"Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment"

We have a committee here which is part of the Education and Labor Committee. Normally we have committees in Washington, but on some occasions we like to get out away from Washington and find out what's going on in the real world. And today we're going to have a hearing looking at 14(c) certificates and places like Opportunities, Inc., like Green Valley, in which so many of our citizens work enjoyable situations from them. I represent 10 counties here in the state of Wisconsin. I think seven of them right now have facilities like this and I always enjoy touring them. They have all been good facilities. I've never seen anything that I would make any complaints about. We brought with us two people. We brought Burgess Owens, who is a friend of mine, who is a congressman from Utah, and he is not aware of any facilities like this in Utah, so we're going to have to find out about that. Some states have them and some states don't. But like I said, in Wisconsin, I think we operate with about one facility for every county. And very good. We already did take a tour, which is part of... in addition to Congressman Owens, who's going to bring back to Washington his observations, we have some members here from the Department of Labor. And the Department of Labor has a lot of influence on the future of facilities like that. And I know in the past one time I attended a committee in Washington and a lot of the people making decisions that would determine whether these facilities were going to continue to stay open had never toured them. But there are people running around who for whatever motivation we're going to hear a little bit from them today don't like this facility. They don't like 14(c) certificates and they apparently would not mind having these places shut down, which is a true tragedy, though it has happened in a couple counties around here and then the employees have to find somewhere else to work. I have always liked these facilities because not only does it provide a paycheck for these folks and it makes them like the rest of the society, it makes them like their siblings, it makes them like their friends to go to work in the morning, to come home at night, to have the pride to be able to have their own money to buy clothes or food or what have you. I also think it's tremendous in that it provides a social opportunity for people that they would not have otherwise. I know people with parents or guardians of folks in these situations worry about what will happen when someday those folks aren't around and they want very desperately for their children or wards to have a social life like everybody else does. And I think for me certainly, I don't know about you Burgess, my social life revolves a little bit about the people I know in Congress and the staff and that makes them feel good that the employees you saw today, they can be working five or 10 or 15 years with other employees here, both management and other employees on the floor, which means they aren't alone just with their parents watching TV or what have you. So that's another huge benefit here. Nobody is forced to work here and there are people who, like I said, if they want to shut it down, they're kind of making a choice for some of the employees here who wouldn't want that choice. And it's amazing how intelligent the people are who work here and how it would be to me, to me would be just a very sad thing if you ever took the right to work here away from people. Right? I mean if people are happy working here, they should be able to continue to work here. We shouldn't create a situation in which people not in their shoes say, 'I know better. You shouldn't be working here. You should be in day services or see what else DVR can find for you' or whatever. So in any event, I'm so happy to be here and we'll turn it over to the way these things work. We'll turn them over to Congressman Owens for I guess your opening statement.

Thank you, Glenn. I have the honor of serving on Education and Workforce with Glenn. He's always had a word of wisdom, very measured, but also very, very impactful, the statements he normally makes and points he makes. So I just want to say this, I'm so thankful for this opportunity. I'm going to bring a little bit of a different perspective to this conversation because I've seen the impact of an environment, a culture that believes in hard work. I grew up in one. I was blessed to be raised in the 1960s, the day of the KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation, but with communities that truly believed in work and merit and the way that you command respect is by winning. It was a community that believed in faith, family, business ownerships everywhere, and education. And part of that was you gain a sense of pride when you go out there and you roll up your sleeves, you work hard to overcome obstacles, and you give value to other people. And that's exactly what my community did from the '40s. These are things that many Americans have not been taught. I think it's always important that I bring it up because I lived it. My dad was a World War II vet, was also an educator for 40 years and also a business owner. And that was the community I grew up in. It was a community of businesses everywhere, legacy businesses, where Speed Grocery Store, Perkins Gas Station, Baker's Pharmacy. They had pride in their name. They had pride in passing this legacy down to their kids. And most important thing, they had pride in getting up every single day and going out and working. Now, what happened to that great community that as I mentioned from the '40s to '60s led our country in the growth of the middle class, men matriculating from college, men committed to marriage, percentage of entrepreneurs? What happened to that community when the Great Society, the war on poverty, which really was a war on work, happened? Everything flipped upside down. The things we see now is how can we resurrect this great community and this great culture that I grew up in and hold on to those cultures that still are here? We have unfortunately an ideology on the other side that because they don't respect capitalism, because they don't understand the concept of what comes out of that when people go out and work hard and they give to their community and they get a good name, they want to give back. John Deere, we were just talking about them earlier. They have moved some of their operations elsewhere, but guess what they still put their time and money supporting this kind of organization? Because they realize that the greatest thing that we can give as Americans is the opportunity to dream big. Everyone should have the ability to dream, no matter what cards we've been dealt. Glenn just had an idea, let's go back and ask people where they spend their money. We just had a great tour and hadn't thought about that. So we spent a few minutes just asking, what do people do with their money? And it's amazing. Groceries, makeup, someone wants to start a business one day. The ability to dream is remarkable and no one should be... no one should have that taken away from them. Now unfortunately those who want to stop programs like this, they don't visit. They don't understand that at the heart of the entrepreneur, the business owner, those who do things is our American way of giving back to people. That's who we are. We are the society that builds great things and then we want to give back. Our legacy is what have we done to give back to our community? What have we done to give... keep a good name? And that's what we have to continue to, I think on our side education-wise, teach our kids about the concept of capitalism. Yes, it's risk-taking. Yes, it's profit-making. But guess what we do? We go out there and we serve people and we give back and make sure that everyone has the opportunity to dream and grow and feel self-worth. So that's what you guys do here. I want to thank you for that. There was a book that I read years ago called the Five Love Languages. And normally I see the ladies saying, 'Yeah, I've seen it, I've read it.' And guys say, 'Huh? What?' Well, mine is service. And I think that's what America really stands for. We're a country that loves to serve. And when we do that, we give people a chance to feel worth. And in this community, we have people right now that are serving, they come to work every single day and they have a chance to do little things that make them feel like, 'I'm serving somebody. My presence is a value.' And that service is just amazing what it does for us. So that being said, I'm going to I guess leave my questions a little bit later on, but I want Glenn to go ahead and get started. So thank you. Thank you for what you guys are doing here. We look forward to continuing to represent you in everything we can in every way we can.

Sure. Now a quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice. Without objection, I may recess the committee at any point. Pursuant to committee rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 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. Today's hearing examines the benefits, opportunities, and impact that Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides to workers with disabilities. Work is not a dirty word. It's an opportunity for individuals to receive not only income, but dignity, purpose, opportunity, and engagement through their employment. Thanks to Section 14(c), individuals with disabilities are able to enjoy many of the benefits by having greater opportunities to join the workforce. 14(c) allows businesses and nonprofits to employ workers who would otherwise be unable to find employment, often due to a severe disability, and pay them a commensurate rate wage. Many organizations operating with a 14(c) certificate, about 93 percent of them, are what we call community rehabilitation programs or CRPs. These CRPs provide more than employment. They provide rehabilitation services, training, skill development, social engagement, all of which are crucial for people with disabilities to lead healthy, productive lives. In Wisconsin, we have more than 40 employers participating as 14(c) organizations, most of which are CRPs. I've been told by many of these organizations without 14(c), they'd likely be forced to lay off employees and close their doors permanently. I might add that I've talked today to one of these facilities that did close. And I don't know how typical this is, I think it's probably fairly typical. Well over half of the employees who worked there are either now in what they call day services, which can mean not working anyway, or just living at home. And even the like 25 or 30 percent who are with the DVR system in Madison, that could mean a job and could not be so. At least in that case where they closed down the facility, the vast majority of people, rather than enjoying work, are just are not. Critics of 14(c) or... these facilities are remarkable and among my favorite places to live. You see so many happy individuals thriving and learning new skills as they're surrounded by their friends and a team that loves them. And that's one other thing, like I said, I'll stress. People who work here make friends for sometimes decades, sometimes for a lifetime. They find both friends and other people who are on the floor working or friends among the management staff who always does a tremendous job in these places. And at least in my experience touring places like this, there's not a lot of turnover in the management staff, so you really again are finding friends for life. Critics of 14(c) call for its removal entirely. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor under President Biden attempted to phase out participation for employees operating under 14(c)s. This attempt by the Biden administration was we felt an overreach plain and simple. Fortunately, the rule which would have shut them down was withdrawn by the Trump administration in July. Eventually, I'd like to get the Secretary of Labor here to tour some of these facilities. She's told me she will. There are even members on the Education and Workforce Committee actively fighting to see 14(c) erased. What they do not seem to understand is erasing 14(c) would erase people's jobs and would take away the community and friends they love. And if they were able to get another job, those employers would be unable to provide community services and dignity afforded their workers with disabilities under 14(c). Witnesses today will discuss the importance of having continued access to 14(c). They are here to advocate for workers, to represent employers, and to share their personal experience with loved ones who found opportunities in these programs. One other anecdote I'd like to point out. I remember running into a guy who was making well under a dollar up in Oshkosh. He had had a horrible injury, very bright guy, but had a horrible injury and was a quadriplegic. And somehow in the bureaucracy, they took away his job from him. And like I said, there are not many people working here who are under a dollar an hour, but he was under a dollar an hour. And I met with his dad who talked about how wildly disappointed and depressed his son became when he lost, I don't know exactly what it was, a 75-cent-an-hour job or a 50-cent-an-hour job. And I thought it was just so tragic that somewhere in there some bureaucrat felt he didn't meet such and such a standard. Maybe it was the rule, maybe not. And in any event, for this guy who was a very sharp guy who then had, I think it was a car accident or motorcycle accident or something, he wound up so dependent on this job and it was just a tragedy they took it away from him. In any event, today's hearing will highlight Section how Section 14(c) works and will show that it provides opportunities for growth, stability, and social well-being for the people in need of most. Okay, now I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. We'll give you each five minutes to share your prepared remarks, after which we'll have time to ask questions. I'll now introduce the four witnesses. Our first witness will be Barbara LeDuc. Mrs. LeDuc is President and CEO of Opportunities, Inc., which owns this facility and has over 40 years of experience in vocational rehab. She's worked in community-based employment with 14(c) employees in roles ranging from intern to CEO. Her organization partners with more than 200 customer organizations throughout Wisconsin and is grounded in the motto 'Success Through Service.' Mrs. LeDuc also launched a grassroots initiative in 2011 that is known as the A-Team, a 501(c)(4) organization with reach across Wisconsin and the rest of the country. Our second witness is Ms. Kathy Armstrong. Ms. Armstrong is a local Beaver Dam resident and the proud parent of Clara, who works here at Green Valley and has Down syndrome. Ms. Armstrong has been an advocate for choice in disability employment for decades, for decades, and earned her bachelor's degree in elementary and special ed from the University of Northern Iowa, which has assisted her in making informed decisions for Clara. Ms. Armstrong also served as a Special Olympic swimming coach since 2008. Our third witness is Dr. Laura Owens, professor at UWM and the president of TransCen, Inc. in Rockville, Maryland. And our fourth witness is Dr. Kit Brewer, Vice President for the Coalition of the Preservation of Employment Choice in St. Louis, Missouri. I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. We're going to go down the line here, but you'll each have five minutes to share your remarks, after which we'll have time to ask you questions. So as we work our way down, I'll first recognize Ms. LeDuc.

Thank you. Congressman Grothman, Congressman Owens, and members of the Committee on Education and Workforce. Thank you for being here today and for the opportunity to welcome you to Green Valley Enterprises in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. We call it America's heartland. I really want to thank you for bringing this out of the beltway. I've spent a lot of time up in the beltway and just have continued to ask and ask and ask, 'Come out to the people. Come out to see where it's really happening, where things are happening, to feel them, to touch them.' And that you did that today, it just humbles me that you all took the time in February to come to Wisconsin. So I do thank you. As you know, my name is Barbara LeDuc, President and CEO of this esteemed organization. I have dedicated more than 40 years to serving people with what I like to call diverse abilities. I began my career as a community integrated employment specialist during my college internship at Opportunities, Inc. and throughout my life's work. I have seen so much dedication and purpose and dignity of those we support that again I feel it's just humbling to be part of. I wouldn't be anywhere for 40 years if I didn't feel so connected to the people that we have the privilege to serve. Their commitment to contributing in whatever way they are able reflects the very values at the heart of the American dream. Today I am here to speak with you about why preserving 14(c) as a choice is essential for maintaining meaningful work opportunities for so many. For decades, 14(c) has been a powerful tool that opens doors for individuals with significant and severe, and I want to say it again, severe disabilities, people who are too often overlooked or forgotten. We wholeheartedly support community integrated employment and we work tirelessly to help people achieve it. I myself directly supervise our community integrated employment program as the President and CEO of this company. So that tells you our commitment to making people achieve their choice and their highest potential. But the reality is this, not everyone can succeed in traditional employment settings, even with additional support. Eliminating 14(c) does not remove their barriers. It removes their choices, their opportunities, and in many cases, their sense of purpose. In the 2025 GAO, they studied states that eliminated 14(c). One of the most troubling findings was the lack of tracking. Where are the people that no longer work in states that have 14(c)? We simply do not know where many individuals went or what happened to them after these options disappeared. That certainly should alarm all of us. When 14(c) opportunities vanish, so do the communities of work, friendship, and belonging that people depend on. Even more concerning, under current rules, individuals who try many times community employment and are unsuccessful often cannot return to their pre-voc services. Trying becomes a gamble with consequences that just cannot be reversed. When I ask organizations that eliminated 14(c), and I've talked to many, many of them, as you can tell, I'm quite passionate about this, 'What happened to those with the greatest challenges and support needs?' The answer I hear far too often is, 'We don't serve that population anymore.' That response should leave a pit in all of our stomachs because we keep pushing them down the road, down the road, until no longer will there be any option for them. Here at Green Valley Enterprises, when leaders visit, they are something real and irreplaceable that they see: meaningful work. Work that brings pride, work that creates community, work that provides purpose at each person's pace and ability. The alternative: staying home or spending days without meaningful activities, stripping away opportunities to contribute, to grow, to stay healthy, and to belong. Many times in a community employment job, that's two hours a week for them versus a service that's 35 hours a week. You are here today because you understand that the dignity of work matters. You have the power to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are not pushed aside in pursuit of a one-size-fits-all approach to employment. Preserving choice is not a step backward. It's a commitment to ensuring that everyone has a place in our economy, in our communities. And because it is not our choice, it's not the right choice. Thank you for your dedication to the people who rely on these opportunities the most. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ms. Armstrong, you're up next.

Good morning. My name is Kathy Armstrong and I'm the proud mother of Clara, our 37-year-old daughter who has Down syndrome. I have a degree in elementary and special education and have taught for 40 years. My background has helped our family to make informed decisions for Clara and I have been fortunate to advocate for her best interest. Our family is deeply involved in the disability community. I coach Special Olympics swimming, my husband coaches basketball, and we volunteer throughout the year with the Dodge County Special Olympics. Through this work, I have seen firsthand the challenges that many individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities face when trying to find and keep employment, especially in our rural communities. Many young adults lose their community jobs because they weren't fast enough or the job just didn't need them anymore. They end up at home for most of the week, losing confidence, purpose, and structure. Because of WIOA, WIOA, individuals cannot work in a 14(c) work center until age 26. For many, that means years of struggling and failing in community jobs that are not suited to their developmental abilities. Why should they have to fail first? Why waste years when a meaningful appropriate work opportunity already exists with 14(c) opportunities? For our daughter, 14(c) is very vital. It provides her with a job that she can perform successfully at her own pace and I want to emphasize every day, all day. Clara takes enormous pride in going to work. She loves her coworkers, she thrives daily on the daily structure, and she feels just like her siblings who go to work every day. This sense of normal worth, work ethic really matters. We have visited Washington, D.C. and have spoken with several members of Congress, including Congressman Grothman, our strongest advocate for individuals with disabilities. Clara has shared her story with pride and the lawmakers listened. We speak today not just for our daughter, but for all of her friends and for the most vulnerable population of workers who deserve to have their voice and their choice heard. If 14(c) ends, Clara and many like her will lose the opportunity to work every day. At best, she may find a five- to eight-hour per week job, something that she's experienced twice before, but both jobs ended. But what happens during the rest of the 30 hours of the week? We have lived through the pandemic and we know the consequences of isolation and inactivity. I am proud to be a member of the A-Team, a family grassroots organization that works to promote choice for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. To our family, Clara's 14(c) work center is a community job. It truly is a community job. Local businesses send meaningful work to our center and she contributes to the community just like every other worker. We cannot allow people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to move backward to the '60s with no choice, no voice, and no purpose. States that have eliminated 14(c) cannot show where all the displaced workers ended up. Probably because there's no job or opportunities available. Today I urge lawmakers: visit a 14(c) center. See the pride, the joy, the dignity, the purpose that these jobs provide. Do not take away the one reliable path to success that so many people depend on. We need 14(c) to continue and to be expanded so every individual with IDD has the opportunity to find dignity, purpose, and success in the job that fits them the best. Thank you for your time and compassion.

[Applause.] [Applause.] Thank you. I now will call on Dr. Owens.

Thank you, Representative Grothman, Representative Owens, for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm Laura Owens. I'm a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and also the president of TransCen, a community-based organization that provides employment services for people with disabilities and community participation. Sub-minimum wage is not just a disability policy issue; it's an economic issue and a choice issue. Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted in 1938. It allows employers to pay workers with disabilities far below minimum wage based on subjective assessments of productivity. While this policy once may have been framed as a pathway to work, the evidence is now overwhelming: it no longer reflects our workforce, our economy, or our values. Studies analyzing 14(c) certificate data show that nearly half the workers paid under these certificates earn less than $3.50 an hour. And that's not a functioning labor market; it's a wage exemption based solely on disability. And it produces predictable outcomes: poverty, segregation, and lost economic potential. Minimum wage is a floor, not a measure of an individual's output. In every other part of the labor market, differences in productivity are addressed through job design, technology, supervision, and support, not through wage exemptions. When people with disabilities are paid competitive wages, the economic impact is immediate and local. Higher take-home pay increases consumer spending, strengthens local economies, and reduces reliance on public services. In my experience, families aren't advocating for poverty wages; they're expressing fear: fear of isolation, fear of idle days, and fear that systems will fail their sons and daughters. And those fears are fundamentally about what replaces 14(c), not about the wages themselves. Supporters of sub-minimum wage often argue that some people with more significant disabilities can't succeed in the labor market, but the data doesn't support that. Sub-minimum wage environments actually limit informed choice. Workers are often placed early and permanently into segregated settings with few opportunities to explore alternatives and build transferable skills. Informed choice requires exposure to community jobs, experiences in the community, and supports aligned with an individual's strengths, interests, and conditions for success. When people with disabilities are given options, they overwhelmingly choose competitive integrated employment. If sub-minimum wage worked as intended, we would see people regularly transitioning to competitive employment. But decades of research show the opposite: that participation in segregated sub-minimum wage settings actually reduces the likelihood that someone will move into competitive integrated employment. States that have eliminated sub-minimum wage have seen increases in employment among people with disabilities. A multi-state study across eight states found that employment among adults with significant intellectual disabilities increased by 14 percent. And in Vermont, the first state that fully eliminated Section 14(c), it rose by 38 percent. When the wage floor is restored, expectations rise and outcomes improve. We also need to listen to workers who lived this experience. David Pino from Wisconsin earned $48 for two weeks of work. After leaving that segregated setting, he received seven raises in seven years and eventually bought his own home. Cindy Bentley tells me about her experience earning $45 every two weeks in a sub-minimum wage facility doing work that did not reflect her skills or her interests. Her first competitive paycheck was $375 for one week, and she likes to say, "I love to pay taxes." Momentum is already moving at both the state and federal levels. As of 2024, 15 states and the District of Columbia have eliminated sub-minimum wage. In December of 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed phasing out Section 14(c). Federal law also reflects this direction. The Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act made it clear that sub-minimum wage should be an exception, not an expectation. The proposed Transformation of Competitive Integrated Employment Act builds on this framework by phasing out sub-minimum wage while providing resources to help states, providers, and employers redesign systems around competitive integrated employment with appropriate supports. Ending sub-minimum wage is not about removing choice; it's about expanding it. Ending sub-minimum wage does not eliminate services; it changes where and how those services are delivered. Ending sub-minimum wage does not eliminate work; it restores value. And finally, disability should never be the reason someone is paid less for their labor. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Brewer.

Good morning. I'd like to thank the committee for holding this hearing, and I'd like to give special respect to the two congressmen who made the trip here. The tour this morning puts this dialogue in an entirely different location. We're no longer talking about a theoretical conversation; we're talking about a hands-on experience. And we got to see a number of workers this morning having a successful experience. My name is Kit Brewer. I maintain a business called Project CU in St. Louis, Missouri. And I will say just a bit about Missouri because I think that the differences state to state need to make this a best practice conversation, not a conversation about elimination. In Missouri, we have 86 workshops, extended employment centers that employ about 5,000 individuals. And I'll give you just a few facts about Project CU. This last month, the average wage at Project CU was over $10 an hour. The wage up until this time in the year-to-date is about $8.30. Now, that's not standard, that is not required, but what it does impress upon everyone here that the use of sub-minimum wage is an inaccurate statement. The special minimum wage created by the FLSA 14(c) regulation is based upon the productivity level of individuals. It's a highly regulated process in order to form that wage, and it is entirely possible for that wage to rise above and below both federal and state minimum wage. And so even though this is a federally regulated program, there are state-by-state differences, regional differences, community standard differences that have caused this program to develop in many different ways across the nation. And that's the conversation that all of us need to be having: one of best practice, one about barrier elimination, and not drawing a line about whether this program should or should not close. I will also say that the use of the term segregation is a popular term among our opponents. And in my experience, the individuals served and employed in these programs are a wide demographic. If you measure any other demographic measurement other than intellectual disabilities, it is a diverse population. And the fact that any population would seek to find employment where they are respected, where they are amongst peers, and where they have the services needed for their success should not be denigrated, and that choice should be respected. 16 states have currently eliminated 14(c) certificates. There are others that are progressing toward that elimination or have taken steps to limit it. And I think we should all ask the question why. That can be an ideological question that can be based on a faulty assumption that every individual is both capable of transition into that competitive marketplace and that every individual desires to make that transition. Both of those statements are false. And I appreciate my colleague's thoughts that data would disagree with that statement, but data is precisely what is missing in this space. There is not any data to show that these transitions have been successful, and in fact, the 2025 GAO study shows very much the opposite. First and foremost, many states questioned by the GAO to supply data were unable to supply data at all and declined the invitation. The two states, Colorado and Oregon, who did participate were unable to find more than 1,000 individuals out of a population of 2,000 who had lost their jobs. So 50 percent, there was no data tracking, period. And of the other 100 in the two states, 39 to 46 percent made a successful transition. So the only data that is available says that less than 25 percent of individuals forced out of their jobs were able to make that transition. I don't think we can look at that in any way as a success. I think we have got to mandate a nationwide collection of data. We've got to work on terms such as segregation, such as sub-minimum wage, and even the definition of what successful transition actually looks like. And again, I thank the committee for the opportunity. [Applause.]

[Applause.] Thank you. Under committee rule nine, we'll now question the witnesses. Under committee rule 9(b), I'll authorize members present to ask questions for longer than five minutes. We usually go five minutes, but we're going to go 10 minutes here for myself and Representative Owens. So I now recognize myself for 10 minutes. Mr. Brewer, I found your testimony kind of interesting. Earlier today, I talked to a facility that had closed their workforce. And they didn't give me the exact numbers, they didn't keep track of everybody, but somebody in management there speculated that of the people they had working on their floor—it was kind of interesting, it was kind of what your larger study that you cited showed—that of the people no longer working on their floor, half were in day services, which of course is not the value of work, it's sitting there watching TV or whatever. 25 percent were just at home. And she estimated 25 percent were in the state rehabilitation vocational programs, which who knows what that means. I'm going to ask you, citing the Colorado and Oregon studies, which they did eliminate access to 14(c) and take that freedom away from these people, fewer than half the people surveyed were able to transition successfully from 14(c) to other types of employment, including competitive integrated employment. From your experience, what do you think, why do you think that was the case, so few people that they could find?

So I think there's several parts to that question. As you said in your description when you interviewed the provider, many of us are having to kind of spitball that data because the data doesn't exist. There are many reasons for that data problem. As we move from one funding stream to another, it is difficult to follow an individual. There are privacy and HIPAA concerns involved. But one way or another, we have got to break down that wall so that any decisions that we make on this program are informed and data-based. But what is happening to these individuals—and again, most of us have to be somewhat anecdotal in this—is that not everyone wants to go to a day habilitation situation. Day habilitation is fantastic for individuals where that's a good fit, perhaps someone who is aging out of an employment program, perhaps someone whose skills and desires do not align with employment. But for someone who has a desire for employment to be forced into a day habilitation situation is simply a negative experience. Additionally, we have to look at the service hours. So if the employment situation had offered 30 or up to 35 hours say a week for that individual, they now have to find the same coverage of services in other programs. A variety of funding circumstances, eligibility, or just open staffed slots can prevent them from making a clean transition that will send some individuals home. They may not like the choice. And when they lose services or lose hours in service, sometimes family members then have to take on a role as caregiver. That causes them to rearrange their own lifestyles, their own work schedules, or even capabilities. And that can add additional burden both in terms of the expense of programs and the loss of income not only for the individual who has lost his job but for the family that then has to convert theirs to services. So it's a very complex situation. I think that everyone should be able to choose their own dreams, goals along the way. And I think all of us can agree that we want individuals to reach their highest capability levels. And it's a question of what that capability looks like and what opportunities are there.

Okay. Another follow-up question. When I deal with people who disagree with me, they throw out statistics of the number of people who are working. And sometimes if you dig down a little bit more, they will find people who are working six or eight hours a week and say they found a job in the community, which of course is not the same thing as other people who are working maybe 30 or 40 hours a week. Could you comment on the degree to which people who do studies and want to get rid of places like this kind of say we found a job in the community and that job is just a six-hour job?

So the opponents of this work opportunity tend to focus on two subjects. They focus on the hourly wage specifically, and they focus on this concept of community integration versus segregation. Outside of that space, there are rarely measurements taken for whether an individual moved from a 30-hour-a-week opportunity to a two-hour or six-hour opportunity. In my experience, many individuals work a lesser daily shift in competitive employment than they would if they were working for our facility. They also work fewer days a week, and I have heard many examples as low as that two- or four-hour work schedule. Certainly there are success stories, but again, that's a data question that we really do need to address.

Okay. I'll give you another question and one of the reasons why I think some of these statistics are a little bit off. And maybe some people in this room aren't going to like what I'm going to say, but I know a goal of places like Opportunities, Inc. is frequently to find jobs in the community. And maybe you'll wind up having people work 10 hours a week in the community and 20 hours a week at Opportunities, Inc. I once, at the request of a facility that had gotten rid of their 14(c) certificates, was asked to shadow someone who had a job in the community. And she was a very nice person, and like so many of these folks, they make you feel good just being around them, big smile on their face and showing us what she did. But then I talked to the owner of the company that took her in. And I know the owner, who is a tremendous, wonderful Christian woman, and she clearly viewed it as her kind of Christian obligation because she was told this is what we should do, we should find a job for—I can't remember her name. But when I talked to the owner in her office, the job that this gal had was really not providing a lot. In other words, the owner felt kind of like giving to the United Way or something, that I am a good person so I should find something for this woman to do. But her management staff really didn't feel—well, they felt that what they were doing is being nice providing a make-work job. And as the result, she was not going to progress above 12 or 13 hours in this new job because it was a charity job. And like I said, everybody was happy that day, but I don't think even the people who found her that job understood really what was going on there. And could you comment on that anecdote? Maybe people won't like that, but that's what I found.

I would start by saying that every situation and every individual is unique. There are many organizations and businesses that have a willingness and a charitable interest in participating in disability employment, and I commend them. But I'll give you a simple example that I as a provider employ 120 men and women with intellectual disabilities. And all 120 of them are available for hire by the competitive integrated community today, tomorrow, and next week. And there are very few businesses that are able to take that population on and give that population the services and supports that are required. And so I think we have to again commend that individual for making the attempt, but I don't know that those are real work situations. The other thing that we have to look at is that the disability community itself is hugely diverse. Broad cross-sections of the disability community does work competitive employment at a high level and has skills that Congressman, you and I will never have. That's not the population that we are serving. And over the course of many decades, sheltered employment is not the 1938 version of the FLSA. It has also evolved and changed. Things like the ADA and WIOA and societal change have left behind in that group a group of individuals that requires more specialized services, a little bit more job security, and quite frankly, an empathy that is not available in the competitive marketplace. And I think we need to stop having this debate take on this monolithic view that one disability is like another. And they're very different, they're very individual, and it just needs to be a conversation in that fashion.

Thank you. I now will call on my good friend Congressman Owens.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Taking notes as you were talking, so I'm just going to frame my questions around a few things I'm going to say right now. First of all, we have to understand that D.C. is a very heartless place. It's a place of bureaucrats that don't have empathy, don't have compassion, will never take a walk around that we just took and see their people that have needs that we should be addressing, very special needs. And they're very happy because we're now focused on those needs. D.C. is a place where people will say, "Whatever happened to those folks? I don't know, I don't care. They've moved on." And we need to break that cycle. It's heartless, it's not compassionate. And I've seen it before because when the Great Society went from work to welfare, it destroyed a community of people that I grew up in. And by the way, to use the word segregated I think is an insult to these folks. [Applause.] You see a very diverse group of people that are happy, they're producing, given a chance to show they have self-worth. And the only thing that they have in common is they were dealt a difficult card. Period. Everything else is so unique and so different and so American. So we need to make sure that we are calling these people out that use words like that to get emotions up, to get us angry, when it has nothing to do with segregation. I dealt with segregation, and I can tell you guys what we have here is nothing close to that. So I just want to make that point. Mr. Brewer, I really appreciate your insight. I'm going to ask a few questions now. I understand that legislation in your state of Missouri adopted a bipartisan joint resolution supporting employment choice of workers with disabilities. This includes both competitive integrated employment and 14(c) employment, which is choice. Why does continued access to 14(c) have so much bipartisan agreement in a state like Wisconsin and Missouri?

Well, I will say that both Wisconsin and Missouri have strong state associations, strong advocacy groups, and so the information regarding sheltered employment is very much out there in the community. When Missouri passed its resolution in 2017, it was in full support of 14(c) as a part of an employment continuum. Since then, we have passed two more bipartisan bills that arranged how the program was funded and in fact passed a bill that would allow the State Department of Education to supply a special minimum wage certificate should 14(c) go away at a federal level. Now, we hope not to utilize that because we're in this for the much broader community. I will say that the reason behind all of that is in Missouri there are 86 shops located around the state. You probably cannot go more than say 45 minutes in any direction, and so you have what is very much a local community-based business, an organization that is part of that community both in metro and rural Missouri. And our elected officials at the state level, most of them have what they would consider a hometown shop, so they have personal relationships, whether those are family relationships, whether those are friends or neighbors that have individuals or providers involved in that workshop process. And I would say that the federal delegation in Missouri, many of whom came up through the State House, also share that. I believe there are instances around the country where that exists as well. But this should never be a partisan issue.

We talked about data earlier, and I really appreciate your comments, but I was just reading in some of the notes we had. It dealt with a study found in Maine that eliminated the program, and they found out that two-thirds of those with significant disabilities were unable to find jobs. Two-thirds. And I guess people in Maine are probably saying the same thing: "I don't know and I don't care," because that's a lot of folks who had opportunities and no longer do, and the state doesn't seem to be concerned about that. Mr. Brewer, 16 states have eliminated access to 14(c) certificates or otherwise required employees to pay a full minimum wage. While this might sound reasonable to some, can you describe the potential unintended consequences by eliminating these 14(c) jobs? You've kind of dealt with it before, but if you wouldn't mind expanding on that a little bit.

So the Maine study, I don't have the dates in front of me, but we're talking 2012, 2014 era, I believe. And it is one of several studies that shows similar data. And you know, I think all of us are really wishing that we had better data resources everywhere we look. As far as folks thinking that out of sight, out of mind concept, I want to take us away from 14(c) just for a little more historical perspective. And if you look at disability law over not just decades but centuries, there were a collection of laws collectively known as ugly laws. And the idea was that it was better to take individuals with disabilities out of the public eye, to institutionalize. Thankfully, we have moved well beyond that time frame. And so in this entire disability employment and services conversation, we have to acknowledge that while we are progressing, we do not have opportunities for every single part of the disability community. 14(c) currently serves what you might call a niche cross-section of that group. It is no more than perhaps 150,000 to 200,000 individuals if all of the states were participating. There are fewer than that participating at this time. And in 2024, 45.8 million Americans were recognized as having a disability. So we're talking about less than one-half of one percent... ...percent of the overall disability community that is focused on this program. So we need to determine exactly who it is that we serve and employ and seek to give them a successful opportunity. And it's just as simple as that.

Okay. I have a question, Barbara, for you and then I'd like to ask one more other question. Ms. LeDuc, your written testimony states that too many individuals with disabilities struggle to find and keep jobs in a community-based competitive integrated employment, CIE. Would 14(c) centers like Green Valley serve as an alternate option for those who are unable to remain in a CIE?

So I want to be really clear by saying the CRP community, the community rehabilitation programs, extremely support competitive integrated employment. And most of us are the ones that provide all the community integrated employment. So when people come against us and say, well, you segregate, you isolate, whatever, it's just really, really an inaccurate statement. Because if we're not the CRP community, very little CIE would be happening. We also subsidize it through. But I think what's really, really important, because I think what I had said is that I started out in community integrated employment and I was like Dr. Owens, I thought that was the end-all to be-all. And I was a 24-year-old young girl coming into a staffing with a parent and I'm telling the parent that their child should be in CIE. And I was adamant about it until the parent broke basically broke down and said you don't understand why we don't want our child in community integrated employment. They self-harm, they harass, if they get upset, they'll hit someone over the head with a pole, okay? And it really made me think, I don't know better than the family member that raised their child. And it made such an impact on my life that I believe people who want community integrated employment, all the power to you. You should go through it, you should do it. And if it doesn't succeed, we should have places for individuals to go that they feel another level of success. And that's where the community rehab programs really are so important. And I want to read a quote that I have from one of the founding fathers of the A-Team grassroots effort. His name is Rick Wilson. And he's the father to Christopher and in a letter he sent to the Assistant Secretary Coker at ODEP, he says, I have a son with Down syndrome who is significantly limited both intellectually and physically. Should his 14(c) program go away, he will be heartbroken. There is no way Christopher will achieve CIE. I know this because he tried a couple of times already with no success. And I know my son and I know his abilities better than anyone. And that's the approach that I believe we should all take. The parents, the loved ones, they know their family member. We can try to advance as much as possible, but at the end of the day, it's about choice.

Thank you. Thank you. I have one other question with Kathy. In your written testimony, you mentioned that you have both a personal and professional experience in disability employment issues with your daughter, who normally works here but can't be here because she's a little under the weather. Can you say a little bit more about Clara and her colleagues and the value to them of 14(c)?

Yes. Our daughter has had a couple of opportunities to work in the community and those jobs just didn't, they ended, for the employer needed somebody different and for whatever reason. But we were grateful that we always had our CRP Green Valley to fall back on. The thing that is so important and I think for everybody with a disability is the fact that they can go to work every single day. They can be here all day. And I have seen through Special Olympics and through Clara's friends and through the community, many people that do find a job in the community and it's wonderful, they can handle it, they can do it, they can go and do that job, but they work six hours a week. So then I'm baffled. Okay, so the government says, oh, we have a community job, check them off the list, they're working in the community. Okay, but where are they the other 30 hours of the week? What are they doing? What resources do they have? Are they just sitting in their apartment watching TV, whatever? What are they doing? What success do they have? What can they have to enhance their life as a citizen? And I feel that that is such a shame that it's such a push. Get in the community, get in the community. And I know some of Clara's friends are non-verbal. And those jobs are really hard to find. Those jobs that would be perfect for that person are a needle in a haystack. And when you're in rural America, in a small town, they're really hard to find. They're really hard to find the right employer, the right person. And even if you do find that, and I'll just, I don't mean to be rambling, but one of the jobs that our daughter had, she found a lot of success in it and she was happy, she loved being at this daycare. But the teacher that was there helped her and made it successful, gave her positive feedback and encouraged her to be successful at that job and it was a perfect partnership. It wasn't out of pity, it wasn't out of a charity job or whatever, it was a perfect scenario. But what happened is that teacher left and a different person came in and that person treated our daughter very badly. And it was not a good community situation to be in for her or for anybody around. I don't want to go into details of the sad story that happened, but we had to pull her out of that situation because it wasn't healthy for her. And I look at just that little job and I think about, okay, Mr. Grothman talked about, you know, the person, well, we're just, we got her here for charity. Okay, well, is that really a real job then? If we want people to be in the community, and I think that there are several people that can find success and do that and more power to it and I think that's great. But if you have a population of people that can't handle that for whatever their disability reason is, they should be able to look at these opportunities and say, I have a job. I have somewhere I can go every single day and work every day just like my mom and dad, my siblings, my cousins, everybody else. They can still have that pride and joy. Sometimes I think when I look at some of Clara's friends that do have jobs in the community, and I know a few years ago one of her friends was so excited, I got a job, I got a job at a local restaurant folding silverware. And I said, that is so awesome. When do you go to work? I go to work every day from 8:00 to 9:00. 8:00 to 9:00. One hour a day, five days a week, five hours. And she was excited that she had that community job. And whoever got her that community job checked her off the list. She's working in the community, check her off, add her to the 100 percent of people that have found 100 percent employment in the community and she's working five hours a week. And I said, well, what are you doing the rest of the time? And she said, well, I don't know, I just sit home, I take the taxi back. And I said, well, do you think that you could continue to go back to Green Valley to work? Could you do both jobs? Have you asked? And her first response was, well, they told me I can't go back. I have to just work in the community. And I said, I need you to talk to your dad and you ask your dad if you can do both. Have your dad check it out. She did and she is doing both. But to me, that's where some of the misconception comes in and the data and all this, you know. I'm sure she was checked off a list and said she had a community job, but she only worked five hours. That part wasn't said. You were led to believe that she was working somewhere 30, 35 to 40 hours a week and that wasn't the case. But I look at, you know, the disability population and there are so many people that have so many high success stories of being a disabled person with, I don't want to degrade anybody, but I'm speaking from my heart. They have a community job and they do well and they deserve it. But you have this low end of the population that if you ask anybody out there today, do you have a job? Yes, I do. Where do you work? Green Valley. That's their job. I don't care if they're only putting together 100 pieces or they're only whatever their job is. That is their job. That's their pride. That's their joy. Nobody asks, are you bothered by not having the amount of money? Because if you really get into all of that, you're opening a whole can of worms about SSI and other funding resources that they get and then they lose that. And there's other things on the docket that could be talked about that need to be changed in the disability money, how much money they can have or not have, that needs to be raised as well. But my point is, it's time to move forward and quit saying 14(c) is from 19 whatever it came out, I don't know, 1930s or whatever. But to look forward to maybe there's a new way, a new innovative way to look forward to having a balance of everybody to have a choice and an opportunity to be a contributing member of society. And I think that's what a lot of our people feel. I'm a worker. I have value and I can give back to the community.

Thank you, Kathy. Thanks so much. Give my time back to the Chairman.

[Applause.] I know I have other questions and I think Congressman Owens does too. So we're going to give us both another ask a couple of questions. We're going to try to hit some of the people we didn't hit as much the first time. So I'll give myself another five minutes. Ms. Armstrong, I really appreciate your testimony. Like I said, it affected me earlier today when I talked to a facility that shut down their floor. And that could happen here at Green Valley someday. The facility is still there, they're providing day services, but their estimate, this was off the record, their estimate was about 50 percent of the people that used to be on the floor were in day services, 25 percent just stayed at home, and 25 percent were in Department of Vocational Rehab, which doesn't necessarily mean they get a job. I know two people in rehab that I've talked to, they both even have college degrees, but they have kind of social problems and they can't find them a job. So I don't know how many in this county's place, how many of the people they had to lay off, how many found jobs, but I have a feeling it was 10 or 15 percent. If they got rid of the floor, what do you think would happen to your daughter?

Well, she would be very sad to lose her job. It's her job. This crossed our mind, I think it was back in 2014 where we first, we came, my husband and I and my daughter and our other daughter came out to Green Valley for this big meeting, a letter-writing campaign because there was a threat to end 14(c) or to close our facility. And that was the first chance that I really took notice to really get involved and stay involved in this mission. But we all wrote letters explaining about how important this job was to our daughter. But at that time too, it was important to my husband and I, we were both still working. So you look at the fact that one of us would have to totally alter our jobs for the future and our retirement and that sort of thing because we cannot leave her at home all day unattended without anybody, without any help. So for one thing, losing an opportunity to be here with a job all day every day, yeah, she would, we kind of saw it with the pandemic. She's at home. I'm retired now, so I was able to provide all kinds of opportunities, you know, we didn't go places, but it's not the same sitting at home doing crafts, watching TV, whatever, just trying to fill the day is not the same as being able to say go to work. And during that time of the pandemic, she was always like, okay, is it over? Am I going back to work tomorrow? Meaning the pandemic. Is it over? Can I go back to work tomorrow? And she did get to go back because they did do a super job of separating everybody and keeping all those protocols in place to come back after the pandemic. But it would just be such a loss and such a letdown for her because it is so important for her to be like her cousins, her siblings, neighbors, everybody goes to work, everybody has a job. They don't just sit at home and so it would be detrimental.

Thank you. I don't mean to leave Ms. Owens not to be asked some questions. So I should ask you a question. You gave us some anecdotal evidence of people who found very high-paying jobs. And I once attended one of these hearings in the Washington area and they found a woman who was blind who was making almost nothing, very bright woman, I think she even went to law school and they found a very nice job for when they adjusted the fact. So you can get anecdotal evidence in unusual cases in which you have a very, very bright woman who was able to work and make whatever she's making, $80,000 a year or something. But that's anecdotal, very rare. I have a feeling most people are like the facility that shut down in which almost nobody is finding jobs or if they're finding jobs, it's a six-hour-a-week job where they check the box and say we found a job. In your experience, because you're obviously a big advocate for not having these 14(c) certificates, what percentage of people really wind up with, I mean you saw the people out there on the floor today. If Green Valley would shut down, what percentage of those people do you really think are going to find a 30, 35-hour-a-week job in the community that they're going to be happy with? Like I said, a lot of times people have maybe a little bit of an emotional problem. I'll give you one other anecdote before I let you answer the question. I remember at that hearing there was a gal there with her son in a county north of here and he had two jobs. He had like a 10-hour-a-week job in the community and 20-hour-a-week job in a facility like this. And they asked him which one he liked. And he said, well, I like my job at wherever he was working, McDonald's or wherever, I don't know, I like my job. But I really like the job in a facility like this because this is where all my friends are. And I thought how horrible it would be if he would have lost that job. But really brass tacks, when you look at the people out there on the floor today, where do you think they're going to wind up if you ever succeed in shutting down Green Valley?

I mean, I think what Mr. Brewer was saying as well, every individual is an individual. And yes, there's lots of stories out there that are positive and successful and there's lots of stories that people are struggling just like any person in the population struggles. Personally, I will be honest with you, when looking at all of those individuals doing work, I think they could all work in the community. Absolutely. And I think they could all have 20, 30, 40-hour jobs if that's what they were looking for. It's a matter of a job match, it's a matter of looking at the work environment, it's a matter of connecting people to the right business and customizing opportunities so that person adds value. I would suggest that, for example, all those folks are doing real jobs from John Deere and other places. Let's bring those jobs back to John Deere and have people with disabilities who want to do those jobs work in the community in John Deere. We can support them in that then. We run a Project SEARCH program, transition from school to work, and I think that I don't think that anybody is saying like tomorrow shut down Green Valley or any segregated work facility. I think there's a process, it's a phase-out. It's really looking at how do we provide those supports and services to people in the community based on their individual needs. And certainly data speaks loudly, but I think individual stories speak loudly as well. And we have to look at every person as an individual. So I would work with each person on an individual basis and say, what are you interested in? What would you like to do? And how can we make that happen? It's kind of the starfish scenario where you save one starfish at a time. I work with people with significant disabilities in Milwaukee and we have been able to find meaningful work and then combined it. So if they're only working 20 hours and they have to be out of their house because their family works, then we find meaningful participation. They take classes at the technical college or they go to the YMCA to work out, they do other things that other people do when they're not working. So I think it's not an all-or-nothing, it's really looking at the individual and what they want to do and then helping businesses see that people with disabilities can be contributing members to their business and add value.

I'll guess ask you to respond to that, Ms. Armstrong. I mean you obviously know your daughter very well. We're talking about taking away freedom to work here. You've had plenty of opportunity to look for jobs for her around the community. Do you feel, looking at the whatever we had on the floor today, 40 people, 50 people, whatever there were, do you feel that there are jobs in the community that your daughter would be, like you kind of answered the question already, that your daughter is going to feel satisfied with, that are going to be able to have the right match for years, which is what it takes, the right match for years for all those people out there? I mean you certainly know a lot of people other than just your daughter, right? Over time it's kind of like a family and you know everybody. Could you comment on the idea that people think that if you just look harder you're going to find a job in the community for 30 hours?

Okay, so I guess I'll just say this. Clara's been here since she left the high school. She did the DVR contract thing and we had those two opportunities, but that took a long time to even find those opportunities that would match and fit her and they were only for the six hours a week, the eight hours a week opportunity. But part of it is the fact that if she could have, if all of those people out there, all of her friends, could be working in the community, don't you think that the community partnerships or businesses would have opened up a long time ago and made that happen? I think that we've been trying this for a long time, getting people in the community and when you're looking at a very unique population of citizens that are the most vulnerable, I think the situation has been tried over and over without success. And I think if there would be that many jobs in the community and that was available, then they probably all would be there, right? But if that hasn't happened by now, it's not going to magically happen tomorrow if this place closes. It's not going to happen. You're taking away an opportunity where they find success and can say that they come to work. I know that when our daughter did have her two jobs, different people would say, well, which job do you like? How do you like your jobs? Which job do you like? Blah, blah, blah. She goes, well, I work at the school system in food service. I work at Jefferson School two days a week, but my real job is at Green Valley. And that always made us proud because that said it all. She was happy to work in the community, but when she would say, but my real job is at Green Valley, to me that as a parent that says it all, that she feels safe, she feels happy here, she feels success here, she's confident here, she knows this is her job, she knows this is where she wants to be.

Thank you. Thank you. Now I'm going to give it back to Congressman Owens. Just one other comment on that. I think Dr. Owens, you talked about what we could do with other time and it sounds to me like day services. You know, you can take a class, you can go on a trip, you can watch TV, but that's not like having a job, right?

No, and what I mean by that is it's in the community. So they go to the YMCA because that's what they want to do. So there's not a facility, there's not a place they go, the community is the place that they go outside of work.

Doesn't sound like having a job. Okay, this will be the final thing and then we'll wrap it up. Congressman Owens.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Brewer, you served as vice president of Coalition for the Preservation of Employment Choice. Will you describe your organization's effort to increase employment opportunities for workers with disabilities?

So the coalition is specific to making sure that a continuum exists across a broad spectrum. Because of that direction, certainly 14(c) is at the heart of our current conversation because we see that 14(c) opportunity being pulled away from so many individuals. But the coalition has 22 states represented, it has providers of all types of services, and it also has parents and families. Our scope goes so far as things like the benefit cliff, like Medicaid dollars that are not being expended in the ways that we would like that may or may not affect our programs directly but certainly affect our populations. So at this time what the coalition has enabled us to do, many strong state associations were doing in-state and even federal outreach, but we ran into a constituency cliff where I had a great relationship with my Missouri delegation but if I needed to move outside of that in DC I was unable to move in that sphere. So we've now contracted with a talented firm, we've expanded our outreach, and we are engaged also in that best practice conversation that I keep referring to because Missouri and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all have subtle but important differences. And it's important that we learn what those differences are, that we try to identify how we might take those great ideas back to our own regions and states. And the overall mission is to knock down barriers to employment. And we absolutely celebrate every single individual that achieves a goal. And if that goal is to work in my facility and try three different jobs they haven't tried before, then we celebrate that. We have a line lead position where individuals have progressed to where they have a full mastery and I think you saw some of that on the floor in the tour today. And if someone has a goal to go into a community job and they're successful in that, again, we celebrate that fact because person-centered planning is about the individual, they need to be able to speak to their own... ...goals, their own expectations, and they need to be a vocal part of whatever their future looks like. And so I don't want any of us to be pigeonholed into thinking that I'm here to die on the hill of 14(c). I'm here to die on the hill of these men and women deserve an employment opportunity, whatever that may look like. And again, this is not 1938 and this is not that program.

Okay. Thank you.

[Applause.]

I'm going to wrap up and I'm going to highlight again I think why I'm here, why I became a Congressman to be honest with you. My background after coming out of NFL was corporate environment, business ownership, but I've always for 40 years had this desire to work with at-risk kids because my dad did the same thing. He was a professor, but his heart was working with at-risk kids. Well, finally getting to Utah about 12, 13 years ago, I decided to open up a nonprofit called Second Chance for Youth. Keep in mind that I had never experienced really what it was to work with youth, but I always knew I wanted to. So in my mind, it was very hypothetical what would work because I'd never done it before. Well, after doing it for a while, I began to turn into an innovator because I realized what I was thinking would work isn't what works. What works is getting back to basics to make sure our kids can think, can read, can write, can have hope. So that innovation allowed me to say maybe coming back to D.C. would be the place to do that. My big ask is this. We've never had a window like we have now. We have an America First administration that believes that every American should have an opportunity to dream. Whether it be those around the table that are getting up every single day, excited about what we have to get done, to those working in the back. I think his name was Matt, blind, but he's doing something very important every single day, making sure there's a hole so this part that goes in a trailer works. And he does it every single day and he's proud of it. He cannot see himself around the room, but boy, is he dreaming right now. So my ask is very simply, there's never been a time like now to think outside the box, to ask those questions, how can we help this group of people who have been invisible up until now? And you're the voices. You're out there, you're doing it. You're every single day, you have the empathy, you have the compassion, you have the innovation, and we now have an administration that's going to listen. So I can't say as I'm going to pass it back over to Glenn how much I appreciate this opportunity really. You do have at this point D.C.'s going to listen to what you want to have done. Be as creative as you can. Think about the areas that you've never been able to get outside yet, but now we might have a chance to do it. So that being said, thanks again for everybody who's here and Glenn, I'm going to pass it back to you.

[Applause.]

I'd like to thank, in wrapping up here, I'd like to thank Congressman Owens for coming here. I know yesterday when I left Washington, I was pleased to come back home and for I'm sure Congressman Owens would have loved to have just come back home, but instead of coming back home when we left the floor yesterday, he decided to come here and visit Green Valley. So it was a really great sacrifice for him. I'm glad he's here. My final comments, I've commented kind of throughout this on what I think. First of all, I believe in freedom and this is a tremendous opportunity for the people you see working on the floor and to say that you don't have the right to this job, we're going to send you out in the world and assume that there's going to be something that's going to come up you like better is kind of an insulting thing to do to people when we're hypothetically supposed to be all, you know, treating everybody the same. No, you're not treating them the same. You're depriving them of an opportunity they want. There are two kind of things they come back. You know, they don't like sub-minimum wage. This is not all these folks are living off of, right? Most of them are on SSI or something. It's not like you're expected to make the wage here to buy a house or something. They don't like the, they keep repeating this, they don't like the segregated thing. And I never know why. I mean, when you're here and I had, I represent 10 counties, the others are all kind of similar to this. There's always a wonderful staff of people in management. I mean, if for some reason it's so important to work with people who are with disabilities, you get that here, right? I don't even know how many people work. I should have asked Barb. What do you have, a dozen, 15?

Of staff members?

Yeah.

On the floor, we probably have about 20 with all the programs.

Okay, okay. So there's no shortage of people who work here who don't have these problems. And they all these places, if there are a shortage of people on the floor on any individual day, they will bring people in for a week or something or other from the community if working next to somebody who you barely know but doesn't have disabilities is that important. I overwhelmingly think the people who are trying to shut this down don't play with success. You know, I mean, like I said, there's one in my district that did shut down and they were bright people. Half the people are on day services, a quarter of the people are at home, and a quarter of the people they tell me are going for Department of Vocational Rehab, which does not necessarily mean they're getting a job. So I would say, assuming what I was told was right there, that was a disaster because you had all these people who were perfectly happy at that facility and now they're just at home or maybe working six hours a week or maybe doing who knows what, taking a class in something or other. They don't have that structure and pride of work because that facility was shut down, quite frankly, by people who view the world like you do. And it was just tragic. And I gave you the anecdote earlier, another one that shut down. They brought me in to see their pride and joy, the best example of somebody working in the community. They were working in the community because I was the Congressman. They didn't really care about this issue. Oh, we're going to bring Congressman Grothman in, we're going to have a great day and he's going to see how wonderful our program works. So I go for the wonderful program, they have some gal working eight to 10 hours a week and the owner of the business is privately telling me that, well, we can do this if the economy gets soft, we'll have to let her go, but if the economy is strong, we can keep her around here. In other words, it was really not a real job and that was what their success story was. So it would be just such a tragedy if Green Valley ever has to, and Green Valley will hang around, I would think either way like these others. I haven't talked to Barbara about it, I bet they'll do day services if they shut down the work. So that's what the other ones do. But it would be just a tragedy, I think, of all the nice people over the years. How long was Green Valley open? 40 or 50 years, something?

Yes, actually, Opportunity in Green Valley is celebrating their 60th anniversary.

Okay, 60 years. You think of all the people, all the people who over that 60 years, this has been so much of their life. And it's a good thing they didn't talk about all this segregation and oh, horrible having sub-minimum wage 60 years ago or Green Valley never would have got off the ground. You think all the people who had so much enjoyment and so much of their life built in a place like this and we just hope they've had 60 years, we hope they're here another 60 years and we're able to beat these people off. But thank you very much for being here. Like I guess one more time, thanks for Congressman Owens and that's it, we're done.

[Applause.]

[Gavel sounds.] Adjourned.