Less Red Tape, More Opportunity: Unleashing American Workers and Job Creators

The subcommittee on workforce protections will come to order. I note that a quorum is present and, without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. American workers and businesses deserve a reasonable regulatory environment that supports growth and prosperity not red tape and delays. That's why today's hearing will examine policies that make it easier for individuals and businesses to work hire invest and build. In the last year and a half, Republicans in Congress have worked quickly to remove barriers that hinder economic growth and stifle private sector employment. By cutting taxes for every American and by removing unnecessary mandates that raise costs and limit opportunity we are empowering workers and small businesses so that they can succeed and thrive. As a result of these common sense policies, employers are becoming more optimistic about the American economy. In its July twenty twenty-six Small Business Monthly Business Economics Trends Report, the National Federation of Independent Business reported that its small business optimism index is at ninety-nine point eight, higher than its average rating during the previous administration and trending in the right direction. When asked to evaluate the overall health of their businesses, sixty-nine percent of employers responded that it was either excellent or good. Now, it is time to build on this work by continuing to eliminate unnecessary obstacles for the men and women who take risks and invest in our communities. Small businesses should be spending their time growing, hiring, and innovating, not navigating unnecessary federal red tape. Regulatory uncertainty and higher clients' costs ultimately make it harder for employers to create opportunities for themselves and their workers. The American people are counting on us to ensure federal regulations are grounded in common sense, safeguarding important environmental and safety standards while minimizing the slowdowns caused by the federal bureaucracy. By doing this, we make it easier for small businesses, workers, and communities to achieve and thrive. Today's hearing will examine ways in which we can foster that climate, and find the appropriate regulatory balance for every American. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us. Here we are again when my Republican colleagues start talking about getting rid of red tape. Uh, but let's look at what we're actually talking about getting rid of. It is the light at a construction site. It is the respiratory a worker wears to protect them from toxic exposure. It is an exp- inspector looking at a mine and simply asking a coal operator whether the roof is going to hold. Every one of these common sense rules are on the books because workers were hurt or killed on the job and this country, us as legislators here in Congress, decided that it was not going to happen again. But now the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are trying to repeal them. They have also fired staff across the Department of Labor, weakening important safety agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The attacks on workplace protection have made it harder to hold bad employees accountable, harder for workers to trust that someone has their back. Now, twenty twenty five was a very good year for the President Trump personally. According to his own federal disclosure form, Trump received two point two billion dollars in income after returning to the White House. Let me put that into perspective. The medium American worker would have to work over fifty-three thousand years to earn what the president made in a single year in office. Forty-three thousand years. While working families are falling farther behind on their bills, the man in the oval house oval office is cashing in. And congressional Republicans are just looking the other way. Worse, they actually added red tape of their own to the very programs all of these families need to survive. In the year since the Republican Congress passed the big ugly bill, more than eight million Americans have lost health care coverage, and more than four million lost food assistance. Republicans know what they do not ha- that they do not have a good economic record to run on. But let's be clear about the plan they are offering to the American people. It is more hardship for you, less for their corporate beneficiaries. Instead of crafting an agenda that helps working people with the cost of living, committee Republicans have consistently chosen to make to take the wrong priorities. They have chosen to make labor cheap. This is what their bills will do, make it easier for an employer to treat a worker like an independent contractor instead of a full-time employee letting employer employers off the hook for wage theft making overtime cheaper and worth less for workers putting in the time. And they have chosen to make jobs more dangerous. Just last month, commu committee Republicans voted to black OSHA from ever issuing any standard protection workers from extreme heat in one of the hottest summers in our country's history. Just as troubling is what they have chosen not to do. This committee has held zero hearings on issues that working people in my district and across this country care about most. Not one hearing on raising the minimum wage, not one hearing on addressing the violence in workplace, not one hearing on child labor laws, even as this administration announces a plan to weaken them for fourteen year olds. Mister Chair, every worker in America deserves to come home safe at the end of the day. That should be one of the most basic obligations we have to our constituents. Working families are not asking for much, they are asking for a fair shot, an honest wage and a safe workplace. But this Congress and this administration are failing to meet the moment, stripping away Labor protections will not unleash anything good. It will just move the cost of doing business onto the bodies and the livelihoods of working class people, who do the real work that power this economy. Working Americans deserve a government that works for them, not for corporate interests. Thank you and I yield back.

Pursuant to committee rule eight C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to committee the committee clerk electronically. in Microsoft Word format by five p m, fourteen days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for fourteen days to allow such statements, and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. Next we'll go to the introduction of witnesses. Our first witness is Mister Austin Bannon, Employment Policy Fellow at Americans for Prosperity in Washington DC. Our second witness is Ms. Elizabeth Maelito. Uh, she is the Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center in Washington DC. Our third witness is Ms. Rebecca Reindahl. She is the Director of Occupational Safety and Health at the AFL CIO in Washington DC. And our final witness is Mr. Douglas, or Doctor, Douglas Holtz Eakin, President of American Action Forum in, also in Washington DC. I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today, and we look forward to each of your testimonies. I'll ask that you limit your oral testimony to a three minute summary of the written testimony that you have provided. The clock will count down from three minutes as committee members have many questions for you. However, pursuant to committee rule eight D and committee practice, 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

Chairman McKenzie, Ranking Member Omar, members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me. I'm Austin Bannon, Employment Policy Fellow at Americans for Prosperity. AFP is the premier grassroots organization advancing policy, so every American can pursue their version of the American dream. In my space, that means empowering workers, with choice and opportunity to succeed in the twenty-first century. That includes Pennsylvanian Marilyn Caustic, a four-decade independent contractor in the retail cosmetics industry. When her family relocated for her husband's job, she left her own medical lab job. Self-employment allowed her to earn income while raising three children and taking care of her parents. American workers like Marilyn should be free to chase opportunity, not forced to seek government permission. The National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act were written approximately ninety years ago. when a third of workers were in manufacturing and many people worked one job for life. Yet in today's economy, manufacturing is under one in ten jobs and more than seventy million Americans now earn some or all of their income as independent workers. Since two thousand twenty-five, the Trump administration has committed to regulatory reform, building on the Supreme Court's two thousand twenty-four Loper-Bright decision that ended courts automatically deferring to agency decisions on ambiguous statutes. Executive Order one four one nine two and an April two thousand twenty-five memorandum directed agencies to move quickly against rules resting on thin statutory ground. AFP Foundation's recasting regulations tracker counts dozens of DOL actions since Trump took office, many citing Loper-Bright by name. For instance, DOL proposed an independent contractor rule focusing on the degree of control a business exercises over work, and the workers' own opportunity for profit and loss. This is set to replace a Biden-era two thousand twenty-four rule, forcing businesses to weigh six expanding factors equally, from working mothers to budding entrepreneurs to people with disabilities. Restoring a clear pathway for self-employment instead of treating it like a problem is exactly what workers want. A Biden-era Bureau of Labor Statistics survey found that less than one in ten independent contractors would prefer a traditional job. DOL has also proposed a new joint employer rule to protect millions of franchises and small businesses, serving as vendors and contractors. Unlike Biden-era efforts, the rule requires direct control, not just theoretical control, before businesses are forced to share liability. As DOL continues regulatory reforms, Congress can help make pathways of opportunity more permanent as well. Leaders can enact H. R. thirteen nineteen, the Modern Worker Empowerment Act, and H. R. thirteen twenty, the Modern Worker Security Act. These would enshrine DOL's pro-worker classification tests and a benefit safe harbor into law, allowing employed workers to acquire more affordable benefits. Eleven states have recently enacted bipartisan voluntary portable benefits laws so the time is right to remove federal barriers. H R four three six six, the Save Local Business Act, introduced by Representative Komer, would enact a sound joint employer standard across agencies, ending regulatory efforts to crush small businesses with ambiguous standards. H R twenty eight seventy, the Working Families Flexibility Act, introduced by Representative Miller, would let private sector workers choose paid time off

Thank you, Thank you, and I'll now recognize Ms. Melito for your testimony. and I'll now recognize Ms. Melito, for your testimony.

Chairman McKenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm honored to be here on behalf of NFIB's members, the small business owners who are the backbone of communities across America. They create jobs, support local economies, and provide opportunities for millions of workers. Since nineteen ninety-five, small businesses have generated more than twenty million new jobs, accounting for over sixty percent of new job creation in the United States. Behind those numbers are hard-working entrepreneurs, who take extraordinary risks and make countless sacrifices to keep their businesses open. Most small business owners wear many hats. They are the CEO, HR Manager, Compliance Officer, Accountant, and sometimes even the person who sweeps up the floor at the end of the day in the business. They are passionate about serving their customers, supporting their employees, and strengthening their communities. Because they operate with limited time and resources, public policy matters greatly to them. Clear, predictable, and practical regulations can help businesses grow and succeed. Conversely, overly complex or costly requirements can create challenges that are particularly difficult for small employers to absorb. Over the past two decades, federal regulations have added significant compliance obligations and paperwork requirements for businesses of all size. While many regulations are well-intentioned, small businesses often lack the legal departments, compliance teams, and administrative resources that larger companies have to navigate new requirements. As a result, regulatory burdens fre- frequently fall hardest on small employers. Every hour spent understanding a new requirement, completing paperwork, filling out a form, or training employees is time that the business owner cannot devote to serving customers, training employees, expanding operations, or creating new jobs. For small business owners, the trade-offs are a real concern. The good news is that policymakers from both parties have long recognized the importance of considering the unique challenges small businesses face. We appreciate the efforts of Congress, the administration, and this committee, that they have sought out input from job creators to ensure that regulations are workable for small businesses. In recent months there have been encouraging steps toward greater clarity and certainty in several areas of labor and employment law, and NFIB appreciates the efforts to simplify complex compliance requirements and enhance uniformity across um different standards. But one area where small business owners remain deeply concerned is OSHA's proposed heat standard. Small employers take employees safely, seriously, and recognize the importance of protecting workers from heat-related hazards. In fact, small businesses in all industries have adopted workplace practices tailored to their specific needs. However, NFIB members are very concerned about the federal heat standard, and I've printed out a copy here, all three hundred and seventy-five pages of the proposal there. These concerns are reflected in the more than ten thousand small business owners who have signed NFIB's petition, urging policymakers to reject the establishment of a federal heat standard. Small business owners are grateful for the attention this committee and policymakers on both sides of the aisle have given to the challenges of America's job creators. When regulations are practical, flexible, and clear, small business owners can focus their energy where it belongs, serving customers, creating jobs, investing in their employees, and strengthening their communities. NFIB looks forward to working with Congress, the administration, and with this committee to identify ways to reduce unnecessary burdens, improve regulatory certainty, and ensure that America's workers are safe, and that America's small businesses can thrive. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Miss Reindell for your testimony.

Chairman McKenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the AFL CIO today. We are a federation of sixty-five national labor unions, and I'll be testifying about protecting worker health and safety through regulation. As we approach Labor Day, I want to be clear about what we are actually about when we hear terms about regulations and red tape. This is about setting minimum requirements for businesses to follow, in their efforts to be pillars of the community, to be responsible to those they employ, to their consumers, their environment, and to society. We are talking about workers being able to go home safely to their families at the end of the day with fair pay and dignity. The reality is that businesses of all sizes can be dangerous workplaces, including construction sites, restaurants, retail establishments, include um farms, mines, hospitals, manufacturing shops. Carrie's daughter, Brooke, a college student, died working part-time at a restaurant, crushed by equipment that didn't have saf- safety mechanisms on it. Tammy's husband, Kevin, fifty-eight years old, was engulfed by grain in a silo on a farm. The site lacked proper safety procedures and safety and rescue equipment. Travis, twenty-six year old engineer, died in a manhole helping to rescue a coworker who had lost consciousness from dangerous gases. They had safety equipment on site and monitoring equipment, gathering dust in storage, and they were not trained on any of it. These and the three hundred and eighty people who lose their lives each day in the US because of work are tragic and are preventable. In addition to education and support, regulations and enforcement are there to ensure that workers do come home safe. For employers, regulations level the playing field, provide a road map, and force technology spurring innovation and making the market competitive. Decades of regulation reviews have demonstrated this. When we hear about the sheer number of regulations or the total billions of dollars that they cost in industry, those figures, while they sound impressive, are skewed because as the economy grows, regulations naturally cover more businesses. These figures also do not reflect the cost of complying with regulations, which actually decrease over time and that regulations have different shapes and sizes. And they say nothing about the impact on family members for a lifetime. So, this is a smokescreen. The deregulatory label is not really about putting less onerous requirements on businesses, it's about letting businesses pass more costs onto people's health and their wallets. Two thirds of the sixty deregulatory actions issued by the Department of Labor in twenty twenty five alone uh, directly impacted government rules that keep workers alive. So not only have these been dangerous exercises, but they're giving employers more discretion to make decisions about safety equipment that they have no expertise to make and will ultimately put their businesses at risk. While we hear about burdens and red tape on employers, real protections are being pulled right out from under hard-working Americans. Some of the examples out of OSHA last year would allow employers to stop updates to ladder safety, to eliminate medical exams for workers required to wear respirators, to send workers into mines without MSHA approving their safety plans, and eliminate OSHA coverage for those in so-called inherently risky occupations or working with obvious hazards. Others would allow employers to increase line speeds in food processing plans, increase radiation exposures to workers and the public, stop chemical facilities from planning for emergencies like explosions. These have been a waste of taxpayers' money and government resources, and they've ignored the very standards they are weakening are cited each year by these agencies because employers aren't following them or maintaining a safe workplace. Without rules, companies shift hidden costs of injuries, illnesses, pollution, and taxes onto the public instead of paying for them directly. Without rules, consumers will put less trust in their food, their banks, their environment, and their workplaces. American opportunity rests in the ability to go to work, to feed your family, and return home at the end of that shift, unharmed. It rests in the ability to have strong laws that push good employers to do the right thing and hold bad actors accountable. It's a false choice that businesses need to take risks with people's health and safety in order to succeed economically. When we talk in theory or giant numbers, we lose sight of all of the reasons that those regulations are so necessary. Without them, it becomes a race to the bottom. Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Lastly, I'll recognize Doctor Douglas Holtz-Eakin for his testimony.

Uh, thank you, Chairman McKenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and uh members of the subcommittee. It's a privilege to be here today. Um, workers benefit from a a vibrant labor market. They benefit from uh a business environment that encourages rapid growth and productivity. leads to rising in real wages and thus increases in the standard of living. Uh among the key policies that contribute to that are tax and regulatory policies, and I want to s- talk about some recent developments in each. Uh the twenty twenty-five reconciliation bill has been noted frequently for its business tax provisions, making permanent the expensing of uh equipment investment, R and D investment, uh the small business section one seventy-nine uh provisions, uh keeping the the corporate rate at a low uh a low internationally competitive level. But I think less well recognized is the fact that more than one half of all business income is taxed on individual income tax ref- returns through so-called pass-through entities sole proprietorships partnerships limited liability corporations and the like so that all of the individual tax provisions are actually business tax reforms keeping those tax rates low is very important to the small business community the pass-through uh taxation uh deduction is is a was a central part of the the uh uh the tax bill and uh amt relief is a is a disguised um small business tax cut and so i think it can't be overstated just how important doing something was letting it sunset would have been a disaster led to a recession and the reforms that are in there are not just for uh large corporations they're for uh corporations and businesses of all size uh the second thing i just note for uh for the at the outset is the regulatory environment. At the American Action Forum we track the burden cost, the cost imposed by a regulation on the private sector of every regulation proposed and finalized by the federal government. And, uh, the the recent track record of that tabulation is is quite informative. Uh, over the eight years of the Obama administration, it averaged about one hundred billion dollars a year in new burden costs imposed on the private sector. turned to the first Trump administration, it averaged sixteen billion dollars a year in new regulations, most of that occurring during the pandemic. Uh, it was like night and day and showed up in all of the small business optimism indexes that they are available, including the NFIB. The Biden administration averaged four hundred seventy billion dollars a year in new burden costs imposed on the private sector. And thus far in the Trump administration, they have cut roughly five hundred and ninety billion dollars per year in burden costs. Uh, that that has to have a dramatic impact on the climate for especially small businesses. Those regulatory costs don't come out of a uh thin air. They are come out of ta- uh wage increases that would otherwise happen, investments that would other otherwise be plowed into those businesses, and increases in their productivity and and ability to deliver a standard of living to their workers. So, I appreciate the chance to be here today and I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you. Under committee rule nine, we will a- now ask questions of the witnesses under the five-minute rule, and I will recognize myself first. Uh, Ms. Melito, your testimony makes an important connection between regulatory compliance costs and employees. Money and time devoted to compliance are resources that cannot instead go towards raises, bonuses, hiring, or business expansion. When policymakers talk about the cost of regulation, why should we think about that not simply as a cost for the business owner, but also potential cost for the workers employed by that business and workers who are seeking jobs.

Thank you, um, Representative McKenzie, for that question. Um, I think it's important to recognize that small business owners and employees are on the same team. They want the same thing. We want a safe workplace. We want employees to go home, as Miss Rundell said in her testimony, safe at the end of their shift. Um, and both want the business to sc- succeed and grow and create opportunities. But when small businesses face new compliance costs, those costs don't,

Thank you. Mister Bannon, Mr. Bannon, your written testimony describes significant changes your written testimony describes significant changes that are underway at the Department of Labor. that are underway at the Department of Labor. But you also urged Congress to codify several of these poli- policies, including independent contractor and joint employer standards. Your testimony also suggests that businesses have spent years adjusting to rules that change whenever presidential administrations change. Why is congressional action important, even when an administration is already pursuing regulatory reforms? And what do you see as the long-term uh certainty that is necessary for employers when they're deciding to invest, expand, or hire?

Yeah, thank you for that question. At best, businesses and workers have to deal with the costs and the time of compliance, which slows down their ability to expand and to build on a mutually beneficial relationship, only to find out then when an administration changes, all the work they've put into understanding that regulation goes out the door and they have to plan for something else. Uh, but the worst part is it has a chilling effect where businesses may not make a decision at all to work with somebody, or somebody who wants to be self-employed, let's say a working mother who can't go back to a full-time job, no longer has this option to pursue self-employment, uh worried that there'd be some sort of uh regulatory barrier to that and not finding somebody that they can work through. Um so that's something that happens within the independent contracting, and the same thing goes with joint employer standards. Individuals cannot be self-employed and then become small business entrepreneurs if they don't believe that they can work independently. instead they're worried that their business could be swallowed up by a larger one, and larger businesses can't engage in mutually beneficial relationships with small businesses that may be vendors or contractors for them and provide special functions that their business doesn't normally have. And without the work of Congress to sort of make this a permanent approach, then this is what happens again and again through different administrations. If we can create a pro-worker, pro-economic growth standard, it stops the inertia uh of these businesses that can't act. Uh, and Congress, you know, has very similar policies that have been introduced, um, that would help make permanent some of the, uh, actions even that the Trump administration has undergone with regulatory policy right now.

Well, thank you. I appreciate, uh, both of the witnesses that I asked questions to your answers because, uh, what I see in here when I'm out in our local community is everybody does want the safe working conditions environmental standards met. They also want bad actors to, uh, be held accountable. Uh, but at the same time it is the cumulative piling up of all of these regulations that holds back their businesses uh in terms of increasing wages, expanding job opportunities, and hiring new people. And then, like we're talking about here, uh with Mister Bannon, when there is that uncertainty, that slows them down because they say, well, we might wait, we might get a different decision if some period of time lapses, so uh we're gonna hold up our investment or our decision-making process. uh, which just slows down not only their company but the overall economy. So, I think it's critically important that we get this balance right, and also bring certainty to those employers. Um, I would also ask, I have a brief amount of time left here, Ms. Reindell, uh, you were very critical of the idea of streamlining or reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. So, out of all of the thousands of regulations that our federal government has, there is not a single one that you can come up with that you say, this could be reduced, this could be cut, it could be streamlined, which would help small businesses because of a, a lower regulatory burden and a lower uh cost. There, there's nothing you can come up with?

I'm going to speak to the lane that I sit in, which is focusing on worker safety and health. We actually just finished two weeks of OSHA hearings that went through this in lengthy, lengthy detail. which was also the time that the government spent to look.

So the the answer is no. You you have i- that's okay.

In my purview, these

If you have no answer that's fine. But so you're saying that there is nothing that you would cut or reduce to help small businesses.

In my purview,

That that's fine.

there's nothing that OSHA has not already considered in history, uh, that would, uh, make any difference without removing protections.

That's okay. The the answer is no from your point that the every regulation is necessary and right sized for the business and the economy. That's okay.

To save lives, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we will go to uh Fran, you're in the

Um nurses, emergency room staff, social workers, health care aides, people who go to work every single day to help others are at constant risk of being hurt. Um, Mister Rundell, what are you hearing from uh members in the health care and social services, and what are they facing right now in the job?

Sure, uh, so health care workers are increasingly assaulted on the job, as social workers are. Uh, this is, uh, quite frequent. The rates for serious injuries from workplace violence, from assaults on the job for health care workers are five times what they are for other, um, other workers across the country. And, uh,

Is there an OSHA standard right now, um, to prevent, uh, violence, violent prevention?

There's no OSHA standard. Um, OSHA's had guidelines for thirty years. but uh employers still haven't acted in putting in uh uh safe, you know, protections that would prevent these assaults. So there's no OSHA standard currently.

Yeah, and when there isn't um a safety standard in place, OSHA could still address this issue further under the general duty clause. Can you explain what this legal term is?

Um, yes, the general duty clause under OSHA allows um or requires employers to maintain a safe workplace, but it doesn't specify for spec- you know, specific hazards. has to meet um a a broader higher burden of proof uh instead of actually helping employers understand what they should do to address something like workplace violence um also for heat and for other standards as well.

OK. Yeah, so we heard we've heard a lot about um the the heat safety standard. It's something um that I've worked on even before coming here and I know uh some of my colleagues on this subcommittee on our side of the aisle have um worked on and cared about. Um Miss Melito testified that the proposed role would require a small business um to quote hire at least one full-time employee for compliance purposes. Uh does that sound accurate to you?

Uh that's inaccurate actually that it's an inaccurate depiction of what the role would do. The role does require somebody to be in charge of the pla- the heat plan, the heat prevention plan. Um, but that's not something, the only job that they have to do there. This is uh common in other OSHA standards, certainly across the construction industry and other standards.

Yeah.

Um,

Th- th- thank you.

yep.

Sure.

Ms. Melita, would you like to clarify that statement that you made?

Sure, thank you for the question and the opportunity. Um, I can only speak for the members who I represent who have weighed in, and I have, you know, ten thousand of them he over here who have weighed in on this standard too, and again, it's not about not keeping a workplace safe. Um, and I just wanna share

But, but I, I asked you if you wanted to clarify the fact that you said you have to have one full-time person.

Yes, yeah, and I am gonna clarify here. Right, from a member in Minnesota here who tells us, we are a small business in Minnesota where temperatures range from minus thirty degrees Fahrenheit to a hundred degrees Fahrenheit. We've all managed to survive.

That sounds like that sounds like Minnesota.

Yep, we have just a few employ we have just a few employees, this is getting to your question there, so would need to hire someone just to comply with these new proposed mandates. this three hundred and seventy-five page rule, which there is no money in the budget for that now. We know how to keep ourselves and our employees safe. We talk about safety often, especially on hot and also on very cold days, and about how to protect from heat, exhaustion, or frostbite as the situation and seasons change here in Min- Minnesota. So, and if small businesses do what they can, but it would require potentially hiring another employee to do all the record-keeping this three hundred and seventy-five page rule would require.

They would also look at the other standards that they to uphold as well, I'm assuming.

Under the general duty clause, right?

Which is again what I was trying to get you to clarify,

Yeah. Absolutely. Yes.

but I've you eventually got there, that's fine. Um, Mr. Randall, could you explain the multiple ways that the Trump administration has set, uh sought to roll back our child labor laws, and what are some of the possible risks to children's well-being if their reason proposal to change the rule on hours that a fourteen year old are required uh, can be required to work.

If if I could just uh clarify something that Melito said uh small businesses under OSHA have something called a free on-site consultation program and so that small business should take advantage of OSHA OSHA's services to come out in a non-enforcement aspect, um to help them develop that heat plan. Uh under child labor there have been three attempts by the Trump administration, the first in its uh uh first term and two in this term to actually weaken child labor laws in this country. the administration recently announced that it wants to issue a proposal to extend work hours for fourteen and fifteen year olds um this is obviously very dangerous, um we're very concerned about it uh and we know that it's on the regulatory agenda.

Yeah I share I share that concern and then maybe you can answer this quickly or um send me a a written answer but can you explain what the ladder rule is and why that is dangerous?

Um it would allow m- more it would allow fourteen and fifteen year olds to work longer hours and to also work in more dangerous industries we haven't seen the full detail of the rule but obviously this has a lot of impacts on kids being able to go to school um kids being able to be safe on the job we've had children killed on the job when we've seen child labor laws violated

Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you next we'll go to Mister Wahlberger from Michigan.

Thank you Mister Chairman and thanks for the panel for being here and uh thank you Chairman for holding this hearing, that I think it gives a perfect opportunity to expose the full empathy uh that uh my colleagues and unions have about uh what's going on in business and industry. Uh what scares them most is that entrepreneurs, small business people will care for their employees, want to keep their businesses going, want to have that door dash opportunity. You and I went on, Mr. Chairman, uh a a gentleman who saw that as an opportunity to be a small businessman and do things for his family he couldn't do otherwise and didn't want to have that taken over by a larger business the full empathy uh that tries to make it sound uh that they care about the workplace or the employee when in fact all they want is a continued control. Remember the stories that were told about people that were injured came under the regulations that are in place right now. It didn't stop that from happening. So to use those illustrations, the faux empathy that goes on there underlines the fact that control wants to be there. And of course, my colleagues are afraid to push back at the socialists that are attempting to take over our country for fear that they'll come after them as well. So thank you for having this hearing. Um. Miss Melito, again, you've talked about the compliance issues for an eight-person employer, for instance, the lack of a - a lawyer to go through all of the regulatory requirement. Um, can you explain further how the same federal relega- re- regulation can impose a very different burden on an eight-person business than it does on a fortune five hundred company, and what policymakers should keep in mind when writing rules that apply to both.

Thank you, Mr. Wahlberg, for that question. Um, so the difference between an eight employee firm and an eight thousand employee firm is just extraordinary there. Um, and because of the difference in how those are interpreted, again, the three hundred and seventy-five rule, you know, you don't have an attorney in house, you don't have a safety compliance officer there, it's very different. And for that reason, Congress enacted a federal law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which actually requires federal agencies to consider how a rule is going to be implemented in a small business, uh for good reason there. Um I mean again we want a well-designed workplace rule because a well- designed rule one that's practical flexible and realistic is one that is gonna be able to be used by a business a small business with eight employees and it's also gonna keep the workers safe when they understand the rule when employers understand small business owners understand the rule then they're gonna be able to use it and implement it in the business. So that's very important for lawmakers and policymakers to consider the difference. And as I said, under federal law the federal agencies are required to consider the difference under the regulatory flexibility.

And and the ability for that small business to take care of employees that they care a lot about.

They care a lot about their employees there.

Not only because they can't be in business without them, but they, they're family.

Right, yeah. I mean, I can't emphasize that enough. I have a real quick here quote from a mem- a member, an NFIB member in Michigan here. "We are a small commercial roofing company and have been in business forty-eight years, We take great care of our employees, which is our most valuable asset.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh, and that's true care. It's not faux empathy that goes on. And I'd submit that this side of the aisle has that true empathy for what the workplace needs. Uh, thank you. Uh, Dr. Holze-Eakin, good to see you again. Um, you mentioned in your t- written testimony the Congress Should Enact regulatory budget framework. What would be gained by establishing a regulatory budget

Uh, number one, you would have the kind of uh predictability that was discussed earlier, that allows businesses to plan and make uh better investment decisions, better hiring decisions. Uh, number two, you can uh tailor uh regulatory budgets to the to the environment. If there's a pressing new need uh in in a particular policy area or a particular agency you can you can adjust the budget but you leave the flexibility to get rid of uh regulations that are no longer necessary or are so burdensome that they're not worth what they're they're accomplishing and you would as a result have a a a leaner less um burdensome regulatory state given the things you legitimately want to accomplish in safety, in discrimination and other areas

and the natural safeguards that would come with that flexibility

yeah

to consider the job and the opportunity

yeah

yeah appreciate that Um, again, um, this hearing really outs what we're talking about here in a government that, uh, is large enough to control every area of your life and then not do it well, as opposed to a limited government and opportunity for individuals to be free and make decisions that are in best interest for themselves and for the employer that they work for as well. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, and next we'll go to Ms. Stephens from Michigan.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and as we engage in, you know, partisan uh exchanges here on this committee and around this topic, allow me uh to just shed some light as uh Republicans are failing uh tremendously with the American public, with their trust, uh with our security and with the economic trajectory. The facts are clear, that our debt at forty trillion dollars is growing faster than our economy, that we have not seen uh prosperity take place, those who claim uh to aspire to a limited form of government. We all recall that this current administration began its term uh led by Elon Musk and a man named uh Vivek Ramaswamy. uh to cut government to uh uh go through agencies to consolidate them and look as someone who worked in the Obama administration and was a part of some incredible bipartisan actions like the US auto rescue that worked alongside our UAW and in a bipartisan and cross-functional way as the president took up the mantle and came to congress to asks for efficiency and clearing house measures, we can now look at the current administration's attempts, uh, to bring about a consolidation as nothing but a big failure. Right? And yet, the middle class still pays taxes. And yet, their bills are not going down. And in fact, the utility bills in Michigan, in many of my communities, are higher than a mortgage. So, the middle class, the working American, the small business owner, the entrepreneur, of which I am a daughter of small business owners, very proudly, you know, they just continue to pay more. And what they get is a government that doesn't work for them. That's the Republican approach. That is what they mean when they say limited. They had the full sweep of a House, a Senate, and a presidency. And by the way, they were way outside the bounds of the Constitution. Cutting agencies, closing agencies, we're in the Education and Labor Committee, and we don't even have a Department of Education. And we get this tomfoolery and this catcalling on the other side of the aisle, and I'm somehow trying to make sense of your testimony, by the way, Mister Banan. I don't know, you're talking about some woman who's selling cosmetics and somehow she shouldn't be relying on the government that was your opening paragraph in your testimony? Give me a break. People need safety, they need security, they need their tax dollars to work for them. That is what the ranking member, that is what I, that is what our former chairman work on. That's what we do as Democrats. The budget that we try and pass is a budget that uses your tax dollars effectively and appropriately. And oh, by the way, believes in a twenty-first century labor movement, res- Miss Randell, and thank you for the, you know, the weight and the effort and what you carry forward as someone on behalf of the AFL CIO, a union conglomerate that I have deep respect for, but also your former position. Because there's not a lot of people sitting here in this committee. But I've been on it all four terms I have been in the Congress. And it's very explicitly why. Because COVID hit in my first term in Congress. And there was a bunch of people who didn't give one whit about safety and security. And if it wasn't for our labor unions, if it wasn't for OSHA, if it wasn't for laws that, yes, we are proud past thirty years ago. And yes, we want to reauthorize. Yes, we want to modernize. But the ones we fight on the other side of the aisle just want to take your tax dollars and make the rich richer. That is what our president is doing, that is the grift that is going on, and the middle class is getting screwed. So that's how I'm using my five minutes. Thank you, Mister Chair, and I yield back.

Next, we're gonna go to Mister Messmer from Indiana.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to our fellow witnesses for being here today. Uh, Miss Melito, this committee passed H. R. sixty-two thirteen, the Heat Workforce Standards Act of twenty twenty six, which prohibits the uh uh occupational safety and health administration from finalizing the proposed Biden uh Harris heat standard or any equally bad policy. Uh if you can narrow it down to a few, I know there's a lot, uh what aspects of the proposed heat rule would be the most harmful for small businesses?

Thank you, Mister Masmer, and thank you so much for your leadership on H R sixty-two thirteen. NFIDB is very appreciative of your work on that. Um first I want to emphasize again that small business owners support protecting workers from heat-related illness and injuries. Their employees are their friends. their neighbors, they work alongside their employees, they have every incentive to keep them safe. People need safety. I agree a hundred percent. Um, and in fact, employers already have an obligation under OSHA's general duty clause to provide a workplace that is free from recognized hazards, including heat hazards. And OSHA does cite employers that expose employees to heat hazards.

Right.

Um, the question is what is most troublesome about this three hundred and seventy-five page proposal there, it's the record keeping, it's the administrative work. So again, whether or not you have to hire another employee to do the record keeping, and I would submit that a lot of businesses would have to do that, small businesses even, because you have to track the temperature, you have to track once the temperature hits ninety degrees, you have to make sure that your employees are getting that fifteen minute break every two hours. You have to make sure that you've recorded the training there. All these records have to be kept for at least six months there. You have to train all the new employees, the acclimatization too. All this has to be documented. The record keeping, I can't emphasize enough how challenging the record keeping is and of course the penalties associated with just not dotting every I and not crossing every T. So you've got a business owner who's now out there on the job site, cuz they also do the work too in construction, now making sure they're filling out all these forms there and not making sure that their employees are safe and maybe they need a break.

Thank you. Uh you also mentioned a petition of more than ten thousand small business owners rejecting

Without objection.

Okay, thank you. Uh, how are small businesses currently protecting the workers from heat-related injuries and illness? Miss Melito?

Thank you for that question. So they prevent heat-related ill i- injuries right now by providing we're replete with hearing from, you know, all that members do at going the extra mile above and beyond any requirements under um OSHA's policy right now. So providing cold refreshments, so the water, rest, shade, and also training I would on add on there too. So the water, rest, shade, training all employees too, but with regards to specifics there, cold refreshments, offering breaks as needed, rearranging work schedules there, avoiding peak heat, starting early, you know, if possible, or starting working at night if possible, created shaded break areas, um breathable work uniforms to even bringing on additional vehicles that are air conditioned so that employees can step in there all sorts of creative ways that small businesses keep employees safe and to avoid heat hazards there um flexibility matters tremendously with businesses of all sides but especially with small businesses there cuz again the goal is the same for all of us right we wanna make sure workers go home safely at the end of the day at the end of their shift any workplace fatality tragic. We don't want that to happen. Um, but flexibility is key. Roles need to be simple, they need to be understandable, they need to be flexible, and in that way, small businesses can apply them and use them in their business. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, well, thank you. And one final question. Uh, how do you believe the federal government should approach regulating hea- heat injuries and illnesses?

They should continue to take action under the general duty clause, as I've mentioned repeatedly. I mean, there is an obligation for employers now under federal law to protect employees from known workplace hazards, including heat hazards. OSHA i- just this year has again reissued the National Emphasis Program on heat two which targets specific injuries, some of which Miss Rydell talks about in her t- her testimony there such as construction. So that is a great place to start. And really the outreach, education and compliance assistance with small business owners just critical to make them aware of what they can do and what their obligations are. Very, very important, educating small business owners. Thank you.

Thank you, and with that I yield back.

Thank you. Next I'll go to Mister Grothman from Wisconsin.

Okay, before my first question. Uh, I'm sure it varies from state to state, but the over-regulation of young people, I mean, studies show that having a job when you're sixteen year olds or seventeen year old correlates positively with where you wind up in life. And right now, given all the time these kids spend on extra curriculars, the regulation I think just is a a burden on small business, but even more gets the uh young people off to a late start on on work. Uh, Mr. Bain, I'm gonna uh go a little bit of a different direction and I guess you were prepared for this question. Uh I'd like to thank Chairman Wahlberg and McKenzie for holding this hearing. Uh section fourteen c of the Fair Labor Standards Act allows businesses with a Department of Labor issued certificate to pay individuals with disabilities uh a wage which is frequently a subminimum wage. Um section five eleven of the Rehabilitation Act requires an individual to wait until they turn twenty five years old but before they can work under fifteen C I have a variety of facilities that use fifteen C in my district and this really puts a burden on them and really puts a burden on the prospective employee um mister Bannon when government places unnecessary regulatory or statutory limitations on who can work where what does this do to the employees these particularly handicapped employees in the labor market

Yeah, thank you for that question. I would say that people with disabilities, as much as or more than anyone, actually need a chance to - to have it uh work and start gaining experience. The type of limitations that have been put here, based on age, take away the fact that individuals here are looking for a head start. They have to grab onto the economic ladder in order to climb it. And these policies now have people delayed for years, uh and possibly not even able to - to enter the workforce when they're ready. and willing.

Anybody who tours one of these fourteen sea facilities can see such happy people in making something of their lives, and the idea of, I mean I obviously disagree with the Democrats on many things, but the idea that they're trying to slam the door on happy, wanting to be productive people with disabilities is is about the most offensive thing, I can imagine. I'll give you a follow-up question. Do you believe people should be allowed to work under fourteen C at a community rehab program if that's what they want what they want what their parents want, what their guardian want, um should they be able to do that?

Yeah, absolutely. Work isn't only fulfilling, uh but it actually helps provide economically, and this sets people on a forward path where they can actually be self-sufficient even uh regardless of disabilities people have a lot of different talents, and it's and it's a great opportunity for a mutually beneficial relationship when businesses can utilize their skills and allow them to grow and not be burdened by regulations that keep them out of the workforce.

Thank you. Uh, my bill eighty seven thirty six is shot out of this committee uh to make it easier for people to work right away when they're eighteen years old, probably have a superior life all the way through because of it, and I hope we uh have a chance to get it to the floor. Now, Mister Holtz-Eakin, The American Action Forum recently reported that within less than two years, the Trump administration enacted one point two trillion dollars in cost reductions under executive order fourteen one ninety-two on leashing prosperity through deregulation. One of the next deregulatory efforts at the Department of Labor that Congress should focus, its intention to continue delivering cost reductions to American businesses and their workers.

So the uh the AAF uh regulation rodeo that Dan Goldbeck uh runs uh tracks all the agencies and tracks all of the the regulatory uh activities in those agencies. And I think the key feature of of this approach of using regulatory budgets is not to h- to pick particular regulations or particular areas, but to, given the opportunity, find those that are excessively costly for what they accomplish or are no longer necessary, and um uh uh and then get those off the books and i think what we've seen with these large reductions in the burden costs are some uh notable efforts on beneficial ownership of treasury on uh at the epa with uh endangerment finding those those drive the numbers and within that each agency is is simply fine tuning its regulatory uh structure the dol should continue to do that

thank you very much and uh it's amazing how much how wealthy this country is, cuz we have less regulations than other countries, and how much more wealthy it could become if we got rid of some of the unnecessary regulations that particularly stand in the way of minors or people with, uh, disabilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to Mister Scott from Virginia.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, first of all, would, we just want to put this in because the uh title of this hearing suggests that the regulations are costing jobs. I'll just point out that after a year and a half of um deregulation under the Trump administration, at this point he's been able to create five hundred and some thousand jobs, aggregate total, in about a year and a half. At this point in the Biden administration, it wasn't five hundred and some thousand, it was over ten million. um in not one month in this um um in this administration um in year and a half has a single month reached the Biden average of three hundred and some thousand. Uh having said that um Doctor Holts-Hitzen it's good to see you again. Uh you mentioned the cost of um all these regulations. Uh you did not say how many lives were saved or injuries presented prevented because of the regulations. or those at risk if the regulations are eliminated. When a regulation is considered, uh, do they have to consider the lab saved and the injuries prevented?

Yes, they do. And, and it, uh, to be clear, ours isn't a c- a cost accounting. There's no attempt to, uh, quantify the benefits.

OK. And, um, so you also did not reduce, um, the cost of compliance by the savings in workers' comps because there will be fewer injuries or deaths.

Uh we don't um uh do anything on injuries and deaths.

OK. Um Miss Rindell, um just to follow up one of the questions, do we still need child labor laws?

Yes, we do.

Thank you. Um the silica standard, um we've been working on it for years. Why is it important to update the silica standard and What is the cost to workers and employers if we don't update that standard?

I assume um you're talking about the silica standard out of the MSHA mind safety.

Right.

Uh, this is a standard that is directly impacts workers. Uh, the black lung rates are soaring, especially among younger workers. MSHA had a silica standard out. This administration is reconsidering uh that standard. Um, the proposal is expected, uh, in the, uh, you know, in the near future. Um, there was some research that was released just in early August that showed that, uh, in central Appalachia, we're seeing the, a fifty year high of black lung cases. Uh, we're also seeing a lot younger workers getting sick from silica, uh, and, uh, uh, a couple years ago the Biden administration issued a very strong silica standard that protects these minors. both in coal and metal and non-metal mining. And um and and now we're seeing the the weakening of that for mine operators.

And if we don't update it, th- not only will the workers not be protected, but the employers ultimately will pay paying higher costs because the workers were not um uh were not protected. We've had a suggestion that we ought to move regulations to legislation rather than executive branch rulemaking. Uh, what's the problem with that?

Uh, there's a lot of technical expertise, uh, that goes into these regulations at the agency level. That's what agency experts are there to do. Um, otherwise we're looking at how respirators fit and the details of medical exams, and all of that relying on Congress versus Industrial Hygienists, Toxicologists, Epidemiologists who know how this works, who do the practice and the re- and the, the research in the field that understand it.

And um finally um we've heard the suggestion that heat standards might be left to the employers and let them figure it out. Are the proposed heat standards complicated or expensive to comply with? And do people today suffer health consequences or even death if they're not protected from excessive heat?

Um we've heard a lot of confusion today about the heat standard. I know there was a bill that was raised that would prevent any heat standard from ever happening. Um, that's not the same as what I'm also hearing um from my um uh other witnesses up here who are saying that they want regulation um but they uh um, but what's actually happening is the extreme, right? Um, so this is under the guise of small businesses, but this would impact every employer to not have to have it do a heat uh a heat regulation. Um, I also just wanna quickly point out this binder actually includes the entire explanation and summary of the heat standard, it's not the uh the requirements of the heat standard alone.

What are some of the requirements in the heat standard?

Those are What's up?

What are some of the requirements?

You know, basic water, rest, shade, acclimatization protocols which say you can't put somebody from no work to heavy labor all in one day, you have to do that gradually over a period of days. We see that seventy-five percent of the heat fatalities actually happen in a worker's first day on the job uh because of that. big shift immediately uh people need gradual increase in labor uh heavy labor the heat standard is um you know it's very important for workers across all industries and that's why it has a big price tag associated with it when you look at the total but when you look at how much it actually costs we're talking about providing like an ice cooler that's thirty dollars um and you know a a cooler with a spigot that might be eighty dollars a reusable water bottle for workers that's sixty cents uh each so these are basic protections where you know talking about water that needs to be cool clean and accessible we're talking about shade that isn't the heat of your car but it's actual shade that cools you down in between tasks um so these are basic protections that keep workers alive uh and it and we have over in the last five years over twenty six hundred workers have died from heat and everything uh is showing the evidence is showing that those are actually underestimates of what's really going on out there.

And there's a report on NPR this morning talking about the underreporting of heat deaths. And I would like to um introduce that into the record.

Without objection.

Thank you. You're back. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to Mister Fein from Florida.

Thank you. Uh, Miss Rundell, I'm intrigued, you seem very knowledgeable on a lot of these regulations. Have you ever worked for a company or been responsible for the implementation of these all of these regulations we've been talking about today?

No, I haven't, I've worked with, uh, with and for small businesses.

Have you ever worked in the private sector?

Yes.

For who?

I've worked at, uh, uh, a bakery, restaurant, and ice cream shop.

But they didn't ask you to, to be responsible for the safety regulations, given your, your expertise that you've got here today?

Not at that time. I do support our unions in every industry that they work in to help implement them.

Okay. So, so, and, and this isn't a knock against you, cuz you're invited by the other side to be here, so you They knew your background. They knew that you, uh, don't have a s- single day of experience actually living under the regulations that you so strongly believe are a great idea. I think that says a lot about the world that we live in. It's, again, not a knock on you. That the Democrats live in this world of champagne socialism. That they couldn't find one business. They couldn't find one person in the private sector. They couldn't find even one worker who had to live under these things. to come in here and talk about how all of these regulations are so important. That's the problem with socialism. It's great to think about when you're at the, in Washington DC as a lobbyist or you're in the government. But the world that I come from, where I spent twenty-two years? I had to live under the idiotic, uh, under the idiotic regulations that so many politicians came up with, that made it harder for me to hire people, to build my business, and to grow. And I have news for you. If you're in business and your workers get injured, that's generally bad for your business. If you're in business and your workers die, that's generally bad for your business. Now, are there bad actors? Are there out there? Absolutely. But I would also point out there are plenty of black bad politicians and there are plenty of bad regulators as well. And when we live in a world where there are seven point six million unfilled jobs, there's clearly a problem. Companies wanna hire people, yet they're not able to find the people that they need. So we can get all these lectures about regulations, but those of us who actually live in the real world, who have to bring in enough revenue to pay our employees and grow our businesses, we don't have the luxury of sitting around and talking about regulations from some highfalutin theoretical world. We actually have to make the businesses work. And that is the problem with all of the discussion on the other side. You can see it in the DSA. These are people who could not run a lemonade stand, yet they're going to tell us how we should run our businesses and we should live our lives. And I'm just sort of disgusted by the attitude for those who have no idea what it's like to run a business giving the rest of us a lecture on how we should run ours. Um, Miss Melito, you know, small business owners, as I said, have every incentive to keep their employees safe and to do so in a way that makes sense for their challenges and environments but, as you talked about, the Biden-era proposed heat standard, which I guarantee was made by no one who had any experience actually having to live with any of it, would impose a nationwide set of mandates on businesses that vary enormously in size, industry, geography, and working conditions. It's a lot different in Florida than it is in Minnesota, for example. On top of that, again, Washington bureaucrats, who have no sense of the real world, don't think about the impact the standard would have on workers and businesses. Do you think the Biden-Harris administration considered whether imposing a flexible one-size-size fits all requirements might actually create greater hazards? And can you describe what some of those hazards might include?

Thank you for that question. So I can't speak to the previous administration's intent, but what I can speak to is what I am hearing from my members, and I think it you encapsulated their frustration so well. I mean, time and time again I hear from Washington bureaucrats think they know best as to what is gonna happen in my business,

They don't know anything, for the record.

and that's not KU. Yeah, and that's just that that it's just not reality-based there. So, One story I heard from a member here with regards to potential hazards from implementing a heat standard there, and I just want again to go back to hold OSHA has authority, the Department of Labor has authority to hold employers accountable if they did the wrong thing. They have that authority right now under federal law. So again, going back to, you know, is this a solution in search of a problem there? Cuz I wanna point out that the AFL CIO's own workplace report indicated that workplace hazards kill this is their ad number a hundred and forty thousand point zero zero three percent of those were from heat, point zero zero three percent there.

But when you're sitting around in your,

So.

in your air-conditioned office in Washington, D. C., getting your check, no matter what, it's very easy to come up with these things. It would be valuable if these bureaucrats understood that they only exist because companies in the private sector start, build, and grow businesses to pay the taxes to fund their salaries. I was an IB, an independent business. before I did this job. I appreciate what your members and all the private sectors do, and I apologize for the nonsense that Washington puts them through every day. Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Next, we will go to closing remarks. We appreciate all the witnesses being here today and, uh, answering questions from the members who had questions. I'd like to now recognize the ranking member for her closing statement.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thanks again to our witnesses for speaking with us. I am always disgusted, um, by this conversation that Democrats have representatives that come to Washington that have never had a real job. Uh, I'm always disgusted by the these people thinking that they can talk about socialism and they forget about our lived experiences and what brought us here. And the fact that they can assume that outside of Miss Rendell that everyone else is a small business owner, when that is not anywhere in the description of what we have for you all, tells me that there is one person here who is being erotic and not those of us on this side of the aisle. And what I will say is that when we have somebody representing labor, that is the workers. That is the people who are making the businesses of the companies you all represent and are hired to come speak on behalf of. the members you speak of are in- the employers of the people that Ms. Rendell speaks for and there should be some respect because not a single business would exist in this country if it did not have workers. I will finish by saying this. This president and these Republicans inherited an economy that was bottom-up and middle-out. They have spent the last eighteen months breaking everything. We have a responsibility in this particular committee to protect the workforce and to educate the future workforce. That is what the essence of the Education and Workforce Committee stands for. That is our mandate. And so for people to come here on this committee, to sign up for this job, and to only care about the bottom line, of the donors that they have or to look out for their own interest, and what their bottom line would look like is an offense to what we take an oath to do on this committee. Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.

Thank you. Next, uh, I will go to my own closing statement, and I would like to thank today's witnesses for participating in today's hearing. As the hearing has shown, American workers and job creators are ready to grow and they deserve a reasonable regulatory environment to support that growth. Americans should also have the freedom to decide when, where, and how they want to make a living. Washington should protect that flexibility, not stand in its way. Small businesses should be spending their time growing, hiring, serving their communities, investing in workers, raising wages, adding more people to the payroll, but they cannot do that while they're navigating unnecessary federal red tape. There are many encouraging signs in our economy that businesses are ready to invest and expand. Small business optimism increased following President Trump's election in twenty twenty-four and manufacturers are reporting greater optimism, too. This is the momentum that we should be building on, and we should be reducing barriers to that growth. And when somebody does come to speak on behalf of workers, I wish they would actually articulate what I hear from workers, is that they would like to see change in government as well. To say that there is nothing that should be changed in government and that you wanna stand in the way of any reforms is the exact opposite of what the American people are looking for. It is obstinance, it is obstruction, and it is not based in any kind of reality. So I appreciate the insights that each of you shared that offered actual concrete suggestions and reforms that we can improve people's lives. And we have forward-looking agenda items that we vote on on the committee at large every single time we do a mark-up so we are going to continue that work as well. And again, I appreciate the hearing today, the witnesses' recommendations, for those that actually have them, and the ways that we can improve workers' and employers' lives and make sure that they can continue to thrive and expand right here in the United States. Thank you again, and with that, I see no other business before the committee and at this time, the subcommittee stands adjourned.