Key Takeaways
- •The hearing strongly advocated for preserving Section 14(c) certificates, which allow sub-minimum wages for disabled workers, arguing they provide essential employment, dignity, and community.
- •Mrs. Barbara LeDuc (Witness) stated that eliminating 14(c) removes choices and opportunities for individuals with severe disabilities who often cannot succeed in traditional employment settings.
- •Rep. Grothman (R-WI-6) questioned Dr. Laura Owens (Witness) on the likelihood of Green Valley workers finding 30-35 hour community jobs if 14(c) ended, with Dr. Owens believing all could.
- •Republican members, Rep. Grothman and Rep. Owens, criticized the Biden administration's attempt to phase out 14(c) and rejected the term "segregated" for these diverse work environments.
- •The committee aims to continue advocating for 14(c) preservation, urging policymakers to visit facilities and consider the impact of eliminating these employment opportunities.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Overview
On February 13, 2026, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a field hearing titled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment" at Green Valley Enterprises in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Led by Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI-6), the hearing examined the impact of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which allows employers to pay commensurate wages—often below the federal minimum wage—to individuals whose disabilities impair their productive capacity. The hearing served as a platform for a vigorous debate between proponents of "employment choice," who view 14(c) facilities as essential communities for the severely disabled, and advocates for "competitive integrated employment" (CIE), who argue that sub-minimum wages are an outdated and discriminatory relic of the 1930s.
Rep. Grothman opened the session by emphasizing that work provides dignity and social engagement beyond a mere paycheck. He expressed concern that federal efforts to phase out 14(c) certificates would lead to the closure of Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRPs), leaving vulnerable citizens with no options other than "day services" or staying at home. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT-4) joined the hearing, drawing parallels between the dignity of work he witnessed in his youth and the pride shown by the employees at the Green Valley facility. He criticized the "heartless" nature of Washington bureaucracy, arguing that removing 14(c) options strips individuals of their ability to dream and contribute to society.
Key Testimony
The testimony of Mrs. Barbara LeDuc, President and CEO of Opportunities, Inc., highlighted the practical necessity of 14(c) for individuals with "diverse abilities." LeDuc argued that while her organization supports CIE, many individuals with severe disabilities cannot succeed in traditional settings. She cited a 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study which found that states eliminating 14(c) often failed to track what happened to displaced workers. LeDuc warned that without these certificates, the most challenged populations are simply no longer served, effectively removing their right to work.
Mrs. Kathy Armstrong, a parent and special education teacher, provided a personal perspective through the story of her daughter, Clara, who has Down syndrome. Armstrong testified that Clara had attempted community jobs that lasted only a few hours a week and eventually failed due to a lack of appropriate support or pace. At Green Valley, however, Clara works full-time, which provides her with a sense of "normalcy" and purpose similar to her siblings. Armstrong criticized the "one-size-fits-all" push for community integration, noting that for many, a "community job" in the eyes of the government is merely a five-hour-a-week position that leaves the individual isolated for the remaining 35 hours.
Industry Impact
In contrast, Dr. Laura Owens, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and President of TransCen, Inc., argued for the total elimination of sub-minimum wages. She characterized 14(c) as a "wage exemption based solely on disability" that leads to poverty and segregation. Dr. Owens asserted that with proper job coaching and "customized employment," any individual can add value to a traditional business at a competitive wage. She cited data from Vermont and other states showing that employment rates for the disabled rose after 14(c) was eliminated. She advocated for the Transformation of Competitive Integrated Employment Act, which would phase out sub-minimum wages while providing resources for states to redesign their support systems.
Dr. Kit Brewer, Vice President for the Coalition for the Preservation of Employment Choice, countered Dr. Owens by highlighting the lack of reliable data regarding successful transitions. He noted that in states like Colorado and Oregon, fewer than 25 percent of individuals forced out of 14(c) jobs successfully transitioned to CIE. Brewer emphasized that 14(c) is a highly regulated process based on productivity, not a blanket "sub-minimum" wage, noting that some workers in his Missouri facility earn over $10 an hour. He argued that the term "segregation" is a misnomer, as these facilities provide a diverse and supportive peer environment that the competitive market often lacks.
Overview
The partisan dynamics of the hearing were clear, with Republican members focusing on the preservation of "choice" and the protection of existing CRPs. Rep. Grothman and Rep. Owens expressed skepticism toward the Biden administration’s Department of Labor (DOL) and its attempts to phase out 14(c), which they labeled as regulatory overreach. They argued that the "informed choice" touted by CIE advocates often results in "charity jobs" or "make-work" positions that lack the longevity and social fabric of CRPs. Rep. Owens specifically took offense at the use of the word "segregation" by opponents of 14(c), stating that the diverse, happy workforce he toured earlier that day bore no resemblance to the Jim Crow-era segregation he experienced in his youth.
Industry Impact
Notable exchanges occurred regarding the definition of a "real job." Rep. Grothman shared an anecdote of a quadriplegic man who became deeply depressed after losing a 75-cent-an-hour job due to bureaucratic changes, illustrating that the value of the work was psychological rather than purely financial. Dr. Owens maintained that the "starfish scenario"—saving one person at a time through individualized community placement—was the superior moral and economic path. However, Mrs. Armstrong responded that for her daughter, Green Valley was her "real job," while community placements were merely supplemental.
Overview
The hearing concluded with Rep. Grothman and Rep. Owens pledging to bring their findings back to Washington to influence the Department of Labor. They expressed hope that the current administration would be more receptive to maintaining the "continuum of care" and protecting the 14(c) certificates that support facilities like Green Valley and Opportunities, Inc. No specific deadlines for follow-up legislation were set, but the members emphasized that the hearing record would remain open for 14 days for additional statements and data submissions. Organizations mentioned during the proceedings included John Deere, the A-Team (a grassroots advocacy group), and the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR).
Transcript
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.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
