"Building an AI-Ready America: Understanding AI’s Economic Impact on Workers and Employers"

AI has already begun reshaping the economy and redefining work. Across every major industry, AI-powered tools are reshaping productivity, decision-making, and competitiveness in the global economy. At every level also and in every field, AI is changing the way we work and even the way we view work. Because AI can allow employers to deploy resources more efficiently, many small businesses are at the center of this technological transformation. Some of them are in fact the fastest adopters of AI and other emerging technologies, using these tools to enhance efficiency and compete with larger businesses. Also in some cases, this can happen in many ways that we might not expect. According to the Small Business Administration, employers with fewer than 20 employees expect AI to increase their hiring needs, not reduce them. While AI holds significant promise for increasing economic productivity, Congress needs better insight into how AI is affecting employees and employers before offering legislative solutions. Better data will lead to better policy and supporting responsible AI development and adoption while protecting the public. At the same time, some states and localities are moving ahead independently with their own AI regulations. New York, California, Colorado, and others have begun implementing policies intended to address privacy, discrimination, and other workforce concerns. As with any state legislation, some have raised concerns that these policies risk creating a patchwork of inconsistent rules that create compliance challenges and actually raise costs. For businesses that operate across state lines, navigating conflicting regulations can create challenges, and this is especially true for small businesses. We also have to consider the large investments by foreign countries in AI research, infrastructure, and workforce development. As we enter a new era of global competition, we should consider the implications for domestic AI industries if patchwork state and local regulations were to possibly impede the development of our capabilities. The bottom line is this, American leadership in artificial intelligence will be essential for years to come. To support domestic innovation, Congress should consider ways to better enable businesses to innovate and modernize. This means supporting policies that encourage responsible AI development, improve access to high-quality data, and create opportunities for efficiency in our regulatory framework. At the same time, Congress has a responsibility to take seriously the risks AI may pose to our public interest. We must consider how to adopt safeguards that are grounded in evidence and designed with industry, consumers, and workers in mind. We may not be able to predict exactly how AI is going to continue to transform the economy, but with policies that strike the right balance between innovation and accountability, the United States can build a strong and positive future for American workers and employers. And with that, I yield now to the ranking member for her opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. Today marks the seventh hearing our committee has held on artificial intelligence this Congress. To put this into perspective, here is a list of issues in our jurisdiction that we haven't held even a single hearing on. The healthcare workforce shortage, the plummeting wages, school meal access, fair scheduling practices, wage theft, worker misclassification, gig economy protection, heat stress, child labor prevention. And is this singular focus even mounting to anything? After seven AI hearings, committee Republicans have not produced a single plan or bill to protect workers from AI risks. Republicans have also no plan to tackle the current cost of living crisis. President Trump's reckless policies and congressional Republicans' big ugly bill are only making things worse. Millions of working families are struggling to afford rent, groceries, and gas. Many working-class Americans are being forced to dip into their retirement savings or sell their plasma to help pay their bills. And AI has the very real potential to deepen this economic hardship and inequality. Congress cannot stand on the sidelines and hope that corporations are going to do the right thing for workers. For example, more companies are using automated technologies to constantly monitor their workers, from tracking their bathroom breaks to checking the tone of their voice. Some employers have even used AI-powered tools as a weapon to retaliate against workers who might want to unionize. These AI tools are also becoming widespread in employment process with more cases of AI-enabled discrimination in hiring. Despite instances of AI labor abuses, there has been successful efforts to keep this technology in check. Labor unions have been at the frontlines in this fight of using their power to bargain over working conditions to prevent the reckless uses of AI and guarantee workers have a voice in its development and implementation. Additionally, some states have stepped up to protect workers by passing their own guardrails on the use of AI. But instead of holding tech companies accountable, the Trump administration is actively undermining states' AI laws and looking to pass legislation to preempt any regulation. As critical as it is to establish new guardrails on AI, we also cannot forget about enforcing our existing worker protection laws. While AI might be new, there is no AI loophole for wage theft, union busting, and anti-discrimination laws. Agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor have the duty and the power to protect workers during the rise of AI. But they need more resources. Unfortunately, these agencies have been hallowed out by the Trump administration's vicious campaign to slash the federal workforce. And in his latest budget, President Trump is also proposing a cut to funding for these severely understaffed agencies. If we are going to uplift working Americans, a bold pro-worker AI agenda must help more workers join unions, place appropriate limits on AI, safeguard worker privacy, and enforce worker protection. At the end of the day, AI is a tool. Whether this tool will benefit corporations or the wealthy or the working class and the middle class is a policy choice. It is up to Congress to make the right choice, and that starts with centering American workers, their livelihoods, and their well-being. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 PM 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I note that some of my colleagues who are not permanent members of this subcommittee may be waving on for the purposes of today's hearing. With that, we'll go to the introduction of witnesses and appreciate all of you being here today. Our first witness is Ms. Chatrane Birbal. Birbal. Apologies for that. She is Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Government Relations at the CHRO Association in Washington, D.C. Our second witness is Mr. Matthew Gizzo, shareholder at Ogletree Deakins in New York City and co-chair of the firm's technology practice group. Our third witness is Ms. Sarah Stephens, Director of Worker Power at We Build Progress in Washington, D.C. And our final witness is Ms. Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow in Economics and Workforce at Advancing American Freedom in Washington, D.C. So I would like to again thank all of you for being here. We appreciate your time today. And we are going to start just with a brief recitation of the committee rules and pursuant to committee rules, I will ask that each of you limit your oral testimony to a three-minute summary of the written testimony which you've provided. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will count down from three minutes and pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee practice, however, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. And with that, I will recognize our first witness for today, Ms. Birbal.

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on building an AI-ready workforce and workplace. I'm here on behalf of the CHRO Association representing the chief human resource officers of nearly 400 of the largest companies operating in the United States and globally. Our member companies employ more than 10 million workers in the United States and about 20 million workers worldwide. I serve as the association's Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Government Relations. Across our membership, it is clear, employees are using AI-enabled tools to boost productivity, streamline routine tasks, and support more effective work-life balance. AI is also expanding opportunity, especially for people with disabilities, by improving accessibility and enabling new kinds of work. HR functions use the tool to help identify qualified candidates, improve job matching, and strengthen workforce learning and development. The best use of AI is to augment human judgment, not replace it. Leading employers are treating AI adoption as a workforce transformation led jointly by the chief people officer and the chief technology officer. They invest in training, clear communication, and two-way engagement so employees can raise concerns and help shape how tools are used. Let me highlight three practical ways our member companies are using AI today. First, building long-term career resilience. Companies are using workflow reviews to automate repetitive tasks like handling routine customer inquiries or summarizing tickets so employees can spend more time on higher-value work that requires judgment, problem-solving, and creativity. Employers benefit from faster operations and better consistency while workers benefit from less administrative burden and more chances to build in-demand digital skills. Second, strengthening safety. Many employers use tools like badges, cameras, and vehicle telematics to respond faster to real-time risks. In transportation, monitoring driving patterns can reduce accidents and protect workers and the public. In healthcare and other controlled substance environments, AI-enabled tracking can reduce diversion risks and improve basic safety checks, like verifying the right medication and dose. Third, augmenting human capabilities. In healthcare, AI can help analyze medical images and flag patterns, allowing clinicians to work more efficiently and focus their expertise on complex cases and patient care. As you consider policy, the United States already has strong workplace protections covering discrimination, labor rights, wage and hour standards, privacy, and safety. A separate overly prescriptive set of AI-specific workplace statutes could create confusion and duplicative requirements. The better path is to clarify how existing laws apply and establish a federal principle-based framework that promotes transparency, accountability, and responsible risk management while preserving the flexibility as the technology evolves. The CHRO Association and our member companies stand ready to be a resource to the subcommittee. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Mr. Gizzo for your testimony.

Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Matthew Paul Gizzo and I'm a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins in the firm's New York City and Dallas offices. I'm also a co-chair of the technology practice group. I've been advising employers for over a decade on wage and hour compliance and defending them in wage and hour litigation. More recently, I've been counseling employers on AI implementation, auditing, and governance. My message today is straightforward. Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool for good when it comes to wage and hour compliance, and as such, Congress should take a careful and measured approach to any regulation in the wage and hour space so as not to stifle AI innovation and its substantial benefits for employers and employees alike. Wage and hour laws present significant compliance challenges for employers of all sizes, and even so for small and mid-sized businesses that lack the internal and external resources to ensure compliance. In my experience, most employers endeavor to comply with wage and hour laws, recognizing that a failure to do so comes with harsh consequences, which make wage and hour compliance a bet-the-company issue. In fiscal year 2025, the DOL alone recovered over $259 million in back wages for employees. When accounting for private settlements and court judgments, the total recovery on wage and hour violations each year likely totals well into the billions. Yet these recoveries are not indicative of employers acting in bad faith, because even well-intentioned employers routinely stumble navigating the dense web of federal, state, and local requirements, where even minor oversights can result in significant exposure. That issue is compounded further for small and mid-sized businesses, where compliance is tougher and the risks are greater. Take the local restaurant, for example, where the owner very well may serve as the chef, the head of operations, the HR professional, and the in-house legal counsel. The time and effort it requires for them to guarantee compliance with federal, state, and local wage and hour laws is disproportionate to the time they must devote to operating their business and ensuring its success and potential growth. This brings me to the central point of my testimony. AI offers employers powerful tools to meet their wage and hour obligations more accurately, more efficiently, and more consistently than ever before. Consider what AI can do. AI programs can help employers conduct an initial assessment as to whether workers satisfy the independent contractor analysis or fit within an overtime exemption by analyzing the job descriptions and compensation information against the applicable standards. AI-assisted timekeeping systems can track compensable time with far greater precision than manual methods and can flag potential issues in real time, allowing for immediate correction. AI-driven payroll platforms can automatically calculate complex pay rates, including bonuses and commissions, and apply different overtime or premium pay rules depending on the jurisdiction, eliminating manual errors that have historically proven costly. AI-assisted scheduling applications can help employers optimize schedules and avoid predictive scheduling law violations. AI compliance monitoring tools can track changes in state and local laws and automatically update pay rules to reflect those current requirements. In each of these use cases, AI does not replace human judgment, it complements it. Importantly, the benefits of AI in the wage and hour space are not limited to employers. In fact, employers and employees share equally in its benefits. When employers achieve greater wage and hour compliance, workers are more likely to receive the compensation to which they are entitled under the law. Thus, AI-enabled compliance tools serve the interests of the very workers wage and hour laws were designed to protect. What does this all mean? It means Congress should take great care not to suppress AI innovation in this area and adopt a balanced, nuanced, and standardized framework that promotes AI use, reduces compliance burdens, and allows employers and employees to reap the rewards of these technological advances, particularly where as here the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions. and allows employers and employees to reap the rewards of these technological advances, particularly whereas here the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Ms. Steffens for your testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee for this, oh, thank you.

Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Ms. Steffens for your testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee for this... Oh, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the risks of AI and the guardrails needed to protect workers' rights. I have 20 years experience in the labor movement, including with the Communications Workers of America, and I'm now the worker power director for We Build Progress, a nonprofit organization. In this role, I talk to union leaders, worker advocates, and tech policy experts who share a deep concern about AI's rapid expansion in America's workplaces. They know that left unchecked, these new systems threaten to deepen inequality, erode labor protections, and weaken workers' rights to organize. For America's workers, organizing a union requires tremendous courage. This shouldn't be true, but it is, and it helps explain why nearly 70 percent of Americans approve of labor unions, but only 10 percent of workers are union members. America's workers want unions, they just don't want to be fired for organizing them. Federal law requires employers to respect workers' rights to organize, but many don't. New AI systems worsen this problem, allowing employers to surveil workers with frightening efficiency and scale. Corporate lawbreaking to bust unions isn't new, as I learned 20 years ago organizing my workplace, and as have workers learned at major corporations such as REI, Amazon, and Starbucks. Union activists are fired in as many as one in six union elections. And of course, the National Labor Relations Act prohibits spying on workers to suppress union organizing, but penalties for violating these rules are laughably slight. Employers wield enormous power to watch workers in their daily jobs. Corporations routinely scan workers' emails and web visits for terms that might indicate union organizing. They use cameras to monitor workers and track their locations with keycards and GPS, allowing them to quickly ID groups gathering to talk. AI tools supercharge these invasive practices, allowing employers to collect and use troves of personal information. AI-powered surveillance makes it harder for workers to find private spaces to organize or to share safety and wage concerns. Meanwhile, many workers are suffering increased stress, burnout, and even injury due to AI management tools. In the past, corporations couldn't monitor every worker on every shift, but AI tools make this easy. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. employers use tracking tools to monitor their workers. AI systems dictate which tasks workers prioritize in which order. Bossware screenshots remote workers' desktops and sends summaries to their bosses. Burger King is even piloting an AI headset that listens to all customer interactions, evaluating workers on service and friendliness. People have almost no privacy protections at work, and no federal law requires employers to notify workers about AI monitoring. Without regulation, AI allows employers and data brokers to accumulate, analyze, and sell workers' highly specific data in ways that can never be erased. And the databases being built could be used to illegally suppress wages, discriminate against workers, or blacklist union supporters. For decades, power has tilted too far toward employers, and AI is widening this inequality. Workers need a real voice in how AI systems are designed and used, and one of their best tools is a union. Workers know their jobs and can identify tasks that would be good uses of AI versus those better left to human insight. Union members have a long history of successfully bargaining over workplace technology and are winning contracts right now that protect their rights as AI is adopted. But most workers who want unions find them out of reach. So to address AI's impacts on America's workers, we need to fix our labor laws by passing the PRO Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. We must fund the federal agencies like the DOL and NLRB that protect workers' rights. They need more resources and staff to meet AI's new challenges, not further cuts as the Trump administration has proposed. AI is not a worry for the future. It's here, it affects workers every day, high school teachers, ER nurses, reporters, grocery store cashiers. It's time to protect their rights and private information. Corporations must be required to disclose when and why they use bossware, and states must remain free to protect their residents. Across all 50 states, lawmakers are exploring AI safeguards. This innovation will inform federal policymaking and protect millions of workers as we learn how best to direct AI's power to improve our workplaces, jobs, and economy for everyone. Thank you.

All right. Lastly, we will recognize Ms. Greszler for your testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. AI is moving faster than any technology we've seen, and policymakers are being asked to keep up. Yet we lack the data necessary to understand AI well enough to support innovation while protecting workers. On the one hand, AI is just yet another iteration of past technologies. It replaces some tasks, it enhances others, and its productivity gains will increase incomes and raise long-run standards of living. On the other hand, the pace of AI's onset and its adaptive capabilities are unprecedented. The computer took nearly a half a century to become a mainstay in American businesses and households. And yet within two months, ChatGPT had 100 million users, and today nearly half of the workforce, more than half of the workforce, is employed at firms that uses AI. And whereas robots need software updates to improve, AI can often learn and improve on its own. But even as AI has some human-like abilities, it has extreme physical limitations, and it can't think beyond the data that it has access to. So while AI could summarize patient records and even prompt questions for doctors and nurses, AI can't treat patients. Moreover, AI simply won't be cost-effective for many uses. While we know that AI is changing many workplaces, we still lack data on where it's being used, what tasks it's affecting, how it's changing hiring and productivity. This lack of data makes it hard for lawmakers to design effective and forward-looking policy, and it makes it hard for employers to know what investments to make and hard for workers to know what skills to pursue. To begin remedying this, I suggest two steps. First is to direct the Census Bureau to expand its business trends and outlook survey to collect more detailed information on AI use, including where it's being deployed, such as customer service, logistics, or compliance, and then how it's affecting employment, hours, and skills needed. And second, since AI more often replaces tasks as opposed to entire jobs, policymakers should direct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to create a comprehensive task database that's capable of tracking how AI is affecting tasks, productivity, and workforce demands. The BLS already has a foundation for this in its occupational requirements survey, which contains millions of task classifications. These two survey expansions could serve as a foundation for an AI workforce research hub as proposed in the Trump administration's AI action plan. And lastly, while AI brings uncertainty, the greatest risk isn't that AI will harm workers. It's that policy will fall behind or overreact, limiting innovation and seeding leadership to other countries. We should not approach AI with fear, but with a commitment to better data, better understanding, and better policy. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we will head to member questioning of witnesses. Under committee rule nine, we will now ask questions of the witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'll recognize myself first, and I'll start with Ms. Birbal. Your written testimony discusses the patchwork of state and local laws that are starting to spring up in the AI space, and they may conflict with other existing laws and create confusion. So can you please discuss what you mean by these compliance challenges that you're seeing in more detail?

Sure, thank you for that question. So the CHRO Association members are nationwide employers, which means they have employees in multiple states. What we are seeing is our employers that are operating across states are dealing with a patchwork of overlapping and sometimes conflicting AI rules. For example, New York State and California and Colorado may have different notice requirements on the utilization of AI, different requirements for audit mandates, and even different definitions of what AI tools are even covered. Remote hiring makes that even harder because the applicable law can turn on where the applicant lives, not where the employer is located. Congress can help by establishing a federal principle-based standard centered on transparency, accountability, and risk management, and by preempting inconsistent state and local requirements so employers and workers can have one consistent, clear rulebook.

All right, thank you for that follow-up information there. Next, I'll go to Mr. Gizzo. Your written testimony states that any federal regulation on AI should protect jobs, avoid stifling innovation, and actively assist employers who are attempting to comply with existing law in good faith. Could you discuss the effect of complex AI compliance standards on job growth?

Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, that's a great question, and that's an area that particularly impacts small to mid-sized businesses. In my experience, when you have a small to mid-sized business, the compliance burdens presented by conflicting or, you know, variety of wage and hour laws creates significant burdens to expansion and growth, and expansion and growth lead to more jobs. For example, if you're a small business that's operating on an independent contractor model, your concern that if I transition and bring on more folks and I become an employee-focused model, that brings with it all the wage and hour compliance obligations. The other thing that we're seeing is with the advent of COVID, we have employees that want more flexibility, right? They want to perform work remotely. They might want to do so from states in which that employer currently doesn't operate. Compliance with wage and hour laws in those states presents additional burdens. So this is an area where AI can assist those small to mid-sized businesses that don't have dedicated resources expand their operations, which results in more jobs.

I think the big risk is that it could be sold and shared, and so there's an opportunity here to create databases through third-party brokers that know a lot about each individual employee. More than 90 percent of employers are using AI tools to screen job candidates. I don't think we want to be in a situation where you are judged first on a database with information about you, you don't know what's in it, you had no idea that it was being collected, you have no way to challenge it, instead of on your resume and your experience.

All right, thank you. Ms. Greszler, your written testimony discussed the public policy challenges associated with rapidly evolving technologies. The AI landscape and the very nature of the work being transformed is happening at an unprecedented pace, as we've talked about. How can government effectively keep up to ensure that regulations are tailored to such a fast-moving and sophisticated challenge?

To that, I would say, you know, there's three things that you can do. And the first is to start by measuring. If you don't know what it is you're tracking or where it's going, how fast it's moving, it's hard to follow that. So we need to have better data measures. Second, I think that we should first start with applying existing laws that are on the books to see if there are any gaps that relate to AI where it might not be covering it and more is needed. But in many cases, there are already laws that are covering the issues that are arising with AI. And then last is just making sure that we're targeting specific harms instead of having these very broad laws that might even lack definition, clarity in the definitions across them. Look where the specific harms come up and address those first.

All right, thank you. I appreciate that as a state legislator. I know I worked on some legislation around new technologies and keeping them sufficiently broad was critically important as new technologies advance and change. At the same time, addressing the exact challenge is critically important so that you know you're not having unintended consequences or impacting the innovation unnecessarily. So appreciate you all of your answers there. And next, I will recognize the ranking member for five minutes of her questioning.

Thank you. There's obviously a growing use of AI tools by employers to constantly track and monitor workers, which I find deeply troubling. Ms. Steffens, what privacy protections should employees expect in their workplace when they get there?

Thank you for the question, Ranking Member Omar. Unfortunately, workers have almost no protections on the job and in this, for any kind of privacy of their data, anything that might be tracked. The new risks and harms of AI are much different than what we've seen in the past. We're not talking about just an employer supervising you from day to day, but continuously collecting data on your movements, your time on task, what you're communicating, biometrics like fingerprints, your face, and your voice. So there's an urgent need for clear federal laws on data collection, storage, and sale.

What's the risk of collecting data like that on employers? And do you believe that employers have the right to use AI to union bust, to steal wages, to discriminate, or to create unsafe work conditions?

Nothing about AI allows corporations to break existing labor laws. So union busting, wage theft, discrimination on protected characteristics, those are all still illegal. Companies are still liable for their workers' safety. But AI tools allow an employer to have a lot of impact very quickly in a way that's not transparent to a worker. So it might make it easier to violate workers' rights on purpose or inadvertently, easier to hide that you've done so, and harder for workers to prove that it's happened. And that's one of the reasons that we need really robust enforcement on the federal level, including through agencies such as the DOL and NLRB.

Do you have any recommendations to strengthen some of the labor protections that exist because obviously we're not seeing accountability and some of these laws seem inefficient to hold people accountable?

Well, I would start by saying that we have seen years of flat budgets and cuts at enforcement agencies like the DOL and the National Labor Relations Board, and they are really struggling to keep up. At the DOL, that means they have less time to assist employers with compliance or to investigate patterns of violations. At the National Labor Relations Board, there is now a large backlog of cases due to understaffing. The median time for a charge to reach a complaint has exceeded 400 days. That's a very long time for a worker to wait for justice. So yes, we need full funding. I also think we need worker privacy protections, reasonable safeguards and limits on what your employer can collect about you, what kind of data they can collect, store, and what they can sell and share with other people. Reasonable safeguards and guardrails are the name of the game.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the American Psychological Association and a statement from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Without objection. Thank you. Next, we'll go to Mr. Fine from Florida.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you having a hearing on this. As the father of an 18-year-old who's about to go off to college and be part of that first generation of workers who really have to understand how AI is going to affect their lives, he and I spend a lot of time talking about it because he talks to me about how it can affect his schoolwork, how not to. He marvels, and we marvel together at times, how AI will so aggressively make statements that are like obviously untrue, but so confidently. And it's a technology that, like many technologies that have transformed our world, has to be managed. If we go back, many of us have had to deal with how email changed our lives, how the internet changed our lives. Work has gone through many transformations, and I think AI is going to be the next generation of that. So I appreciate, given what I see in his own life, the fact that we're getting aggressive and we're being proactive in dealing with this. My questions are for Ms. Greszler. You highlight the concern in your testimony that overregulation and restricted access to AI infrastructure could allow countries like China, who is no friend of ours, to outpace the United States. From your perspective, what should specific pro-innovative, pro-competitive federal AI strategy look like in practice, and where should Congress focus its efforts to ensure that the U.S. leads globally?

Thank you for that question. As a fellow parent of teenagers, I share your concerns and, yes, this is why I point some to the measurement issue too, is just understanding this better for those who are coming up and need to know what does the future look like for them. In terms of our concerns, and absolutely China and our adversaries will outpace us if we decide to overregulate ourselves and to cede that innovation to them. And first and foremost, I think that the federal government's priority needs to be national security, and we cannot overregulate in areas where we would then just handicap ourselves against our adversaries. And so I think as a broad approach on the federal, first national security, but also we have to have the proper infrastructure in place. This is like past technological innovations that if you don't have that infrastructure, it's not going to develop over time. And that's both the physical infrastructure and it's also the talent, speaking to the people and the younger workers who are coming up. And we do have some existing frameworks. The National AI Initiative Act of 2020 did prioritize the U.S., and they said they want to lead the world in the development and use of trustworthy AI systems for the public and private sectors as well. And I think that should broadly be the goal for the federal government.

Okay. And again, to talk about transformations, I was sitting here thinking, you know, when I was in elementary school, I'm debating myself, or middle school, you know, we had to do a research paper, you headed to the library and there's this big set of books that all looked the same, called Encyclopedia Britannica. You know, I probably could go into the Library of Congress now and find them, but I would suspect maybe I'll ask him tonight if he's even heard of it. And I suspect the answer would be no. Think about how Google changed our lives. That is the transformation that our workers will be going through today. My follow-up question to you is, you know, I appreciate you've made a recommendation to direct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish a task-based classification system, which seems critical in understanding how AI is reshaping work. But at the same time, we've seen challenges with the existing BLS data. For example, they issue the contingent worker supplement to the current population survey relatively infrequently, and the data appears to significantly undercount independent contractors, which again has transformed the workplace, reporting roughly 12 million in 2023 despite other estimates close to 72 million, being off by a factor of six. The BLS data also fails to include gig or app-based work arrangements. Given these gaps, what specific steps would you recommend Congress take to ensure that any new task-based system produces accurate, timely, and comprehensive data?

Thank you. Yes, and you point out that that contingent worker survey has major gaps. It went a decade without collecting any information at that very time that we were seeing a big expansion. Because the contingent worker survey, it's not just contingent workers, which is defined as having a job that's maybe not certain beyond six months, it's the independent contractors, freelancers, gig workers, whatever you want to call them. There's been an explosion in that, whether it is full-time or part-time. We have potentially 70 million people working in this and we don't have much data about them at all. So we need to have more regular collection and reporting on that contingent worker survey, but it might even be better to utilize another one. You know, the Business Trends Outlook Survey has 1.2 million businesses in it. It's collecting data every two weeks we receive new reports on that. And there are ways to do this that minimize the burden on employers, and so I think we need to look to things like that.

Thank you. Maybe we can just use AI to go out and count how many of these people there are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to Mr. Casar from Texas.

Good morning. Today the Republicans on the Education and Workforce Committee have called this hearing on AI's economic impact on workers and employers. To the Republicans on this committee, that seems to mean, quote, "a regulatory framework for AI efficiency" or "overregulation of AI," whatever that means. But I'd like to talk about the elephant in the room, the potential for AI to put millions of American workers out of a job starting now. Don't take my word for it. The CEO of Anthropic said that AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and raise unemployment up to 20 percent. 20 percent. We haven't been at 20 percent unemployment since the Great Depression. Bill Gates said humans won't be needed, quote, "for most things," and Elon Musk said, "probably none of us will have a job." To Elon Musk that might sound like a business opportunity, but to me that sounds like a major crisis. This could be a huge problem. So what are Republicans in Congress doing about it? Ms. Greszler, can you tell me how many hearings there have been in Congress under this Republican Congress about potential mass unemployment from artificial intelligence?

I'm not aware.

There have been zero, that's why. Mr. Gizzo, can you tell me how many bills the Republicans have brought to the floor to make sure millions of Americans don't lose their jobs to artificial intelligence?

I'm not aware.

That's right, me neither, because there have been none. And Ms. Birbal, can you tell me how many executive orders have been signed by the Trump administration to prevent mass unemployment from AI?

I'm not aware.

That's right, because there have been zero. So we may have this huge crisis coming, but the people in charge aren't doing anything about it. That's interesting. I wonder why. Ms. Greszler, can you tell me how much the artificial intelligence industry is planning to spend this upcoming election?

I don't know, but when you're talking about artificial intelligence there's also issues of definitions and I don't know what you're including in that.

Right, I know it can be hard to keep track, but just from looking at some initial reporting, Politico this morning said that Leading the Future, which is the Marc Andreessen AI front group, has raised $140 million. There's also Innovation Council Action, I don't know how they come up with the names, but they've got $100 million. There's also the American Technology Excellence Project, which got 65 million from Mark Zuckerberg. I could go on and on and on, but the amount of money is obscene and I think you can see in these hearings what that money buys them. Millions of Americans could be on the verge of losing their jobs, but the only legislation that Republicans in Congress are pushing is legislation to prevent any regulation. We should be stopping AI billionaires from putting countless Americans out of work, but Republicans in this Congress are too busy cashing their checks. I yield back.

We're going to go to Mr. Walberg from Michigan next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel for being here. Very important subject we're discussing and for the benefit of the workforce as well as the employer. And it's either going to be China that controls AI or America. I would like to think that we'd be better with America controlling it. Ms. Birbal, your written testimony says that the employers that CHRO Association represents are learning how to adopt their use of AI rapidly and in real time. The Department of Labor has successfully streamlined its compliance assistance efforts through the issuance of opinion letters and through the payroll audit independent determination program. The question I have is how can the federal government further improve compliance assistance efforts to accommodate AI-related workforce changes?

Thank you, Mr. Walberg. Because AI is changing in real time, compliance assistance has to be faster, clearer, and more practical, which we realize is a challenge especially when we're talking about government and government trying to keep up with a rapidly evolving technology. The Department of Labor can help by issuing timely guidance like opinion letters along with plain language FAQs, model policies, and scenario-based examples that employers can utilize right away. And it should be risk-based, focus the clearest guardrails on higher impact uses like hiring, promotion, employee monitoring, while still leaving room for responsible innovation.

Okay, thank you. Ms. Greszler, your written testimony recommends that the Bureau of Labor Statistics build out the occupational requirements survey to help the public understand how AI is transforming tasks and productivity, which you suggest might be more useful than looking at raw jobs numbers. Can you explain more about what that might look like?

Yes, most often AI is replacing specific tasks and not wholesale jobs. And we don't have the granular data to know which jobs are being most affected by it, which ones maybe 50 percent of the job is being replaced, which ones are being significantly enhanced and the job is becoming that much more productive. And so if we can use that existing data, there's millions of job classifications already out there in the occupational requirement survey that are really not being used in many ways right now, but if you could employ that so that you could track specific jobs across industries, occupations, across time, then you could know what are the most in-demand skills, this will help educators and this will also help when there is displacement so that we know what is the best job training types of resources that would be would help workers.

And certainly AI as it grows will be capable of being a greater asset all along the way, won't it, in doing exactly what you're saying? So thank you.

Exactly, and that's one reason I when we hear about these massive job losses, I don't fear those. You know, basic definition of economics is that it's the allocation of scarce resources across unlimited wants and desires. There will be new things that are produced. We are not going to see a world in which humans do not work and part of that is the basic economics and it's also the way that humans were made. We have a desire, we were made to work and to make things productive and to be creative and we will always be using those.

Yeah, and pure protectionism generally leads to lesser opportunities and inferior results as well. Not downplaying challenges and risks and uncertainties, not at all, but this is this is the path of progress. Mr. Gizzo, your written testimony discusses problematic AI laws at the state and local level such as the common grouping California, Colorado, New York, New York City. These laws have either created a disincentive to adopt AI tools for employers or made wage and hour compliance even more burdensome. Your recommendations mirror that of the White House's national policy framework, which recommends federal preemption of AI laws that impose undue burdens on businesses. Can you explain the benefit of establishing a federal floor, which is the approach of the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Thank you, committee member. Yes, that's that's a key question, right, and the issue is when you have a patchwork quilt of different state laws, it disincentivizes innovation and AI adoption. To give the example of the New York City automated employment decision tool law, that required employers that were going to use automated employment decision tools, AEDTs, to publicly report the results of a bias audit. The New York State Comptroller recently audited the New York City DCWP's enforcement of that law and found the enforcement to be ineffective. In part, there wasn't a good complaint reporting process, but I think the bigger issue is only a handful of companies, some of the largest companies, actually reported a bias audit indicating that they were using automated employment decision tools. So the net effect was folks just didn't use them, companies didn't employ them. So where there's an opportunity for bipartisan federal regulation that can set a minimum standard and help to avoid state laws that are going to disincentivize AI innovation and put us behind the eight ball with respect to other countries like China, that's critically important. And as you point out, there are risks, there are certain concerns, but I think if you take a, you know, careful, targeted, and nuanced approach, we can address everything.

Appreciate that. My time has expired. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next we'll go to Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.

Thank you very much. Kind of concerned about this topic, we're diving into the great unknown. I like Ms. Greszler's view of the world that man is made to work. I wish I could believe that was true of all people, I'm not sure it is true of all people. But if you believe it, we're glad you hang around with that sort of person. We'll start with Mr. Gizzo, can you explain what a collaborative voluntary approach to AI regulation might look like?

Well, I think it starts with identifying some of the risks, which I think this group has already done, but also taking into account the significant benefits that AI can provide and ensure that those benefits are not tampered by regulation. I also think as I think Ms. Greszler pointed out, AI has a very broad definition and I think Chairman Mackenzie highlighted that there is an issue with trying to keep definitions broad but also being targeted enough so as not to create a dragnet where every automation or AI-assisted platform is pulled in. So to me that's going to be a key component of any regulation.

Okay, I'll ask you a couple more questions. Ms. Greszler, I agree with you, there's always going to be work. The problem is insofar as AI takes away jobs, they'll be white-collar jobs. And we still have a horrible bias in this country that somehow white-collar jobs are more prestigious or whatever than blue-collar jobs. And that's why we have a shortage of people in the blue-collar areas. I've said before, I'll repeat the anecdote to you all, you see those Walmart trucks driving around with live better or whatever on the back, the big Walmart trucks. And I'm not talking the trucks that go from one side of the country to the other, I mean just local around the region. Those guys, usually guys, are making 140 grand a year. Okay, now if you had a college kid making 140 grand a year, you'd be proud of your college kid, my goodness, Jimmy's doing great, 140 grand a year. But he didn't have to go to college, he could have driven a truck for Walmart and made 140 grand a year. The question I have for you, Ms. Greszler, is how are we going to get it into these people's heads out of the shoot that we need more blue what used to be referred to as blue-collar jobs?

Well, I think we're seeing that now and AI has hit home to people that some of the most valuable skills will be the ones that where you are not able to be replaced and are using your physical capabilities. But there's also evidence that those white-collar jobs that certain tasks in them are being replaced or maybe some of the entire jobs are being replaced. There was a study out of the Brookings Institute that said actually it looks like these people in those positions are the ones who are most capable of adapting. And so that's exactly what we would want to see. And I'd also say that it's still going to take some time, you know, even the onset of the computer, it was a while before this was fully adapted within the workplace and we're just not seeing these apocalyptic changes that we've been hearing from the other side right now and so I think it is going to be slower in terms of the job transitions.

Okay, thank you. I think you're to say that the people in essence the white-collar people are finding it easier to adapt, I don't believe that at all, I think that sounds like some college propaganda. But next question, and this is really my concern about AI and I think every every other person's concern is when I even just Google something on my phone, there's bias. When I just look at my phone and if I would click onto whatever comes up on my phone, there's bias. And I don't know what to do to prevent it, you know, we have a First Amendment, but it drives me up the wall right when I Google something or whatever, it's always bad. I guess they want me to ask this to Mr. Gizzo and then we got to give Ms. Birbal something to do. What can we do about this obvious bias that there is with AI?

It's a great question, but the framework is already there. Bias has always been there, right? Humans are biased. AI in and of itself is not necessarily biased, it's dependent on the data that is input. So when we talk about bias, there's already laws that address bias. So the framework is already there.

No, but we have a First Amendment, right? If the guy I don't understand how AI works. I don't understand how when I Google something this is what comes up or these are the first five things that come up. It's a free country. They're biased. It drives me up a wall because I think if I was just a dumb 17-year-old, I'd believe this garbage they were giving me. But I'm old enough to know that you can't believe anything you read. But is there any way that you can think that we can make this more competitive, I guess I could say? And since nobody's here can I ask the question of Ms. Birbal?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again, thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. It's always an honor when there's a Minnesotan here as well. Right now, workers around the country are facing a cost of living crisis. Republicans' failure to address rising inflation is hurting families' ability to keep food on the table and make ends meet. And the unchecked rise of AI in the workplace threatens to worsen the existing wealth gap and make it harder for workers to organize for fair pay, good benefits, and safe workplaces. Let me be clear. We are not we cannot rely on big corporations and executives to properly regulate the use of AI tools alone. We need strong enforceable guardrails to ensure this new technology is being used to help workers, not retaliate against them or run surveillance on their daily lives. The Trump administration is going in the complete opposite direction and trying to prevent regulation of AI by states. Preempting state AI laws would hand blank check to Big Tech and roll back rights and protections for workers. In order to ensure that AI is used ethically and effectively, we must center workers in our discussion. Congress must play an active role and provide an affirmative vision to manage and shape AI's economic and labor impacts. We can start by supporting policies that will empower workers and their unions to have a seat at the bargaining table so that AI can work for workers, not against them. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

I'll use the question and then I'm going to ask a question of Ms. Birbal, but after I get Gizzo on that one.

Sure. Look, I I maintain the position that the framework is there, but we can, you know, look at transparency or, you know, other ways of ensuring that folks are aware that that bias is there, disclaimers, notice. There's certainly opportunities in that respect.

Okay. Ms. Birbal, I'll kind of ask you go down that same path. I assume since you're a Republican witness, you see the same thing I do when you get on your computer that it's biased. Is is this something we're going to have to put up with young children from here on out in history they're all going to be a little bit anti-God and a little bit, you know?

We we appreciate your final question. We are past time, Mr. Grothman. So Mr. Birbal or Ms. Birbal, feel free to follow up. We are obviously willing to accept additional testimony in written format after this hearing if you'd like to provide it. With that...

Can you let her follow up?

That is certainly acceptable, but we we are past time for for your questioning. So again, if you'd like to follow up in writing that'd be great.

I know, but nobody is here.

No, no, no, we're going to move on at this point, Mr. Grothman. But thank you. All right. Mr. Messmer from Indiana will be next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Ms. Gizzo, you in your written testimony you indicated that AI can help with compliance and provide a lifeline for small business and medium-sized businesses, a win-win for both employers and employees. Can you speak about the compliance-related benefits AI provides to their business and to their workers?

Sure. Wage and hour compliance presents a number of significant obstacles. We've seen AI platforms that are now able to assist employers with conducting classification analyses, whether that be under FLSA exemptions to overtime or whether someone fits into an independent contractor role. Those classifications and those analyses have typically required, you know, HR departments, in-house legal counsel, or even external guidance to make decisions. AI platforms are now at least giving employers, especially small and mid-sized employers, an avenue by which they can make a preliminary assessment. In the timekeeping space, I've seen a host of employers that run into issues with tracking time, calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime, which can be incredibly complex, and even in certain states like New York, tracking spread of hours pay or split shift pay or different types of premium pay. AI automation is giving the resources to these small and medium-sized businesses to do that. And that's significant because they lack the resources otherwise to do so.

Thank you. Ms. Birbal, as outlined in your testimony, AI is quickly evolving as an opportunity to augment human capabilities, but there are also concerns that AI will be used to replace the workforce instead. To help the federal government understand the ongoing impact of AI on the workforce, we need a holistic, real-time data that federal market data collection infrastructure currently lacks. A Stronger Workforce for America Act 2026 takes an important step toward resolving this problem by mandating the collection of real-time, granular labor market data and expanding on its collection authority to other US territories. Can you speak to the importance of labor market data modernization initiatives like this one and how important and how it can improve further federal action on AI in the workforce?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Messmer. I think having accurate data, one, not just showing how AI is changing the workforce and the workplace, but also showing what new jobs are being created so that we can have a good look at, you know, jobs that are being impacted. As Ms. Greszler mentioned, AI is not wholesale replacing jobs, it's probably changing the tasks that are occurring within jobs. So I think having an understanding of what are those tasks in addition to what are the new jobs that are being created as a result of AI, it can help us better prepare for the future workforce. Also, this will enable employers to be better positioned to be more strategic in identifying what are their future needs of their business and what additional or new skills learning and development opportunities there are for their existing workforce as well.

Thank you. Ms. Greszler, what do you believe would be the negative outcome if the federal government were to proceed with stifling innovation and advances in technology?

We lose out to our competitors. That has significant national security concerns, but also just for the economy. The US is the leader in tech. And they're the leader in tech because we allowed for flexible growth and innovation whereas you look at Europe and they were the leader in regulation. And what happened as a result? The US tech companies have eight times as much value as the European companies and we are seen as the global leader in that. And so I think we should not cede that to other countries, especially our adversaries.

Thank you. And how can the federal government ensure that America continues to lead in AI innovation in the race against countries like China?

I think it starts with the infrastructure. We certainly don't want to be putting moratoriums on expansion in AI. And it's the physical infrastructure. We also need to make sure that our people have the capabilities to work with the AI, to understand it, and that gets into the different measurements and how do we ensure that everyone's coming through the pipelines has the correct education and training and then just taking an approach to regulation that allows for flexibility and notices the value of innovation what that will produce for Americans before trying to swipe it off before that growth can happen.

Thank you. Thank you for your responses and I yield back.

All right. Well, thank you to all of our individual testifiers for answering those important questions from our members. Next, we're going to head to closing remarks and I'd like to recognize the ranking member for her statement.

workers and their unions to have a seat at the bargaining table so that AI can work for workers, not against them. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you. Again, I would like to thank all of our individual testifiers for being here today. I think it is critically important that we continue this conversation about transformative technology like AI, not only the pace at which it is changing, but also how it's going to change the nature of work as we move forward. It's clear from today's hearing that the American workforce will continue to adapt. It's our job as Congress to see that federal laws and regulations can keep up with those adaptations. We also heard about the positive developments and changes that can come about because of transformative technology like this that will actually help workers. We heard about how if we want to make sure that employees are paid properly, technology like this can help in compliance, making sure they're getting the wages that they are owed and that they have earned. We've also heard locally in my local community about how AI can address the healthcare worker shortage by transforming the work that they actually do by reducing the amount of time that they spend on record keeping and they can actually have more patient interactions per individual. We can address that nurse shortage and that doctor shortage. So I think it's critically important that we actually see the forest for the trees. And what I mean by that is that there is this transformative technology which can address so many of the other challenges that we're facing, but if you don't see the bigger picture, we're never going to be able to take advantage of it. And so I just want to thank all of you for being here today as we continue this important conversation about the nature of work in the United States and what it's going to mean for our individual workers. To stand in the way of this technology is going to prohibit the innovation, the increases in productivity, and what that ultimately means for workers. They can have a more enjoyable workplace and also earn better wages. Here during the Trump administration, we have actually seen wages for workers increase, helping them address the affordability challenge in this country. During the Biden administration, wages actually went down. So that is a big change. It is a sea change in this country and again, we have to recognize what AI means for all of our businesses, but also all of the individual employees. So I thank you for being a part of this continuing conversation. We do not want to stand in the way of this innovation, we actually want to help individuals take a part in this in this new opportunity. So with that, I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today and I will go to close the hearing. Without objection, there is no further business before the subcommittee and we stand adjourned.