These workers were on the front lines of the pandemic, and 
yet as you have heard, domestic workers are denied the same 
health and safety and wage protections that most workers get, 
and they lack much-needed paid sick leave. I think the pandemic 
really put in focus the importance of domestic workers, but the 
demand for childcare workers and home care aides was 
skyrocketing even before the pandemic. My Domestic Workers Bill 
of Rights Act, which enjoys the support of President Biden, 
Vice President Harris and Labor Secretary Walsh, would ensure 
that domestic workers are afforded safe workplaces, paid sick 
leave, fair hours and will help us to fill the urgent need for 
childcare and home care.
    I would venture a guess that there is not a single member 
on this Committee that does not in some way, shape or form act 
as an employer of a domestic worker, and I hope that as we go 
through this hearing, people will keep those people in mind 
because these are real people that we are talking about.
    Ms. Poo, if I desperately needed help to care for an 
elderly parent or a child with a disability, how long might it 
take me to hire a domestic worker?
    Ms. Poo. Right now, there are many domestic workers who are 
looking for work, and in fact we are at about in our--according 
to our most recent surveys, there is about a 20 percent 
unemployment rate among domestic workers, and many who are 
currently employed are underemployed. This part of the impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    At the same time, the low wages in this workforce make it 
really difficult for domestic workers to sustain in this work, 
which is why the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights is so very 
important. When it comes to cost to families, the most costly 
thing is actually not having access to a strong workforce, to 
be able to meet the care needs that we have as families.
    Ms. Jayapal. How will this bill increase the supply of 
childcare workers and home health aides, and I might just point 
out that there's about 120,000 people on the Medicaid waiting 
list right now. How would this bill help with that?
    Ms. Poo. This bill would ensure basic protections equal to 
other workers for this workforce, which is the foundation of 
the CARE economy. We have already talked about how this work 
enables millions of working people to go to work every day. 
Having access to sick days, meal and rest breaks, workplace 
protections and training, all of which are addressed in this 
legislation, will help secure and also attract a strong 
workforce for the future.
    Ms. Jayapal. What about the quality of care? Would it help 
increase the quality of care, and if so, how?
    Ms. Poo. It would absolutely increase the quality of care. 
There is significant data that shows that when wages and 
quality of jobs improve, so does the quality of care.
    Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Barnett, as a parent employing a domestic 
worker, and thank you for telling us your story, what changes 
did you notice in the quality of care that your children 
received after the implementation of Seattle's Domestic Workers 
Bill of Rights?
    Ms. Barnett. Thank you for the question. Well, first off, I 
think the fact of the ordinance existing helped establish more 
fair and reasonable employment relationships in our workplaces. 
I think just bringing the conversation, bringing the 
recognition to us employers that our home is a workplace helps 
to create a better workplace and work environment.
    For me, recognizing that I was now an employer, especially 
as somebody who had not been an employer before and in the past 
I had even been a nanny myself when I was younger. Just 
recognizing that although this relationship might feel very 
personal, might feel like the worker, my home, you know, I care 
about her, feels like family to me, recognizing that I am her 
employer and there is an imbalance there, and there are a lot 
of things that I need to consider and think about to help that 
relationship much and increase the quality because she is 
happier in the home, and felt comfortable coming to us to talk 
to us about any issues that arose, any things, you know. It 
just gave us all more space to have a better relationship and 
to have better care for my child.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. My time has expired. Care 
work is the foundation of our economy. It is the work that 
makes all other work possible. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield to 
the gentlelady from Iowa, Ms. Miller-Meeks. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much Madam Chair, and I 
thank our witnesses for being here. Interestingly enough, 
although I am a physician now, both my husband as nurses, and 
when I was a student nurse, we both were domestic workers.
    I am very concerned about some of the provisions in this 
bill. Having had a mother who had Alzheimer's, who I cared for 
her and also utilized care, I am very concerned about 
provisions in this bill that would allow workers to notify that 
they needed a temporary schedule change or a schedule change, 
and then how families would adapt to that as families are now 
considered to be employers under this bill.
    I am concerned about whether a babysitter or a childcare 
sitter would be considered to be a domestic worker, and whether 
those provisions of this bill would apply to them. I have 
tremendous concerns with this bill in the format that it is 
presented to us today. I can also tell you, having traveled my 
district both as a physician, delivering care in numerous 
communities, doing voluntary care, that I have already had 
related to me how individuals who, with disabilities, in 
wheelchairs, have had already problems under current existing 
regulation, of how current existing regulation is limiting 
their access to care.
    Mr. DeCamp, the Government Accountability Office conducted 
an analysis of the Obama administration's companion care rule, 
and this is the reference I am saying when I have had people 
with disabilities contact me, which extended wage and hour 
requirements to more home care employees. The GAO's analysis 
found that some home care providers discontinued certain live-
in care programs due to the increased cost of the rule. Do you 
think this bill would cause similar problems and limit access 
of people who need in-home care?
    Mr. DeCamp. Yes, and I think that is the same dynamic that 
I testified to briefly earlier. I think that as the cost to 
employers of purchasing these services goes up because of these 
ancillary issues, the litigation expense, the other costs that 
go with this bill, it prices consumers out of the market for 
these services. I think that that will limit care.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. We just heard that supposedly this bill 
would increase quality, and I can tell you, having been 
throughout the entire health care system both as--in academic 
medicine, in military medicine, in private practice, as an 
employee, that I have yet to see all of those studies come 
forth that we have an increase in quality. Our overburdensome 
regulations actually push care down to lower-level providers, 
not higher level providers.
    For example, the bill requires a study of domestic 
employees' access to benefits and training opportunities. 
However, the bill fails to require any study on the impact of 
the bill's mandates and the effect they may have on consumers 
and access to in-home services, and whether or not they are 
quality services. When Congress proposes radical amendments to 
long-standing legislation, do you think it is important for 
legislators to study the potential impact of their legislation 
and what it would have on the industry, especially we are now 
talking about families before imposing such burdensome 
mandates?
    Mr. DeCamp. Well, of course. I mean any kind of significant 
Federal legislation will have costs, and it will have 
unintended costs as well, unintended consequences, and these 
need to be anticipated and they need to quantify so that 
Congress can make an informed decision about the costs and 
benefits of the full scope of what the bill will involve.
    I think that is critical here. Among other things, we see 
the economic data relied on for the wage levels, from a study 
from 2019. Those numbers may be good for 2019, but the numbers 
for today may be very different. I mean I looked at 
ZipRecruiter.com this morning, and it indicated that the 
average wage for domestic service is about $20 an hour, and 
that for live-in domestic service, it is about $37.55 per hour.
    That does not purport to be a definitive economic study. 
That is just what is available today on ZipRecruiter.com. It is 
an indication of the need to make sure that we are dealing with 
current valid data in making these assessments.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. It would be your opinion, your learned 
opinion, that the increased cost of compliance and mandates of 
this bill would limit families' ability to afford adequate care 
services?
    Mr. DeCamp. Absolutely.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much. I yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Good. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairman, thank you to our 
witnesses. Thank you for holding this hearing today. It 
continues to--this hearing continues to illustrate what I have 
said many times, the disdain, the contempt with which the 
Majority party looks at business owners, employers, job 
creators generally, and the attitude that is continued to be 
demonstrated, that left to their own devices, employers would 
abuse and exploit, or are abusing and exploiting their workers, 
and you continue to have government-proposed solutions to 
problems that largely do not exist, and to just make it more 
difficult for employers and businesses and job creators again 
across the country.
    In this case here, in this proposal and this bill, that 
would, for example that would mandate that domestic workers--so 
home health care workers--many of us are caring for our 
parents, our grandparents. That is a cultural array, a 
widespread issue now today for so many folks taking care of 
those who need help at home. This would mandate that in-home 
health care workers, in-home caretakers, for example, would 
have to be paid--have earned sick time and would have to have 
rest breaks and meal breaks for which I presume they would not 
be permitted to do any work or to be on call.
    We have, you have an in-home health care worker for your 
mother or your grandparent, who now you have to provide, under 
this proposal, time off during the day, break time, meal time, 
during which they couldn't be on call or have--be able to, be 
asked to provide, to do work for the individual. I guess you 
would need two people now instead of one, would you? You would 
have to bring somebody in to cover? I mean how would that 
impact practically? How would that apply practically in the 
home there?
    Mr. DeCamp, I am sorry.
    Mr. DeCamp. I will note in fairness there is an exception 
to the meal and rest requirements for individuals who are 
responsible for the personal safety of an individual, so that 
requirement is alleviated where personal safety would be at 
issue. For a number of these types of workers, that exemption 
might not apply. The issue is if the coverage is essential, if 
you have to have somebody and it is not a personal safety 
issue, then you would need a second worker there, or you would 
have the option of paying for two additional hours of pay at 
the employee's regular rate for every day worked.
    Mr. Good. One of the other provisions is that it would 
amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to apply to every 
employer, not just those with 15 or more. If a family, let us 
say a Christian family wants to have a Christian in-home health 
care worker to look after their loved one, someone that is 
going to help take care of them and that was a part of what 
they were looking for, someone like them, if you will, in the 
home, how would this impact that ability.
    Mr. DeCamp. Oh goodness, nobody knows. I think that that 
would potentially raise serious constitutional issues, and 
right now Title VII would not allow an employer to choose or 
not choose a worker based on religion, when religion was not 
essential to the function itself. Here, trying to figure out 
whether the law would allow a Christian family or a family of 
any denomination to choose a care provider based on their 
denomination. The bill on its face does not allow it. I think 
that would be a matter left for litigation, and a litigation on 
that kind of matter could bankrupt a family.
    Mr. Good. To think that we would open up a family to 
punitive action by the Federal Government on that basis, let 
alone litigious action because they want to choose whomever 
they want to take care of, on whatever basis they want to 
basically, to come into the home to take care of their loved 
one, whether it was a child who had a special need, whether it 
was again a parent or someone who had a special need. Further 
thoughts that you might have on what that would do to those 
individuals?
    Mr. DeCamp. I think it would drive a lot of people out of 
the market for purchasing those services in the first place 
because it is just too much of a headache. It is too much of a 
risk to take. You are going to expose yourself as a family to 
bankrupting level litigation and enforcement exposure to have 
somebody in your home.
    Mr. Good. Thank you for your candid answers, and I yield 
back, Madam Chairman.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to recognize 
the Ranking Member of Ed and Labor, the gentlelady from North 
Carolina, Dr. Foxx. You have 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank 
the witnesses for being here. Mr. DeCamp, the Jayapal bill 
grants new enforcement authority to the Secretary of Labor, to 
investigate employers of domestic employees. This would seem to 
permit the Secretary to enter and inspect people's homes as he 
may deem necessary, to determine whether there is a violation 
of the bill.
    Since most domestic services take place in individuals' 
private residence, are you concerned about granting DOL the 
authority to enter and inspect the homes of individuals without 
due process?
    Mr. DeCamp. Yes, but I think the dirty little secret of the 
FLSA is that the Secretary already has that authority by virtue 
of the 1974 amendments. The Secretary has not used that 
authority because for the most part people have not had these 
issues come up. Most people do not even realize that the 1974 
amendments applied minimum wage and overtime to domestic 
service employment, and when these cases come up the Secretary 
typically does not have to go into people's homes. I think the 
kind of enforcement mechanisms we are talking about in this 
bill takes it to a whole new level. It is exponentially greater 
in terms of the involvement that the Secretary and the 
Department of Labor would have in these working relationships, 
and I think it would really lead to this, exactly this concern 
you are talking about, of investigators showing up at people's 
homes knocking on the door.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeCamp. I should have said at the 
beginning by the way, just to establish my own bona fides, I 
worked as a domestic worker. My mother worked as a domestic 
worker. I did it when I was extremely young, and my mother did 
it for very many years. I am grateful for all the work 
experiences that I have had.
    Mr. DeCamp, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies only 
to employers with 15 or more employees. H.R. 4826 includes a 
provision to apply Title VII to any employer with at least one 
employee, eliminating the small business exemption. You have 
alluded to this before. Could you discuss the radical nature of 
this change, and what this would mean for small businesses in 
the United States, in terms of litigation, risk, and compliance 
costs?
    Mr. DeCamp. It would Federalize all employment throughout 
the country. It would render the EEOC able to collect data to 
conduct enforcement proceedings, to authorize individual 
lawsuits. It would create enormous incentives for workers to be 
adversarial with their employers, which again for a large 
employer is part of the cost of doing business. For a home, for 
a small business, for a mom-and-pop operation, they are not set 
up to deal with that. They cannot deal with it, and one claim 
can overwhelm and destroy a business or a home.
    Mrs. Foxx. Mr. DeCamp, I am very familiar with the fact 
that many elderly Americans and individuals with disabilities 
employ domestic employees directly. In many cases, these 
individuals need assistance to get dressed, use the restroom 
and prepare meals. Can you explain the difficulties these 
individuals who need assistance to accomplish routine tasks, 
will have complying with the excessive mandates and 
recordkeeping requirements of the Jayapal bill?
    Mr. DeCamp. I think about my practice and the businesses 
that I represent, typically sophisticated entities with lawyers 
and H.R. staff and people with MBAs and lots of degrees and 
lots of money, and they find it next to impossible to comply 
fully with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law that is 
currently on the books. I cannot imagine what individuals, even 
setting aside the aged and those who have illnesses or 
disabilities or impairments; even normal individuals, non-
lawyers, non-sophisticated entities, trying to deal with the 
FLSA would be next to impossible.
    I cannot even imagine foisting these on my mother, for 
example, who is in her 70's, and I cannot imagine her trying to 
work through regulations and to make any sense of it.
    Mrs. Foxx. Well, we thank you very much for bringing your 
perspective and I think the perspective of many here. Committee 
Republicans understand the reality of the fact that the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, FLSA, has been in existence for 83 years, 
and that we need to bring reforms. We are ready to work on a 
bipartisan manner to streamline and modernize Federal wage and 
hour policy to meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. 
This bill is certainly not the way to go. With that Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to 
yield now to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Cawthorn. 
You have 5 minutes sir.
    Mr. Cawthorn. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you to all 
our witnesses. Mr. DeCamp, thank you for being with us today. 
My question is about the portion of your testimony that talks 
about the types of evidence that can be used in discrimination 
lawsuits. Many in this world of politics are lawyers well-
versed in the ins and outs of policy and statute. For many of 
my constituents and myself included, this is an alien world.
    You argue with regard to discrimination laws, that these 
provide a plausible basis for argument in many cases, in which 
the evidence is mainly subjective and circumstantial. Can you 
expand a bit on how creating circumstances that incentivize 
subjective and circumstantial evidence could be detrimental to 
small companies?
    Mr. DeCamp. Sure absolutely, and that comes back to the 
part of my testimony where I talk about how our system is not 
good at weeding out claims with merit from claims that do not 
have merit. The laws have important policies behind them, and 
those are good policies. In figuring out is this individual 
asserting a right under this law that is an actual violation or 
are they lying, our system is not good at sorting that out.
    When we are talking about whether it is discrimination or 
these wage and hour issues, you end up with a he said/she said 
about what happened behind closed doors in somebody's 
residence, or how many hours somebody worked or didn't work, or 
did somebody let somebody use the cellphone when they wanted 
to. There's a $2,000 penalty for violation in that in the 
statute, in the bill. These are all circumstances where there 
would not be easy, objective evidence to verify one way or the 
other, which means you end up with a proceeding that goes 
forward in court, requires expenditures of tens or hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees, which even if you win 
the case as an employer, you don't get your money back. It is 
devastating.
    Mr. Cawthorn. Wow. That would be awful for a small 
employer. Well Mr. DeCamp, one more question. In your 
testimony, you make the point that at least some members of the 
Supreme Court have a strong desire to rewrite the Nation's 
Commerce clause jurisprudence. You argue that the Supreme Court 
could either adhere to the Wickard v. Filburn, or take the 
position of Justice Thomas, concurrence in both the United 
States v. Lopez or United States v. Morrison. If H.R. 4826 were 
to become law, what legal ramifications or challenges could we 
see appear before the Supreme Court in the future.
    Mr. DeCamp. I think the law would very quickly, if passed, 
be subject to a declaratory relief challenge. I think it would 
likely be upheld in the lower courts, and then it would end up 
in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, it is anybody's 
guess as to whether the Court would adhere to a precedent that 
a majority of the members think is incorrectly decided or go in 
a different direction.
    We know Justice Thomas's view on these issues, and since 
the decisions in Lopez and Morrison, one was in 1995, the other 
was in 2000, every member of the Court has turned over except 
Justice Thomas. It is a very different court now, and I think 
that we would be very likely to see at least five justices in 
the Court adopt Justice Thomas's view of the Commerce clause, 
which frankly is that if you read Commerce the way that the 
Supreme Court has read Commerce since 1942, the Commerce clause 
subsumes 12 of the 18 enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 
8.
    His argument is it cannot mean that, or you would never 
have had the Constitution written the way it was written. It is 
an interesting argument. We do not know whether the Court would 
take the case. We do not know for sure how it would end up. 
There are interesting and serious issues that this law would 
raise if it were enacted.
    Mr. Cawthorn. Well, Mr. DeCamp, thank you very much, and to 
both of our other witnesses, thank you. To my fellow North 
Carolinian, Chairwoman Adams, thank you very much, and with 
that I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, thank you Mr. Cawthorn. I want 
to yield now to the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Stevens. You 
are recognized for 5 minutes ma'am.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you Madam Chair and thank you to 
Congresswoman Jayapal for both of your leadership on this 
incredibly important issue and topic, something that is quite 
profound to bring into the halls of Congress. Essential, But 
Unvalued: Examining Workplace Protections for Domestic Workers. 
We know, given how the last couple of years have unfolded, that 
domestic workers are, and their work is only increased in 
demand, and yet our communities continue to suffer from a 
national care deficit.
    I certainly find this topic quite alarming. I know we have 
recently had hearings on this Committee focused on the wage 
theft that has taken place, and we have also had hearing after 
hearing as we have been pushing to raise the minimum wage, 
about how women of color in particular are impacted not only by 
wage theft but by chronic low wages that undervalue their work.
    I wanted to ask a question of panelists, and in particular, 
Ms. Ai-jen Poo, around why have we been seeing women of color 
in particular be undervalued as domestic workers? Who is rising 
up to advocate for them and who do they go to as they try and 
advocate for our domestic workers? Are there State agencies 
that are receptive to this, to these issues and these 
complaints, or is this just a missing gap in the process here?
    Ms. Poo. There are--thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman. There are several reasons for why this work has 
been so devalued, and it is rooted in a history of slavery and 
racism, and also of the devaluing of the work that women do 
within our homes to care for our families. This work has 
largely been associated with work that women should do 
individually inside of our homes, in addition to everything 
else they do and working full-time outside of the home, and it 
has also as a profession been associated with women of color.
    The first domestic workers in this country were enslaved 
black women and indigenous women, and to this day the majority 
women of color are doing this work. This has led to the 
discriminatory exclusion of this workforce from protections 
from some of our most basic labor laws, and an ongoing cultural 
devaluing of this work and relegating it to the individual 
responsibilities of women in our households.
    Domestic workers have always organized. Ever since the 
1880's, when in 1881 the first domestic workers in Atlanta, 
Georgia went on strike for better pay and better working 
conditions, to Dorothy Bolden and the National Domestic Workers 
Union in Atlanta, Georgia in the 1960's and 70's organizing. 
Today, the affiliates of the National Domestic Workers Alliance 
all over this country, more than 70 local affiliate 
organizations advocate on behalf of this workforce and have 
been successful in passing State laws in ten states and two 
cities around the country.
    Those laws and the last 20 years of lessons from those laws 
are the building blocks of this Federal Domestic Workers Bill 
of Rights. We have proven the impact in terms of improving 
working conditions, allowing workers to negotiate for better 
protections, preventing wage theft and increasing the quality 
of care, improving the quality of care for families as a 
result.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. Thank you so much for that 
beautiful articulation steeped in history that we must be 
recognizing of, and Madam Chair if it is okay, I would just 
like to yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman 
Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Representative Stevens, for 
yielding. Ms. Poo, I just wanted to ask you a question. What 
would happen in the next couple of years or so if Congress did 
nothing to address the current shortage of quality care?
    Ms. Poo. I am glad you framed the question in terms of the 
shortage of quality care because it is often talked about as a 
labor shortage, and actually it is a shortage of quality jobs. 
There are many people who want to do this work and simply 
cannot make ends meet doing it because these jobs are 
unprotected, they are unstable. In fact, in the small business 
sector, the biggest pain point among care providers is the 
inability to attract and retain workers at low pay, without 
sick pay, without health insurance.
    The quality of jobs is simply too low, and as 10,000 people 
turn 65 every day and we live longer than ever and chronic 
illnesses like Alzheimer's and other dementias take hold, we 
will not have a strong workforce in place unless we protect 
these jobs and make them good jobs.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield now 
to the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Steel. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all the 
witnesses coming out today. Narrowing the companionship 
services exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act could drive 
up health care costs across Southern California and the United 
States. Changing regulations will cause burdens on families who 
chose to hire home health aides. As we leave the pandemic, this 
bill will, could add more complications to these industries 
that provide vital care for the elderly and disabled.
    H.R. 4827 imposes burdensome mandates on families that will 
inevitably raise the cost of domestic services. Mr. DeCamp, 
could this legislation eliminate choice for families in need of 
health care?
    Mr. DeCamp. Absolutely. By increasing the cost of services, 
by increasing the cost of being an employer of someone 
purchasing these services, it will price people out of the 
market. It will squeeze those who can afford to do it, who can 
afford to bring on these types of workers. It will squeeze them 
in other ways when dollars are tight in today's economy. It 
will put immense pressure on families, on working families, and 
it will result, I believe in less care because people being 
priced out of the market for these services.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you, and how does this bill compare to 
the Obama administration's companion care rule?
    Mr. DeCamp. They are different in focus, but I think the 
net result is the same. The companion care rule, among other 
things, sharply curtailed the overtime and minimum wage 
exemption for certain companion care services provided in the 
home, and that increased the cost. We heard remarks earlier 
today about how that has limited availability, and some people 
have left the market in terms of providers and also consumers 
have found it more difficult to get those services. This bill 
would achieve a similar dynamic by increasing the cost of those 
services.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much your answers and as you 
heard from the witness, that H.R. 4827 imposes burdensome 
mandates, and it is going to be--health care cost is just going 
to rise up. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I want to yield now 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from California. Mr. Takano, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes sir.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you to all 
the witnesses who are with us today. Ms. Poo, Medicaid as you 
know is the largest funder of long-term care services. What 
role does Medicaid funding play in improving the wages and 
working conditions of domestic workers, and ensuring that 
people with disabilities have access to the care and support 
that they need to live in the community, rather than in 
institutional settings?
    Ms. Poo. Funding for Medicaid is absolutely essential for 
home and community-based services. There are over 800,000 
people currently eligible for these services who are on a 
waiting list and cannot get access to the services because of 
lack of funding and the lack of a strong workforce in the 
Medicaid program. The average wage of a home care worker in the 
United States is $18,200 per year.
    That is why we deal with high rates of turnover, and we 
cannot attract and sustain a strong workforce in the home and 
community-based service program, and also why it was so 
important that there was funding in the Build Back Better Act 
to increase resources for the home and community-based service 
program, that would both expand access to services for people 
who need them, and to raise wages for the workforce. I do want 
to urge that Congress consider increasing funding for Medicaid, 
and as a part of this program as well.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you for that. I have a question, if 
any of you can answer Ms. Poo, about how Medicaid funds 
transportation of, you know, the beneficiaries, people that 
don't have their automobiles. How is transportation funded?
    Ms. Poo. I do know that within the Medicaid Home and 
Community-Based Services Program, there is funding for 
transportation services for consumers who need them. In terms 
of the details of that, I can look into it and get back to the 
Committee.
    Mr. Takano. Yes, I just--I do not expect an answer now, 
because it is a little bit--the question is a little far 
afield, but it struck me that I was just in Vermont speaking a 
owner of a cab company in Burlington, and I was surprised that 
they actually have taxicabs in a city that is the size of 
Burlington. He told me that one of the things that is part of 
his bread and butter is the Medicaid patients that the 
hospitals contract his firm with. This particular taxicab has 
employees, not independent contractors. There is another impact 
on workers here, and how Medicaid interacts with these 
transportation services is of interest to me now.
    Dr. Mason, what is the domestic worker pay gap? Why is pay 
for domestic workers so low compared to occupations with 
similar experience or educational levels in other industries?
    Dr. Mason. That is a really good question. The domestic 
worker pay gap refers to the gap of almost $7 per hour between 
domestic workers and all other workers. The gap exists for 
several reasons. Historically, this work has been performed by 
women of color, and leading to a systemic devaluing of this 
labor, as Ms. Poo suggested. Though most of domestics, 64 
percent of domestic workers are U.S.-born, they are more likely 
than other workers to be born outside of the U.S., and they 
also tend to be older, older than other workers.
    What this means is that when we look at the jobs and 
because of the lack of labor protections and wage regulation, 
these workers are less likely to have recourse if they are 
forced to work overtime or not paid a fair wage, and are also 
not eligible for benefits like unemployment insurance when they 
lose a job or do not have enough hours.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. You know, I am one of the 
leaders in Congress. I take lead, I have taken the lead on the 
32-hour work week, which would start overtime pay at 32 hours. 
I note that I think, I believe the SEIU, who has a strong role 
in organizing home care workers, took an interest in this 
legislation. How would maybe with overtime pay that would begin 
after 32 hours, have a positive effect on this industry?
    Dr. Mason. Well, it would absolutely have a positive effect 
in terms of overall earnings for domestic care workers and 
other workers as well, and one of the--one of my colleagues 
points out that workers who--employers would be less likely to 
pay overtime and cut the hours. We have to know that this work 
is critical and essential, and so employers depend on this 
workforce. We need to ensure that those workers have 
protections, are paid fairly and have access to overtime pay 
when there is a need.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield now 
to the distinguished Chair of the Ed and Labor Committee, the 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you. I want 
to thank Ms. Jayapal for her leadership on this issue. Let me 
ask Mr. DeCamp and Ms. Barnett just to quickly comment on 
whether or not there is a different analysis if we are talking 
about people that freelance, that is make their own 
arrangements and get their own jobs, and those that are placed 
by an agency.
    Mr. DeCamp. Thank you for the question. In full disclosure, 
you are actually the only member on the Committee to whom I 
have made a donation, so I wanted to be clear about that. The 
answer is there is a lot of ambiguity with regard to 
freelancers, the status of freelancers. Are they employees, are 
they independent contractors? People employed by agencies are 
clearly employees of the agencies, but may also be joint 
employees, jointly employed by the households in the 
circumstance where they would work.
    Those are very gray lines, and the Department of Labor has 
issued regulations on that topic that have been issued and been 
revoked, and then the revocation got invalidated and the 
Department's working on new regulations. This has been a gray 
area in the law under the Fair Labor Standards Act for about 80 
years.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Ms. Barnett, do you want to comment on 
that?
    Ms. Barnett. Well, I can speak to in our municipal 
ordinance in Seattle, that there are clear differences made 
between who are independent contractors and , who is liability, 
who is the employer and who is the liability of employers, and 
so in some cases it might be a joint liability between an 
employer and an agency. I think there are really clear tests 
for independent contractors, and the majority of domestic 
workers are not independent contractors. They are hired by 
employers, the employers of the household manage their time, 
tell them the work they want done and often provide the tools 
of labor. Yes, so I think that it is an issue that has to be 
really worked out.
    Mr. Scott. Okay, and we know that several states that have 
domestic workers have none of the provisions of these laws, a 
couple of cities. What has been the experience of these laws? 
Is there any confusion and complications or unintended 
consequences that have occurred because of that? Let me ask Ms. 
Poo and again, Mr. DeCamp to comment on that.
    Ms. Poo. In my 20 years of working on these laws, I have 
not heard of complications. In fact, what I have heard is that 
there are improved conditions and enforcement of laws with 
these laws. For example, the laws that have strengthened 
overtime protections in states have enabled, have prevented 
extreme cases of abuse from happening and encouraged workers 
who are facing extreme forms of abuse and wage theft to come 
forward, including a recent case from Seattle.
    Following the ordinance, a worker came forward with extreme 
wage theft abuse and was recently awarded a settlement of 
$71,000 as a result. It has established that and reinforced 
this idea that the hallmark of a healthy democracy is one where 
there are fair and equal protections for workers across the 
economy, and that domestic workers are workers.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Mr.
        eCamp.
    Mr. DeCamp. I think a point to note here is that when an 
original bill that looked more like this first came before the 
California legislature, it passed and Governor Brown vetoed it, 
and then ultimately California enacted and Governor Brown 
signed, then Governor Brown signed a much more pared back 
version. I think there was concern, even in California, that 
this type of set of requirements went too far. They now have a 
statute, as do a number of other states and some localities. 
This was concerning even in California.
    Mr. Scott. The pared-down bill is working in California.
    Mr. DeCamp. I do not know whether it is working in 
California. I have not heard of significant challenges with 
regard to the application of the bill in California.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Mr. Takano just mentioned an 800,000-
waiting list on Medicaid. Is that because of limited slots or a 
limited number of workers willing to take the reimbursement 
rate?
    Ms. Poo.
    Ms. Poo. Limited funding to states to support expanded 
access to services and wages that are at or lower----
    Mr. Scott. Well in Medicaid if you are eligible, you get 
the services.
    Ms. Poo. Except that many states are not able to deliver on 
the services to people who are eligible.
    Mr. Scott. They limit the number of slots?
    Ms. Poo. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. That is where you need funding?
    Ms. Poo. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. Somebody mentioned, you mentioned a 20 percent 
unemployment rate. Obviously, that is not for lack of need, and 
it is because those who are paying it cannot pay the bill. How 
are we going to increase salaries if people cannot afford it 
now, unless you do subsidies?
    Ms. Poo. This is a really important question, and the truth 
is, is that in this country we are far behind in supporting 
affordability and accessibility of care for working families 
across the board. We need a strong childcare program, a strong 
home and community-based service program. We need paid family 
and medical leave, and we simply do not have any of those 
things. Yes, we do need subsidies. We need stronger programs.
    Mr. Scott. Those programs are--you hooked the fact that 
they cannot afford, people cannot afford the services to people 
need more money. You connect the dots with subsidies. Mr. 
DeCamp, do you want to make a comment on that?
    Mr. DeCamp. No, I just think--I think it is an excellent 
point sir.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. Let me just thank my colleagues. I want to remind my 
colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice, materials for 
submission to the hearing record must be submitted to the 
Committee Clerk within 14 days following the last day of the 
hearing. By the close of business August 11th, 2022, preferably 
in Microsoft Word format.
    The materials submitted must address the subject matter of 
the hearing. Only a member of the Subcommittee or an invited 
witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing 
record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents 
longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via 
an Internet link that you must provide to the Committee Clerk 
within the preferred, the required timeframe. Please recognize 
that in the future, that link may no longer work.
    Pursuant to House Rules and regulations, items for the 
record should be submitted to the Clerk electronically by 
emailing submissions to Edandlabor.hearings@mail.house.gov. 
Again, I do want to thank the witnesses for their participation 
today. Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for you, and we ask the witnesses to please respond 
to those questions in writing. The hearing record will be held 
open for 14 days in order to receive those responses.
    I remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice, 
witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted to 
the Majority Committee staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days. 
The questions submitted must address the subject matter of the 
hearing. I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for a 
closing statement.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record letters raising concerns with 
H.R. 4826 from the Home Health Care Association of America and 
the Private Care Association.
    Chairwoman Adams. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The letters from Mr. Keller follow:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Mr. Keller. Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses for 
participating in today's hearing. It is time to move past the 
Democrats' permanent pandemic mindset, which has been used to 
justify more and more harmful government intervention. This 
hearing has shown us that once again, Democrats fail to 
recognize that the vast majority of employers care about 
treating their employees with dignity and respect.
    A lot of times we talk about making employees part of the 
family of the workplace. Now we have legislation that wants to 
take people being treated like family and create them to be--
families and create them to be employers. Committee Republicans 
support enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and holding 
bad actors accountable.
    However, the crushing mandates and penalties in H.R. 4826 
are just another handout to trial lawyers. Employers should be 
able to operate and families, families, we are talking about 
families here, should be able to operate without fear of 
bankruptcy or needing a law degree to understand the complex 
regulatory environment. The last thing families who have 
relatives requiring in-home care need is more inflation caused 
by the Biden administration.
    Increased compliance costs will put these valuable services 
out of reach for more Americans. Democrats should work with 
Republicans to promote pro-growth and pro-opportunity policies 
that work for a 21st century economy. I would like to thank our 
witnesses again for testifying, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Keller. I now recognize 
myself for the purpose of making my closing statement. Again, 
thank you to our witnesses for your time and for your 
testimoneys. Domestic workers provide essential care that 
allows Americans to live with dignity and independence and 
makes it possible for family caretakers to contribute to their 
communities. Regrettably, as we have heard today, Federal labor 
laws do not sufficiently protect workers from abuse and 
exploitation. As a result, many domestic workers, the majority 
of whom are women of color, continue to live in poverty. As our 
witnesses made clear, congressional action is particularly 
important as demand for domestic care increases amid the 
national care deficit.
    To that end, I look forward to advancing Representative 
Jayapal's Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, to provide 
domestic workers with fair and decent working conditions, and 
to ensure that our Nation can recruit and retain the workers we 
need to care for our loved ones. Thank you. If there is no 
further business, without objection the Subcommittee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT