>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including mitt co-. -- including midco. ♪ ♪ ♪ buckeye broadband support and c-span as a public service, along with these other

television providers. given your front row seat to democracy. >> coming up. insurance professionals testified before the senate banking committee on insurance regulations, policies, and practices within the industry. the committee also raises questions about the impact of private equity companies, and the retirement asset industry. >> senate committee banking --

will come to order. i think my colleagues for joining us. most of them will be in, checking, and are doing something remote, or, it's a hybrid hearing again. witnesses are here in person. thank you, the two of, you for that. special call out to -- our office who has been a fellow for the last. yeah this is your last, year? right she is -- thank you for your service to the senate, and especially to our country. we every america needs insurance, rather it's auto unsure runs to protect us when we're on the road, or homeowners insurance to protect the biggest investment from our families, or life insurance to cement your family's financial security and the event of a tragedy. these are job to make sure that the industries protects dean americans hard earned money, not putting it at risk. american insurance companies are regulated by state insurance commissioners, we know that. the state based system -- of insurance regulation's

historic it ensures that local markets and needs are taken into consideration. the national association of insurance committees that i coordinate state commissioners across all jurisdictions to address risks to the entire system. the wall street -- congress created a few years ago, and federal insurance office within the treasury department to promote national coordination and the insurance sector. it's common sense, insurance -- across all state jurisdictions and internationally. i'm pleased to have both the maryland commissioner, kathleen, on behalf of the naacp, and director sites, of faa, testifying today. thank you for your public service on all levels. never going to keep americans hard earned money safe, it's more important than ever that they were together. will explore many topics today. for example, three months ago, waukee martin transferred 4.3 billion dollars of its pensions to theme holding an insurance holding company specializing and life insurance, owned by

the private equity firm apollo global management. overnight, walking martin and employees and retirees were notified that their pensions would be managed by athena, and no longer governed by a reset, where the pension benefit guaranty corporation. many employees are are exceptionally nervous about that. it's one recent example of private equity giants expansion into peoples pensions, and into the insurance industry. we know the workers and a poor software and wall street, private equity firms get involved. we see over and over -- in march, i ask fiu to look into private equity's expansion into similar pension risk transferred, transactions. we need to understand the risk to workers whose financial service depends on pensions and retirement programs. and it -- provided thoughtful response to my letters, thank you for that. and i see, they've been monitoring risk taking behavior by private equity own insurers.

f iowa is done similar work, and looking at the water interconnectedness of insurance and reassurance markets across the world. those connections have added risks and concerns because u.s. insurance companies depend even more on the financial help of insurance companies outside of the u.s.. taken together, or insurance authorities are focused on our merging and complex for us to safeguard our economy. i communities, our families rely on insurance companies to protect their loved ones, their homes, their small businesses, and so many parts of their lives. we can't ignore one with spilled up, or firms behave or responsibly. we know who always plays the price when they do, it's rarely insurance executives, is not wall street, is not private equity executives, its workers and families. it's taxpayers who are forced to play -- a decade and a half ago, that should never happen again. it means looking around the corner to make sure that industry agencies are prepared for risks that they develop, as more americans face

increasingly severe climate catastrophes wildfires, hurricanes, every year, we need to help communities prepare, and ensure insurance watchdogs, in the company say oversee, are also prepared. in the aftermath of some of these natural disasters, we've seen instances where insurance either raise prices, or actually stop offering insurance altogether, leaving families, leaving businesses struggling to find affordable coverage as they work to rebuild their lives and rebuilt their communities. we know this industry has a long history of racial discrimination, just like so many other big industries. black and brown families face more difficulty across the board and getting insurance. you seen this happen in ottawa -- particularly earlier this year, the new york times reported customers insurance agents, and employees, to owed state farm for discrimination in the workplace, and in pain out claims. my colleague, chairwoman waters, husband working on learning more about this as well. her committee recently requested information about

large life and p and c and sharon's involvement in financing chattel slavery. i'm glad f iowa and i.c.e. are also working on this, and they are investigating through it special committee on race and sure ants. i look forward to reviewing f iowa's upcoming report on availability and affordability of auto insurance. i hope it'll shed more light on racial equity and assessing insurance, and accessing its insurance. later this year, the international association of insurance supervisors will need to consider whether the u.s. insurance systems review of -- standards meets international criteria. because we regulate insurance differently in the united states, for state and local markets, international markets are served by the same companies. it's important that represented as the u.s. system, like you, like a file, like the a icy, can advocate for fair treatment by international regulators. the vice chair for supervision has been come firmed. michael barr in the offices testified today, we'll get to work with international

counterparts in this process. all these issues show how critical the work that you to do is to our economies health and stability. i expect f iowan and i see to prioritize monitoring and their ongoing work. >> thank you mister chairman. welcome to our witnesses. it's been a while since our committee has held a committee on the insurance industry. i welcomed the occasion this morning. those iffy topics a particular at like to touch on today. one is the importance of the state base insurance regulation. the model that we have. efforts to develop international insurance standards and efforts to use the insurance industry to affect changes and social policy. proposals to create a federal -- risk insurance program, and the importance of risk based pricing. i think it's important to start by reminding everyone, as the chairman alluded to, the insurance firms are primarily regulated at the state level. insurers have been chartered,

regulated by the states, for the past 150 years. when it comes to insurance, the federal government has a really extremely limited regulatory role, and i see little need to define that. system works well for consumers in the industry. that's one reason we need to pay close attention to episode development implements in international insurance standards, by international bodies. in particular, i worry, and i'm not alone, that the insurance capital standard for the i.c.e. of currently be developed by the international association of insurance supervisors is incompatible with the u.s. insurance market. there is widespread concern that the iciness is too sensitive to short term fluctuations in markets and certain asset categories, it does not take into account certain aspects of the assets insurance hold. the result is that the implementation of i see us in his current form would harm the availability of long term insurance products that americans rely on for financial security. our u.s. representatives at i a,

i as sea to ensure that i see as works with the u.s. market. by not allowing the proposal to go forward until it does. next, i'd like to truck john some troubling efforts to address climate change. there are some liberal activists who want to pressure assurance companies, and other financial situations, to deny service to traditional energy companies and arp their carbon intensive industries. such efforts are profoundly misguided. addressing the difficult challenges posed by global warming requires political decisions involving important trade-offs. we've seen those trade-offs in action in recent months, soaring energy prices and european asians have made plans to reopen coal power plants, extend the lines of nuclear plants. likewise, new, as we're seeing the biden administration's hostility to new energy production, contribute to shockingly high gasoline prices. that's a painful consequence of policy choices. in a democratic society, those choices are the trade-offs associated with them must be

made by elected representatives who are accountable to the american people. not all elected -- or insurance executives, for that matter. to be sure, insurers face financial risks in the form of natural disasters. after, all that the core business of the insurance industry. insurers must be allowed to set premiums that accurately reflect these risks. to the extent that climate change exasperate these risks, then they are going to need to adjust their prices accordingly. higher premiums are an important signal to policyholders that -- warned of increased risks of fire or other peril. -- they mitigate risk, which leads to safer and more resilient communities and societies. bottom line is that it will function insurance industries were quite capable of addressing the natural disaster risks that are the basis of this today and in the future. i'd also like to address plans to address a federally -- insurance risk program. excuse me, as proposed, this program would be akin to the

terrorism risk -- north korea, as a reminder, our this mandate said insurance offered terrorism insurance, in the event of an attack the federal government bears and increased cost of claims depending on severity. a similar program for pandemics would be problematic. first of all, it's hard to imagine that insurers are well equipped to quickly distribute hundreds of billions, or maybe even trillions of federal dollars. recall that in a matter of months, the paycheck protection program distributed over half a trillion dollars by the banking system, but banks in other financial institutions participated on a voluntary basis. compare that to the disastrous claims process after super storm sandy. more importantly, a federally guaranteed pandemic risk insurance program would encourage state and local governments to impose economically devastating shutdowns in the future. such a program would in fact incentifies state and local policy makers to quickly impose lockdowns with their jurisdictions, with the assurance that the federal

government risk insurance program will build about. instead of considering policies that will facilitate future lockdowns, or repeat the mistakes of the past, we should be thinking about future mitigation measures that don't crush business, workers, and the economy, and don't harm our children's education's. then we conclude with this observation. a well-funded interests industry is critical component of economic prosperity and financial security for all americans. everyone will be better off if we were assist activist efforts to used in sharon's as a tool to pursue social policy, goals, -- insurance is not a legitimate tool, as some of suggested, to be carbonized. the economy to infringe on second amendment, rights of lob biden citizens, or to mitigate wealth inequality. let's have insurance stick to the business of insurance. i look forward to discussing these issues today. >> thank you senator toomey. i'll introduce today's witnesses, and then i'll begin the testimony. is the honorable kathleen brain is the maryland insurance commissioner, testifying on behalf of any icy.

she previously was a partner dealing -- and principle council to marilyn -- in the maryland office of the attorney general. mr. steven sykes, the director of f iowa and treasury. he churned up bios -- previously worked at the va and the cftc. >> welcome to both of you. please begin your testimony. >> thank you. >> chairman, brown. to the main members of the committee, thank you for the -- i use my time today to talk briefly on several issues we know are of interest members of the committee. first, we have been actively monitoring the growth and private equity of insurance. our solvency framework includes significant checks and balances to protect policyholders including public disclosures, capital requirements, and conservative accountable requirements. these are used to assess all risks to insurers, regardless of the type of ownership. as insurance of all types, are searching for investment yield

to avoid raising prices, insurance regulators are reviewing the existing guidelines and considering new requirements to ensure our ability to assess and address the risks of policyholders. dna i see is working with 13 regulatory considerations applicable to both private equity own insurers and other insurers with similar features. we have extensive data reporting and analytical capabilities to review and assess alternative investments, or unique structures, and are continuing to refine those tools. we are confident in our system to appropriately oversee ensures no matter how they are structured. we will certainly keep the committee apprized of our work in that regard. next, insurance regulators also recognize the importance of cybersecurity risk management, and continued upgrade data security safeguards. dna i see security -- updates regulatory requirements

relating to data security, the investment of a cyber offense, and the notification to state insurance commissioners of cyber events. states continue to adopt the model that now covers 83% of the market, says measured by gross written premium. dna i also created a new innovation cybersecurity and technology h committee, which i chair, to address the insurance implications of emerging technologies and cybersecurity, and to ensure coordination and consistency amongst insurance regulators. the n a i see also continues to facilitate tabletop exercises with insurers, regulators, and law enforcement to explore cyber incident response. another top priority is climate risk and resilience. this year, at the any icu facilitated provisions to its climate risk disclosure survey, which is now online to the fsb's teeth cste. these disclosures now cover -- 80% of the market by premium, help insurance regulators as insurance industry risks and

actions to mitigate climate risk. we also monitoring sure's ability to play claims, following catastrophic events. we recently recommended that wildfires be explicitly added to the risk based capital framework for catastrophe risky exposures. for their, the enemy i see is creating a catastrophe center of excellence to provide insurance regulators with access to information and training on catastrophe models. another area of activity for state insurance regulators as the intersection of race and insurance. the icy's work focuses on evaluating issues of race and diversity within the sector, and addressing market access and potential barriers. additionally, they -- formed new avenues for insurance careers foundation to help foster interest in the insurance careers, with a focus on students from underserved and diverse communities. join into the international fraud -- the state insurance regulators continue to engage in a variety of issues, including the and --

development of nonchalance capital standard. the any i.c.e., along with our team usa partners, including fido, have been clear that the ioc does not work for the u.s. markets, or our supervisory regime. therefore, it has developed an aggregation method as a comparable alternative to the eye i ces. we will continue to advocate for recognition of the u.s. approach to group capital within the on i.s., and are already reflected in covert agreements between the u.s. and the eu and uk. finally, we would like to highlight a few of our federal priorities. we urge congress to pass a long term -- we authorization that encourages investment in flood mitigation efforts. we support senator scott's primary regulators of insurance vote act, which would provide state insurance regulators with a vote on f. scott doc. we're also working on legislation to help protect policyholders drawing an insurance receivership.

so thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and i'm pleased to take any of your questions. >> thank, you commissioner. chairman brown, ranking member to me, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about current issues and insurance. i'm the director of the federal insurance officer than the u.s. treasury department. i would like to begin by briefly outlining files role in responsibilities, and by investing -- the united states is the world's largest insurance market, and its insurers provide diverse range of products to support the needs of consumers and businesses in the united states. the u.s. system of insurance regulation is primarily state based. however, file has a significant role to play as -- fio advises the -- on major domestic and provincial, and national security politics issues, develops a federal policies on international insurance industries, including representing the u.s. at the international association of

insurance supervisors. administers the terrorism risk insurance program, monitors the extent to which traditionally underserved communities and consumers have access to affordable insurance products, insist the secretary negotiating covert agreements with foreigners directions, and monitors the insurance sector. including identifying issues or gaps in the regulation of ensures that could contribute to a systemic crisis. as vials director, i also service and non voting member of the financial stability oversight council. these authorities reflect the need for via to provide a national security perspective in this critical area. i would like to highlight five fio priorities. climate related financial risk is a top priority for our office. we are focused on three areas which are consistent with president biden's executive order on climate related financial risk. first, fio plans to issue a report addressing climate issues and gaps in the issue of insurance. second fio is investigating the

-- major disruptions of private insurance coverage and markets that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change. third we are increasing our engagement, both domestically and internationally, on climate related issues. as we move forward with these efforts, we will concede consistent and granular data to increase our understanding of the risk from climate change to policy holders, ensures, and the financial system. a second focus area for the federal insurance office is the growing role of alternative asset managers such as private equity firms in the u.s. insurance sector. this evolution is one that our office is highlighted for several years. we warrants increased attention to ensure that regulatory mechanisms are appropriately designed to address the activities and market developments that we outlined in a recent letter to chairman brown. we encouraged him to tenured focus and increase profit by regulators in this area. file will continue to prioritize several areas in research -- for us liquidity risk.

second, credit risking capital adequacy. third, offshore reinjure and -- including the increase interconnectedness of the u.s. and bermuda -- and for, potential conflicts of interest. fio it is also focused on cyber related risk, which is a top priority for the treasury in the entire federal government. has fio been examining insurers -- as well as the development of the cyber interest market. we have increased our data collection in this area with regard to the terrorism risk insurance program, and have supported the development of treasuries -- we are also working with the dhs's cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency in connection with the representation -- so we dress the need for cyber insurance. fio it's also coordinating closely with the office on the -- on these issues. the fourth priority for her fio is a representation of the united states at the austin, close coordination with the and i see, the states, in the federal reserve.

in addition to its focus on climate, private equity, and cyber, the i asked is also focusing on other important topics such as the developments of the insurance capital standard, the related comparability work book of being the -- and the implementation of the holistic framework for the assessments and mitigation of systemic risk. these topics are important global initiatives that will affect the u.s. insurance sector. it is critical for via, and the united states, to remained engaged on these issues. fifth and finally, via's prioritizing his work on diversity, equity, inclusion. consistent with our statutory authorities, fio looks at these issues at the availability of insurance products, particularly for underserved consumers and communities. right now we are working to update our study on personal audio of portability. but these issues are key components of our upcoming climate work. on all these topics and many others final evaluates the clothes --

and frequent coronation whiskey regulators the nfc, our federal partners, and international counterparts as well as with insurance stakeholders. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. thank, you director. thank you director, for files response to my letter earlier this year about private equity, 's insurance sector, you mentioned once that the company transfers its pension obligations, -- guarantee no longer applies participants with protections, you emphasize that, what new problems arise from these practices, where pensions are transferred to life insurers and how do they pose risk to workers, i have three questions, do you have additional concerns for the broader system and its impact? >> thank you for that question. we share your interest in the importance of this topic.

the u.s. insurance sector and particularly the life and retirement sector is critical for millions of working americans that are relying on these products for their retirement security. in our letter we highlighted the four key areas that we are focused on, first enhancing the monitoring of the potential liquidity risk of the entire life insurance sector but in particular to -- regulatory mechanisms and if they are properly designed for issues to credit risk to appropriately regulate this business model. third, we are looking at the offshore reassurance applications, particularly connected as the bermuda and u.s. markets, where certain blocks of business or being transferred offshore. we are also looking at potential conflicts of interest. important issues for our topic and we will be working closely with the naeyc and the states going forward. i look forward to further updating this committee as that work progresses. >> we will ask for that, and my

interest in this issue has increased in part because congress just worked a year ago, worked for several years and was able to fix problems in the multi employer pension system. we know that the human cost had feeling pensions systems, who earned those benefits and had that expectation for a lifetime of work, congress, established, it's imperative that insurers, and we are counting on both of you on this, that ensures not be allowed to do the hit and run around the established insurance. thank you again for being here, i have known from nonprofit associations reaching out to their commissioners in naic about difficulties finding and a farming property, and my question is this, what are the tools available for state insurance commissioners to solve this market failure, and it is a market failure? >> thank you, senator brown for the opportunity, as you know

the naic has long opposed the expansion of the liability risk protection act to allow our are jeez to buy commercial property insurance. it is our sense that commercial property insurance is widely available and we have serious concerns that nonprofits that are already vulnerable could be put at greater risk from a consumer protection standpoint, if they are allowed to purchase their property insurance from a entity that is not subject to the same rigorous standards and multi state enforcement as admitted carriers. which creates an uneven playing field. most states have a residual market for property insurance, including commercial property insurance. i know in my state i have queried our nonprofits and this is not an issue that we see, at least in the state of maryland although commissioners across the country are making similar efforts to look at their markets to see where issues exist and we would be happy to

know and make ourselves available to work at nonprofits that are having difficulty getting commercial property insurance. >> your assessment differs a bit from ours, it's a serious problem that has not been solved in the marketplace in the past, when faced with similar market issues that span the country, congress passed the liability risk protection act, as you know i am working to amend -- community based nonprofits. are you concerned about this gap in the market and ensuring that not all -- >> thank you for that question, it's an issue that we also have been tracking, an area that we have been engaging with, various stakeholders on the topic with regard to their ability to get coverage. i think we will look forward to working with the n a i see as we see this issue. >> we have been working with naic to find a solution, were

square tension proofs are regulated by insurance commissioners under and naic regulation. i want to ask, can we work together to find a solution that responsibly increases insurance capacity for rrg us to address this problem? >> we absolutely want to work together for a solution for nonprofits who need commercial property insurance. >> thank you, for that, and i wanted to ask a third question, i will take time, about climate catastrophe risk. we will submit something in writing, or maybe in part of second round or my colleagues, probably one of them will ask something about that. >> thank you mister chairman. the chairman brought up the circumstances that occur occasionally, where pension risk transfer is occurring, and my understanding is the nature of this, when we are talking about here, is when a company

has a benefit obligation to its retirees, it can purchase an annuity essentially from an insurance company which then transfers the management of this to an insurance company. and as the chairman pointed out in that scenario it's my understanding that the ppe juicy guarantee no longer applies. there are insurance funds. . would i be correct in assuming that the guaranteed funds in various states would be there, to the ability of the insurance companies to honor their contractual obligation to make those payments? >> that is correct. >> and the transfer itself, after the transfer occurs, a risk no longer applies, but the mechanism of the transfer itself is regulated, is that correct? >> a risk no longer applies to

an entity that now bears the risk. what happens is that the pension fund is buying an insurance product, in order to meet those obligations. >> so then it raise an interesting question, in your experience, i would guess that you would probably agree with me that insurance companies, especially life insurance companies, have extensive experience in managing long term liabilities. that is what they do. so the idea of whether they are in a good position to manage the long term liabilities of a defined benefit pension plans suggests to me that they are likely very well suited for managing that task, is that your sense? >> i would agree and i would also point out that they are subject to rigorous financial reporting and, oversight, and life insurance annuity contracts are protected by the state guarantee funds which are themselves noted, that insurance regulators of life -- and more intensive oversight that are applied by pension

regulations to the pension funds themselves. >> there was rigorous regulations who provision that you just alluded to, that doesn't go away if the insurance company happens to be owned by a private equity firm. >> no, absolutely not, if anything private equity funds tend to be subject to strict regulation. >> thank you. director steven seitz, it has come to my attention that there is work being done on an internal briefing memorandum involving private equity insurance, and you may be involved in that, for the international, i lose track of my acronyms here, but it is the iais. is that true? is there such a memo in the works? >> with regard to the

international association of the safety and supervisors, -- a panel discussion on that. and it is, i can't disclose the private conversations but it is one of the deems that we are seeing, in the macro credential work being done. >> are you involved in an effort to make recommendations to the iais regarding private equity's involvement in insurance? >> as part of our work at the -- we are coordinating with the reserve, naic and the states on a variety of issues including work related to capital standards and regarding the holistic framework is adopting. >> you didn't answer my question. are you personally involved in our research or development from animal or an analysis that will include policy

recommendations to the iais regarding private equity and insurance. >> our teams are working closely with the states, -- and one of those topics will be a private equity. >> so you are obviously trying to evade my question. i don't know why it's such a difficult question to answer, let me try it a different way. if there is a memo or a piece of research work that is done and you are involved in it and it is submitted to be iais, do you intend to share that with the committee? >> i think similar to the iais, we value the importance of transparency and we would work with our state and federal partners to make sure that there is appropriate transparency and this will be a topic that will likely be included in our upcoming report to this committee that is issued with the federal reserve board regarding our activities, international supervisory

forms. >> i see i am out of time. >> senator reed from rhode island is recognized. >> thank you mister chairman. thank you madam commissioner and erector. in may of 2020 on -- -- can you explain the cue challenges that gao identified, and to ensure that policies provide appropriate coverage? >> thank you for your question on that topic, we have closely looked at the gao study and contributed to it, and in particular looking at the pricing challenges and increases that have been happening for the sector, additionally, you are seeing some of the carriers withdraw coverage from certain parts of the market. i think in particular, our area of focus for our office as we administer the terrorism risk

insurance program is the extent to which cyber coverages available to small medium enterprises. i think in particular we have collected information for the first time last year, regarding the extent to which smes can access that coverage and that will be a priority for our work going forward. and additionally an aspect of the work that we are doing with cisa regarding the catastrophic -- >> at this point just for clarity, terrorism, terrorist insurance, would that include cyberattacks or is that a function of the type and degree of the attack? >> the terror insurance program does cover -- and with regard to our work in that area, it is something that we have discussed in our prior reports, looking at the certification provisions would apply to cyber offense when you are looking at attribution and elsewhere. >> thank you.

commissioner kathleen birrane and director steven seitz, how are nil and naic directly working, every day there seems to be a new challenge presented by cyber something. this is the beginning, not the end of our discussion. >> thank, you senator, i would say with respect to the naic, the first thing that we have done is develop a cybersecurity supplement by, for insurers annual statement so we can track very closely, and gather information about insurers who are writing cyber insurance collection in the past. to monitor the risk and what is happening in the markets. i think what we can confirm is that, between 2020 and 2021, there was an increase of approximately 75% in direct written premium, but it's very clear that that growth was due primarily to pricing increases rather than additional

coverage. so our data confirms, that along with an increase in the frequency and the severity of cyberattacks, and the number of cyber claims, that are continuing to increase, premiums are going up, limits are going down, it's a much harder, underwriting environment. i would say with respect to the market as a whole we are actively engaged in efforts to look at, what is the appropriate backstop? how do we make sure that there is a robust financing mechanism available even in the event that the insurance market does not have the appetite to cover all of it? >> director steven seitz, any comments? >> i think commissioner kathleen birrane said it well. >> commissioner, you clearly point out the increasing prices of cyber insurance, which obviously affects every business, particularly small business municipalities.

what steps can the state regulators kathleen birrane take to try to reduce those premiums and ensure coverage is available? >> insurance is fundamentally based on risk. pricing is based on risk. insurers and gay on risk pricing, that is what they do. as risks increase, so do premiums and clause. we have switches that we can toggle in terms of opening up markets like the surplus line, market, captive management for certain companies and circumstances. but at some point there are risks that are very high, either too large or they are too volatile. or they are too certain to be able to be as affordable as we would like them to be. i would point out that what we see happening in the work, it tightening of the market, the increasing costs and underwriting standards also creates a discipline. it helps with good cyber

hygiene. part of what it does is asks businesses to, themselves, be more responsible in terms of taking their cybersecurity risks seriously. and as companies pair with insurers to do that, and mitigate and reduce their risk, then that allows their programs to be more affordable. >> thank you very much. >> thank, you senator sherrod brown is now recognized. >> thank you both for being here today. as you are both aware in response to the development of the proposed international capital standard, team usa proposed the aggregation method as an alternative framework. however comments filed in response to, in a recent iais consultation on the proposed criteria to determine the comparability of -- it indicates that the current process may be biased towards the i-cs, and will preclude a

funding of comparability 4 am which we use. could each of you just take a minute and explain why i've euro-centric capital model would have negative impact on consumers access to the u.s. charged products. when assuming that both of you feel that that would be the case. i will begin with commissioner kathleen birrane. >> thank you for the question. the u.s. market includes a number of foreign-owned insurers with u.s. businesses. compare ability would allow a foreign jurisdiction to defer to u.s. capital requirements for that business. it encourages that business. additionally, as u.s.-based insurers seek to operate abroad, it's important that those countries recognize relevant aspects of our system. i would also point out that the cupboard agreements between the u.s., eu, uk, along with our

qualified jurisdiction process, already require jurisdiction. so that process should not really seek to contradict that recognition. >> thank you. doctor steven seitz. i made the assumption but i am assuming that you are in agreement with my statement that we really do want to maintain the current aggregated proposal that we use in the united states today. >> thank you for your question on this issue. it is one that is critically important for the u.s. insurance sector. and it's one that our team has been working on for the last several years in court coordination with the naic, the states and the federal reserve. we believe that we should continue to be part of this conversation, the national, international community is moving ahead, the development of the insurance capital standard and we need to be at the table to improve that methodology so that it is more compatible with our u.s. system. as we discussed earlier, ics does not appropriately reflect

certain aspects of our regime, particularly for those long duration projects which are critical for millions of americans out of retirement and i know that it will be a priority issue for us over the coming months. we look forward to looking closely with the states, naic and the states as we move forward. >> i do believe that the u.s. system of state based insurance is truly the gold standard, when it comes to protecting our insurance markets, in my home state of south dakota, and across the country. commissioner kathleen birrane, do you believe -- has been successful? >> senator brown referred to a ig and i think for those of us who lived through that period of time, the crash of the capital markets in 2008 what we know is that one set of companies that did extremely well where the insurance companies, the carriers that were regulated by the states.

as aig sought to recover, it was those companies, those assets that they were able to sell in order to fund that recovery. the place where state regulation is in place, i think we have demonstrated over time, we talk about life insurance companies and we talk about the safety of life insurance companies, and the solvency of a life insurance company is almost ansa unheard of, and the notion that policyholders in those rare instances, where there have been -- so i think that what the state based regulatory system has proven over and over again, having just throw a pandemic, come through a very difficult environment, on the things that are going on in our society right now, and yet the state -- claims are being paid, so i think it is infinitely clear that the mechanisms at the

state base level are able to protect policyholders and responding quickly to changes in circumstances that weren't additional adjustments. >> i couldn't agree with you more. and i really do believe that congress should allow you and the and i see to do your job and i think it's imperative that congress recognizes >> senator menendez is recognized from his home or office. >> thank you mister chairman. last year i introduced the

clarifying law around insurance of marijuana act have a safe -- without the risk of federal prosecution. this bipartisan legislation was included as a provision of [inaudible] commissioner kathleen birrane, can you describe why we need the safe banking act enacted as soon as possible? >> thank you, as you know the naic does support the safe banking act. insurance legislators support legalized -- require access to insurance to mitigate the risk that they race, like any other authorize business. it would help remove federal barriers for insurers to ensure state legalized cannabis businesses. it's really critical that businesses be able to buy

insurance, be able to pay for that insurance and when claims a car, then insurance companies be able to use the banking system to pay those claims. the safe banking up would allow that to happen. >> i am concerned that businesses that have nothing to do with cannabis could face serious consequences, [inaudible] imagine a scenario where a jury new jersey -- and there is a fire, under current law in the scenario i just described, could the lightbulb manufacture insurance company face federal charges if they paid the claim? >> the challenges that insurance companies have is using the banking system to transfer funds to a cannabis business. we hunter is that that is a circumstance that could be challenging for the light both companies insure and trying to use the banking system to pay

money to the cannabis business. >> the house has passed this bipartisan measure several times and i think it's long past for the senate to do the same. let me turn to pandemic risk insurance. when covid-19 first hit our country in 2020, small business owners discover that policy is excluded claims for viral -- leaving many businesses without relief. instead congress quickly provided on a bipartisan basis, trillions of dollars in aid to help keep small businesses afloat to save jobs. i probably voted for the american rescue plan, critical to our covid response. but we should be planning ahead to better protect our economy from the risk of a new pandemic that could threaten to overwhelm the house system. in today's interconnect of the world, the question of a

pandemic is not if but when. is there still-limited pandemic business interrupted coverage within the market? >> i would say the scope of coverage has certainly not changed, certainly has not expanded. >> so wouldn't business owners, employees and the federal government be better prepared for the next pandemic if congress established a public private insurance solution to provide coverage for pandemic losses? >> i think that business interruption insurance in a circumstance like this is an area where the risk is potentially so large and so uncertain that it is not going to be covered by the private insurance market. in those circumstances the, it's certainly appropriate to discuss what public private partnerships can do in order to make sure that financing is available and that is extraordinary, catastrophic

circumstances. >> i appreciate that. it's critical that we plan ahead for the next pandemic, rather than wait until the next outbreak of the new deadly virus. far from incentivizing lockdowns, what we really need to do is find a way to incentifies businesses to preserve the lessons of covid and accept a level of personal responsibility if they're willing to do so. similarly, i don't know those who would simply wait until a crisis point and have a federal government distribute trillions of dollars instead of working ahead of time to develop a more targeted response to the specific needs of an individual business. that is what i think we should do. finally, last month, fema reported that almost 425,000 in policyholders dropped out of the national flood insurance programs, risk rating to point out took effect. that is nearly 10% of the program. fema originally estimated in a

pest model, that 20% of the holders would drop coverage over ten years. the agency predicted it would take years for 425,000 holders to drop coverage. instead it took eight short months. a majority of homeowners across the country already uninsured against flooding and it's clear that risk rating two point oh is making it worse. i think fema has misled us. i want to work with you, mister chairman to address the bipartisan issue we have, before it gets even worse. >> senator jon tester from montana is recognized. >> i want to thank both of the folks that are here in front of us today for testifying and i want to touch back on cyber a little bit. commissioner, is there anything in washington, d.c., with congress, or that the executive branch needs to do, to deal

with cyber from your industry perspective, or are we okay where we are at? >> senator, are you speaking in terms of the protection gap? >> i'm speaking in terms of the threat, and i will get into the increase in premiums due to cyber, is there anything we need to be doing to put forth some relief? i'm not talking about writing checks out to people, i'm talking about making policies that will make cyber more manageable, cyber threats. >> i think from the perspective of our industry as we are looking at ensuring that there are adequate controls in the insurance industry so that they can withstand potential cyber threats, what the naic has been engaged in, we have developed a model law which states continue to adopt. 80% of the market has adopted, or something to those laws within proof and increase the security of data and the rapid

-ness of notice to insurance commissioners about when there has been a data incident. we continue to strengthen and update our guidance for financial examiners. >> what i'm hearing you say is that between the naic and the state governments that the issue is being handled adequately. >> we believe that we have an adequate framework in place to ensure that insurance companies and data is protected. >> he will have to correct me if i didn't catch this right, but when senator reid was asking questions you said there was a 75% increase in premiums due to cyber. >> on the one hand we talk about what insurance companies are doing to make their data safe. what we talk about then, insurance companies as list financers, so when they sell policies, policies have certainly become more expensive for the businesses that by those policies. >> and that is taking what kind of timeframe? the 75% increase? >> about the course of a year.

one year. >> the ranking member talked about you guys dealing with risk, long term, short term, have you guys done that with issues around climate, let me give you an example. i live in montana, a big state, where i live in montana is dry. a few months ago, you probably heard about the flood that came out of yellowstone park that was a 500-year event. it seems like we are having a 500-year event, hundred your oven, every decade. do you guys take that into account? >> we certainly track very closely the frequency and the severity of perils and claims. so for example in the world of climate we know that weather patterns are changing and that those weather patterns are causing increased claims activity. >> no doubt about that. can you give me an idea just from property damage standpoint

what the increase in premiums have been because of that? >> i have to tell you i don't have the numbers at my fingertips and i'm happy to follow up to give you those numbers but the increases are exponential. we are seeing much larger numbers of claims. weather events are more frequent and severe and -- >> i would love to get those numbers because there are a number of folks in the body in congress that think ignoring climate is something that will make it go away when in fact my experience on a farm in north central montana is that it's not going away. in fact it's getting far worse. last year was the worst crop we ever cut. this year was the second worst crop and i know i look very young but we have been on a farm for 45 years. so it's pretty insane. i want to talk really quickly about narab.

we passed a billion years ago. and quite frankly we still don't have a board. we didn't have it through obama trump, number one, could you just give me the benefits of that narab board? >> i feel like that is an issue that would probably be better briefing you won in terms of the board. but the naic position has been that the board should be created and established. >> can you give me any update on, director steven seitz, give me any update on the status of that board being fully functional? >> thank you for that question, we share recognizing the importance of narab and it's an

issue that we have been meeting with a variety of stakeholders on, particularly in the broker community, to think through that process again. it's an issue that we have been focused on over the last few years, in our office, trying to move that forward. >> and i am way out of time but i would just say, please be aggressive. bounce some people around, do whatever you have to do to get this thing done. i think it would be a win for the consumer, for the industry and a win for the administration. thank you. thank, you mister chairman. >> thank you mr. jon tester, senator william hagerty of tennessee is recognized. >> thank you mister chairman. thank you to our guests for being here today. commissioner kathleen birrane i would like to turn to you. there have been a number of concerns raised about the lack of regulation and transparency with respect to private-owned insurers. i would like to talk to you from a state regulatory standpoint. our insurers that are affiliated with private equity firms treated any differently

than other insurers, and are they somehow able to avoid oversight at the state level? >> no, senator, private equity owed insurers are not treated any differently except to the extent that it has been the common since about 2013 that states have actually imposed greater requirements on firms that purchase insurers. they are generally required to accept different conditions, as a condition of the approval of their investments. their investment in an insurance company. those stipulations are now part of the financial analysis handbook that states use when they assess and request by any entity, to purchase an insurance company. i would also say that more recently, in light of an increase in pe ownership and life insurers and the investments, an investment is

not just made by pe owned insurers but by life insurers generally. -- a 13 specific regulatory iterations that are focused on investment disclosures, owners of collateral, reliance on agencies, fees and pensioners transfer guidance. >> i want to go to the pension risk transfer in just a minute but i want to be clear, you said there are additional regulations, additional layer of regulations in place for private equity owned at the state level. >> that has been -- >> thank you. a process in which a corporation might transfer its tools to insurance companies. what tools do they have to ensure and are they any less safe once it has been moved to a -- >> the insurance regulators have a very robust set of tools

because we are the primary regulators of the financial solvency of insurance companies. our system is designed to avoid failure. our system is designed to have tremendous optics into the financial standing of those companies. we use a variety of tools to that companies maintain the reserves that they need, particularly with life insurers. that have long term risks, annuity obligations, to ensure that they are adequately reserved. we have all of those systems in place. the fact that the p e company owns that insurance company does not change any of that. >> i would not have thought so. i want to stay with you a little bit longer. in may, the national association of insurance commissioners sent a letter to chairman brown responding to several questions that he had posed on the topic of alternative asset management companies on the life insurance sector. in the response they laid out pretty clearly, the state regulators quote possess the tools and resources necessary to address general brown's

concerns. i want to reiterate my support for the role of states as the primary regular for the insurance industry, like any other industry life insurance will continue to evolve. over the long run i'm sure they will provide new and better products. it's clear from this letter that state regulators have the tools they need to continue in this role. would you agree with that? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you. not content with buying hospitals and newspapers and single family homes, retail chains and pretty much everything else under the sun, private equity has now set its sights on a new moneymaker. americans retirement savings. over the past decade, private equity has hoovered up companies that sell life insurance and other products. private equity firms control more than 10% of all life and

annuity assets in the united states. despite having had almost zero presence just over a decade ago. these new private equity owned insurers have developed a particular taste for workers pensions. under the pension risk transfer transaction, private equity giants like paulo are lining up pensions from big players like jcpenney, -- at least 300,000 americans today have pensions that are managed by private equity firms. mr. steven seitz, you run the office inside the treasury department that oversees insurance product. i want to ask you about the safety and of these pensions. let's say someone retired from a company like jcpenney or

al-qaeda, and their pension was transferred over to -- would you say that the retirees pension is just as safe now that it is managed by a private equity owner inshore as it once before >> thank you for that question, we share your view on the importance of this issue, and recognize the importance of pensions to millions of americans that are relying on those for their retirement in a dignified retirement. we are working closely with the naic and there are regulatory considerations as they look at their framework and how the best address not only changes in the ppe sector but as commissioner kathleen birrane mentioned, more broadly with regard to their investment. >> i appreciate that you care about these issues but that is not the question that you asked, that i asked you. i asked you, once that has been a transferred to apollo's

insurance, are the people who are covered, just as secure as they were before the transfer? that's easy, yes or no. >> the individuals, their policies are transferred, covered by the individual state guarantee funds and it's an area of focus for our office to make sure that the state system is being regulated, mechanisms are being designed appropriately to reflect these new transactions. >> i'm still not hearing a yes or no, just to be clear, in a september 2021 report, the federal insurance office which you run, stated that quote p e owners may use investment strategies for their own insurance entities, that have heightened credit and liquidity risk profiles, as compared to other market participants. and quote. and, quote, tend to hold a more significant proportion of investments in alternative or

non traditional insurance assets, that are associated with illiquidity and complexity premiums. and quote. do you still agree with what you said? >> thank you, senator, we have articulated those same points in our letter to chairman brown a few months ago, and it's an issue that we are focused on our office. we appreciate the changing investment portfolio of those companies as well as across the broader -- >> in other words, there is more risk. >> it's an area of increased focus for our office. >> exposing americans retirement savings to more risk is exactly how private equity makes its money. riskier and more complex investments mean that private equity backed insurers can jack up their returns and their short term profits. but the pensions are more vulnerable to be wiped out by a market downturn which endangers

the insurance companies insolvency. this is not hard. this is just how the pieces work. for example, one fifth of the themes portfolio is invested in risky asset backed securities and leverage loans, made to companies that are already highly indebted. and even worse, many of the risky investments are created or managed by the parent company apollo itself. this means that apollo collects fees on the investments that it directed its insurance arm to make this is a problem of more risk and the risk is borne by people who have invested for all their working lives, in their retirement security. i want to underline the word security. my stop wall street looting act

would stop private equity disclosures to empower investors and help regulators crack down on self healing but we also need federal and state insurance regulators to step up and address the risks that private equity poses to pensioners and workers. i appreciate that treasury and the naic are looking at this issue closely but enough study. it is time to act. i am looking forward to working with both of your officers to enjoy that happens. thank you. thank you senator warren, senator jerry moran from kansas. >> thank you. let me start with you director steven seitz. concern has been expressed with you and some of my colleagues with private equity firms, however that term is defined, in a short time horizon, for the investments in insurers and that's maybe willing to engage in risky activities. can you tell me if there are

insurers that have been purchased by private equity that have been sold or up for sale, indicating a quick turnaround? >> thank you, senator, it's an issue that we are closely monitoring. particularly over the last, i think as commissioner kathleen birrane mentioned, we have seen an activity in this area over the past couple of years and particularly for these blocks of business, it's an area that we are continuing to monitor. >> the question, though was are there examples of where insurance companies purchased by private equity are than in a short fashion, sold? >> i don't want to speak to any specific transactions, but generally what we have seen is that they are not making those types of movements that you described. >> thank you. i do want to indicate that my experience in kansas is a pe

firms purchase of insurance companies has turned out to be very valuable to that company. to those companies. and it benefited the company and its employees. with an influx of capital that fueled growth and initial jobs, and helped those insurance companies continue to be in existence and grow their business and their economic activity in our state. and then i was listening on the television about it from my office, about a question that the ranking member asked, it does seem to me this administration is determined to import financial regulations on capital standards from europe, as quickly or as pervasive as they can. my view is that we need, that

we do not need the importation of european policy dictating american business and markets. and that the f-iowa's top priority should be defending american interest system that has worked so well as you indicate, of state regulation over a century. i wasn't quite certain that you had answered senator pat toomey 's question but i would add my thoughts to that topic. thank you. >> thank you, senator jerry moran, senator kyrsten sinema is recognized from her office, of arizona. >> i appreciate this. i want to start by talking to our witnesses about our working group that i convened last year. a bipartisan senate working group with other members of this committee to identify if there was solutions around risk sharing and future pandemics. our goal is to improve the

resiliency of the u.s. economy to other future economic shocks. we want to do this by advancing an insurance framework that brings forth the power of the private sector, finding business owners with choices to buy coverage than aligned with their need and their risk tolerance, that will reduce the price tag of any future pandemic response. i trust some of the -- our response to future pandemics needs to be faster, smarter, and it's important to me that future responses are fiscally responsible as it's clear that the risk of overspending coupled with supply chain disruptions can trigger an inflationary response. senator kathleen birrane, as you know for insurance policies that cover event cancellation and business interruption, virtually all of them including exclusion that exams pandemics from coverage. despite this exclusion i have heard from businesses and insurance brokers alike that event cancellation and business

interruption coverage is extremely difficult to find and it's expensive if you can find it. what do you see in the market for these lines of insurance? >> i think your characterization of the current market condition is correct and i do not see that changing in the near future. i think that there are certain types of risk, that are, as i have said before, too large, too volatile, too certain for the market to be able to absorb them. i >> thank you. our working group is concerned about this because we want businesses to be able to afford the policies they need, for financing, and to responsibly plan for the future. my next question is also for you, commissioner, for a future pandemic, i would like to also see an insurance solution for small businesses so that they can take a level of responsibility that aligns with their risk tolerance. in 2020, some arizona businesses had to wait months

to get their ppp loans and they had to go from bank to bank to access relief. i would rather have a framework where -- where it is affordable to the business owner and the business owner knows exactly how much coverage they are getting. would you agree that a preestablish private insurance policy would generally provide faster and more predictable relief for businesses to plan around? >> what i would suggest is that, the naic has supported the idea of a federal backstop of sorts, with respect to be eye coverage, and certainly it's important that business centers have certainty of what they're coverages are. there are a variety of models that work well when the government and private industry couple together that draws on the strength of government to be able to fund more broadly and the strengths of insurance companies to be able to appropriately under ride and

price and adjudicate claims and assist businesses in adjudication. i would say overall, there is a case to be made for such a partnership. and the model of that partnership is something that the naic does not really have a position on. >> would you agree that the risk management capacities that private insurance brings would be helpful in reducing to waste in a future pandemic? >> i would certainly say that insurance companies, part of what they bring to the table in any circumstance is expertise in underwriting in risk mitigation as well as risk financing and fraud detection. >> thank you. i have a question for you about insurance, more generally. in your experience, regulating insurance companies, when you say that an insurance carrier buries some level of -- that incentivizes them to conduct more robust auditing and risk management since their own capital is on the line? >> i would say that insurance

companies are very, generally very effective at reviewing risks and in helping their insurance to mitigate those risks, so that is certainly part of when you have that, particularly in the property and casualty area, the insurance company often plays an integral role for the process and the pricing process and helping companies to mitigate the risk that they're trying to finance. >> thank you. and finally i will say, we are working to identify a thoughtful and bipartisan federal solution to address this issue and create a smarter response for future pandemics. our working group appreciates the national association of insurance commissioners strong leadership in endorsing a solution in the space and i'm looking forward to working with you another key stakeholders to find a path forward here. thank you mister chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, well --

>> thank you for your work, protecting the interest of maryland and your work at the naic. i want to thank you, naic for helping me and some of my colleagues prepare legislation to protect seniors from financial fraud. the legislation is entitled, empowering states to protect seniors from bad actors act. and it would provide an authorization grant program to the sec, to provide both state securities and insurance regulators with additional resources, to crack down on fraud which we know is a huge problem, three billion dollars a year. least. in financial scams. can you speak briefly to the importance of passing this legislation to protect seniors from financial fraud? >> absolutely. we have been very happy to work with you on that initiative. there is probably, consumer protection is what insurance regulation is all about.

and there is probably no more important an area of consumer protections than assuring that our seniors are not subject to aggressive marketing tactics, another fraudulent practices. it's really critically important that we have all the resources available to assure that we are on the ground, working with seniors directly to be able to prevent them from being caught up in fraud. >> thank, you and i will join -- >> speaking about it quietly. >> i appreciate that. thank you. let me ask you a couple of questions regarding capital standards in the context of climate risk. as you well know an important role of the state insurance regulator is to monitor the capital adequacy of insurers to ensure their ability to pay their claims following

catastrophic events. one of the concerns is that with increasing severity, and frequency of extreme weather events, that the risk based capital models may overemphasize the trends of old or historic data, and not adequately assess newer risk. two part question, what are they doing to ensure the models incorporate the most recent climate data, in order to reflect the true risk, and secondly, from a risk management and capital adequacy perspective how important is it for insurance regulators to have standardized comparable data on climate risk? >> north respect to the first issue i would say, what are solvency is doing and what our recommit-y is doing is working very closely and making sure that our models are accurate and are up today. and we are adding additional

perils to the our bc capital framework to assure that we capture more broadly the various events that can occur. so that is the first thing. secondly, with respect to data collection, the fhfa has a rigorous process of data collection that captures what needs to be captured and that is subject to constant update and improvement. we have both on the individual state level and in the aggregate, through the naic, the ability to capture data in a way that insurance regulators use that data to understand what our claims patterns and where claims are occurring and why, and how, claims are being paid, i did what the impact is, the solvency, the financial status of entities. >> so is there an effort to create some kind of national standard so that states are not using 50 different standards for this purpose? >> there is conversation

through our center of excellence on the development of a single standard, and being able to work through with insurance companies, what would be appropriate in that regard. that is a conversation. that is occurring as to whether a centralized and standardized approach is the one that makes the best sense, but i want to assure you that in the interim, the data collection that occurs around natural disasters i'm in terms of insurance companies, is very robust. >> thank you. mr. steven seitz, i don't know if you want to comment on the two parts of that question. >> i would say we share your view on the importance of consistent, comparable and regular data. particularly far off as we are looking at through the lens of affordability of coverage, particularly in the homeowners business line, there is an area that we see need for national standards and approaches. >> if you could just, we have obviously seen a huge increase in losses, property losses due

to extreme weather events over the last couple of decades. a number of reports. if you can maybe try to quantify for me and the committee, what the increased premiums have been, as a result of increased climate risk, i realize that is an imperfect science, but i would like a ballpark estimate if you could get back to us on that. all right? thank you. >> thank you, senator catherine cortez masto's recognized from her office. >> thank you. thank you to the two speakers today, first, at the very beginning, let me show support for senator menendez line of questioning, same thinking act is about supporting small businesses in this country, the backbone of our economy. and it is bipartisan, as a bipartisan support i think it should be passed, so i hope my colleagues feel the same way.

mr. steven seitz, let me talk to you about the federal bank review that is happening. the fhfa recently announced a thorough review of our nation's homeowner bank system. my first question is, are you aware of the proposed review? and if you are, i really have a question about whether the federal insurance office plan to monitor or participate in the review of federal homeowners banks review is going to happen as well. it was surprising to me to realize that 548 insurance companies are members of the federal home loan banks and that they receive about one quarter of it in advances. i'm curious if the organization is going to be reviewing and following what the fhfa is doing. >> thank you for that question,

the federal home loan banks play an important role in our housing markets and we are very well where in fio that insurance companies, are increasing participants, it's an area that we have been discussing with our colleagues and we look forward to continuing to engage with them, as they begin the review process which has just recently started. >> good, thank you, i hope you do continue to monitor. let me jump to an issue that my colleagues at the talking, about private equity. before we get there, i want to follow up on business interruption insurance. mr. seitz, in 2020 when the covid pandemic first began, my office got calls from business owners who had insurance. they chose policies that included business interruption insurance and they paid their premiums. then, when

the pandemic hit, they had to close down due to a risk of contamination, obviously. but they were not covered. so, i guess my question to both of you is, and you talked a little bit about, it is there -- is a feasible for insurance companies to provide pandemic insurance? that's one. but then to, when it comes to private equity, miss birrane, let me ask you this. because you talked about, in particular, the transfer of ownership, risk, from private equity to insurance companies. one of the things you identified was that there are certain types of risk that are too large and too volatile for the market to absorb them. but you don't feel that way about private equity. as they come in and purchase so many of them -- unfortunately, insurance companies have so many assets. i know i'm conflating two questions, but they are similarly related.

this is a concern. if insurance companies are not covering the risk when there's a pandemic, even though companies are paying for it, if there is some risk related with private equity and there is, god forbid, some disaster economically, can we guarantee that that coverage will exist by insurance companies as well? is there a correlation between the two? do you not see that, or do you feel that protections have been put in place? as you say, miss birrane, by the naic docking these new regulations when it comes to private equity. maybe let's start with you. >> sure, what i would say is, let's think about this as a matter of contract. when you think about the business interruption insurance that was baked into policies that were purchased by businesses, those contract terms actually, for the most part, exempted business

interruptions that were caused by things like contamination. that would fall within a pandemic. or that didn't result from a physical covered payroll. from a contract perspective, those gaps in coverage were baked into the policies. and unfortunately, many business owners were not as aware that those limitations existed. if we look at private equity, as a general matter, i would come back to the notion that the private equity firm as an owner of the insurance company does not run the insurance company in the same way. insurance companies are subject to set a very clear rules and guidelines around what insurance companies can do. from the kinds of investments they can make to the credit they get for those investments, to the risk based capital standards that are in place. none of those are different because the owner's private equity. so, we continue to monitor and regulate the performance of the company

regardless of the ownership. so, hopefully, that helps contrast those two circumstances. >> so, i know my time is running out, thank you for that. that's very helpful. but director seitz, do you feel the same way with respect for private equity companies? that they could be adequately protected by these 30 new regulations that naic has adopted? >> we appreciate the importance of retirement security products for millions of americans. we are working closely with the naic and the states as they develop the regulatory considerations. as our letter noted to chairman brown, there are certain areas of focus for our office. also, they extend to the life insurance act or more broadly, irrespective of the business models as well. >> thank, you mister chairman. my time is up. appreciate it. >> thank you, senator cortez

masto. thanks commissioner and director, both of you, for answering questions forthrightly and being here today. and especially for your public service. i'd like to submit for the record the testimony of colleen rideout, a retiree from quest of the northwestern telephone company. a member of the communication workers of america, whose pension is now administered by a feed. four senators wished his amid questions for the record, those questions are due one week from today, thursday, september 15th. you'd be getting. goes to the witnesses, please submit your responses to questions for the record 45 days, no more than 45, days from the day you received them. thank you again, with that, the hearing is adjourned.

the january six committee returns wednesday for its ninth hearing ahead of the release of their written report. expected by the end of the year. you can watch the hearing live, beginning at 1 pm eastern on c-span 3. c-span now or anytime on demand at c-span.org. c-span shop dot org as c-span's online store. browser our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit

operations. shop now or anytime at c-span shop dot org. live, sunday, on in depth. author, tv host and aprons media founder and ceo dan abrams will be our guest. -- and the american legal system today. he's the author of several books, including lincoln's last trial, kennedys adventure, about the trial of jack ruby, and his latest, alabama versus getting. martin luther king junior and the criminal trial that launched the civil rights movement. join in on a conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets for dan abrams, live sunday at noon eastern on in depth on book tv on c-span two. child labor experts and advocates testified on child labor laws and requirements on farms. the testimony comes as lawmakers examine ways to improve safety conditions for use who work on farms around america. >> today, we are

meeting to examine workplace protections for child farmworkers. today's hearing represents the third in a series to his spotlight workers who are all too often overlooked, neglected and exploited. these hearings have been intended to lift these workers up and champion their causes. each day, hundreds of thousands of, children many of whom come from low income migrant families, risk their health and well-being while working on farms across the country. child farmworkers should be able to rely on the basic workplace protections that are standard for other child workers. unfortunately, our nation's labor laws have left these child workers behind. while the fair labor standards act provides labor standards and protections for

children in the workforce, children working in the agricultural industry are either excluded from many of these protections or provided weaker protections. for example, unlike other industries, child farmworkers can be assigned hazardous jobs you. duties, from the age of 16. and they can work full-time with parental permission during non-school hours, as young as ten years old. and they're not guaranteed overtime pay, allowing them to generally work longer, more grueling hours compared to other child workers. additionally, supervisors often provide little to no training, leaving children to manage heavy machinery pesticides and even matches without guidance. as 1:14-year-old child farmworkers said, when you are cropping do with the machete, they say oh, be careful to not hurt

yourself. but that's basically it. another child farmworkers, said none of our bosses have ever told us how we can protect ourselves. our nation has titles back on child farmworkers, and the results are devastating. reason study showed, among latino farmworkers in north carolina, that 70% of children were exposed to harmful pesticides in the field. another study of child farmworkers or north carolina found that nearly 50% of children suffered from heat related illnesses. and between 2003 to 2017, child farmworkers accounted for over 50% of all work related child fatalities, despite making up only about 5% of all child workers in the country. child farmworkers are

frequently underpaid for the dangerous work they perform. all they are legally entitled to the minimum wage, employers often withhold wages by under reporting hours. children are also regularly required to purchase their own equipment, undercutting they're already meager income. the long hours and demands of farmers also result in high school dropout rates that are four times the national average. as we all know, without a diploma, those in poverty can become fully entrenched in a cycle of poverty. as lawmakers, we have a responsibility to protect all child workers, no matter where they live. and ensure that each of them has the opportunity to achieve their dreams. to that end, i applaud our colleague, congresswoman all learned of california, for her long-standing leadership on this issue. she's a sponsor of

hr 70 3:45, the children's act for responsible improve employment and farm safety of 2022. the care act of 2022, which i'm also our co-sponsor of. a bill that would prohibit any industry from employing workers who are under the age of 14. it protects children from harmful pesticides and repeal the waiver that allows children under the age of ten to seasonally handpick crops. it would also require employers to report injuries to the department of labor and increase penalties for employers who violate f l s a this legislation will go a long way to ensure that children working in agriculture are similarly protected to children working in other industries. so, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working with my colleagues to protect our child. now for an opening statement, mr. keller. >>

agriculture provides opportunities for young people in rural areas across our country. as a, nation we should be encouraging more young americans to pursue a career in farming, not just discouraging them.. today, the average age of a farm worker is nearly 60 years old. this could cause massive problems in agriculture industry in just a few years. the title of today's hearing, make sure i get this right, children at risk examining workplace protections for child farmworkers. children at risk. in america, it's because of policies like an open border where fentanyl comes across. it kills our youth. where we have massive inflation at a 40 year high, record high gas prices so parents can't afford to things to take care of their children. children are at risk from this spending in washington, d. c. that we've seen happening over

the past few years. under one party rule from the democrats and the biden administration. children are risk of future opportunities, because i have to pay back that money. what we want to do here is villainize america's farmers. as a young child, i worked on a farm. i was 14, 15 years old, i helped bail hey and do chores on the farm. and you, know as far as farmers saying go run dangerous equipment, that didn't happen. farmers don't want people hurt, it troubles me were having these hearings when secretary waltz was before the committee. and i asked, him i asked him three times, in my experience and working in a factory and working on a farm. it's that the people who own that business cared. they cared about my well-being. and it took me several tries to get

him to admit that he believed the same thing. he said he would like to. when we have policymakers that look at americans, that produce our food, as bad people, i really wonder what's at risk here. i learned a lot of things farming, i learned things important me as a youngster. learn to drive, a lot of things, i learn things that benefited me later in life. like a work, ethic had a problem, solve how to do a lot of things. that's what i learned. i'm reminded of a thing said by paul harvey, used to be a radio personality, host, he had a show. and he would talk about things. one thing he said in 1970, a i'm going to read it for the committee. on the eight-day, god looked down on his plan paradise and said, i need a caretaker. so, god made a farmer. god said i need somebody willing to get up

before dawn, were milk cows, were called in the fields, motels again, eat supper, then go down to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board. so, god made a farmer. i need somebody with armstrong enough to wrestle a calf, yet gentle enough to -- someone to calm hogs, team can tankers machinery, have lunch until his wife's done visiting ladies, tell the ladies to come back real soon and mean it. so, god made a farmer. god said i need somebody willing to set up all night with the coal, watch it, i dry his eyes and say maybe next year. i need somebody who can shape and acts from a person branch, syria horse with a, tire made feed sacks out of shia scraps and do planning time and harvest season while finishing his 40 hour week by tuesday noon. then paint him from tractor back put in another 72 hours, so god made a farmer. i've had have somebody willing to write it double speed to get the hay and ahead

of the rain clouds, yet stop in midfield and race to help when he sees the first smoke from the nearest place. so, god made a farmer. god said, i need somebody strong enough to clear trees and hay bales. yet gentle enough to tame lands and we need pigs and tend -- who will stop his mower for an hour to split the broken leg of a metal with line. somebody who can plow deep and straight and not cut corners. somebody to cede, we'd, feed and breed, rake and disk, plow and plant anti the fleece and strain the middle and replenish the silt and finish a hard work week with a five mile drive to church. someone who had bail a family together with a soft, strong bonds of sherry. who would laugh and then tsai and then reply was smiling eyes when his son says he wants to spend his life doing what that does. so,

god made a farmer. i worked on a farm. and i know how much the person that later became my stepdad after i got married carried about other people, cared about me coming to help on his farm as a kid from town. i tell you, what i just want to say thank you to my stepdad for caring, for loving me and teaching me so many valuable lessons of how special it is to be in the united states of america. and we should be focusing on the issues i mentioned first, that are putting our children at risk. which is an open border where fentanyl is pouring across, killing young americans. where parents can't afford to buy things for their kids because we're dealing with record high inflation, high gas prices. and where they're gonna have to pay back this debt. if we want our kids to have a better off than we, did those are the things we should be focused, on a yield back. >> thank you to the

ranking member, thank you very much. without objection, all other members who wish to insert written statement into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically, in microsoft word format, by 5 pm, september 21st. i will now introduce the witnesses. miss margaret wurth is a senior children's rights researcher at human rights watch. this wurth is an expert on child agriculture labor policy, and advocate for stronger protections for child agricultural workers. doctor barbara c lee is a director at the agricultural center for rural health and safety. and a senior research scientist at the marshaled clinic research institute. doctor lee is an expert on the child agriculture safety issues, and we'll share the realities of the dangers and the hazards facing children in agricultural settings. miss

christie boswell is a counsel at the law firm of all stun and bird. miss boswell has extensive experience in agriculture labor policy. she previously served in the united states department of agriculture during the trump administration, and was also the director of congressional relations for the american farm bureau federation. miss norma flores lopez is a committee chair of the child labor coalition, a former child worker herself. miss flores lopez knows firsthand the dangers of agricultural labor and is a leading advocate for stronger protections for child farmworkers. to the witnesses, thank you very much for participating today. we look forward to your testimony. but let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written

statements, they will appear in full in the hearing record. pursuant to committee rule eight be in the committee practice, each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a five minute summary of your written statement. before you begin your testimony, please remember to and mute your microphone. during your testimony, staff will be keeping track of time. and the timer is visible to you at the witness table. so, please be attentive to the time, wrap up when your time is over. and re-mute your microphone. we will let all the witnesses make their presentations before we move to member questions. when answering a question, please remember to unmute your microphone. the witnesses are aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. and therefore, we will proceed with their testimony. i will first recognize miss wurth. i miss wurth, you are now recognized

for five minutes, ma'am. >> thank you, chair adams, chair scott, ranking member keller and distinguished members of the committee. for the opportunity to testify today about the urgent need for congress and president biden's administration to strengthen u. s. labor law and regulations to protect children from hazardous work in agriculture. i'm a senior researcher at human rights watch, and international human rights organization. since 2000, human rights watch has reported on the dangerous conditions children face while working on u.s. farms. my colleagues and i have interviewed hundreds of child farmworkers and published their accounts in fort detailed reports. many of them worked 12 or 14-hour days on firearms in punishing heat, without sufficient breaks or hydration. most had received no safety training or protective equipment, even though they used sharp tools and heavy machinery and climbed to dangerous heights and on ladders and in farms, with

nothing to protect them from falling. many were exposed to toxic pesticides. and on tobacco farms, children face the added risk of being exposed to nicotine, a narrow toxin. more than two thirds of the 133 child farmworkers we interviewed for our 2014 report described experiencing nausea, vomiting, headaches and dizziness while working with tobacco plants. all symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning. u.s. laws and policies governing child labor and agriculture are far too weak. they are also glaringly out of step with international human rights standards. agriculture is the most dangerous industry in the u.s. for child workers, yet long-standing loopholes and law regulations allowed children to work from younger ages and a longer hours and farms than on any other sector. under the fair labor standards act, flsa, children as young as 12 can work on limited hours on farms of any size with parental permission, as long as they don't miss school, there is no minimum wage age for children work on small farms or family

farms. 16 is a basic minimum age for employment, and employing children younger than 14 is prohibited. the fair labor standards act also allows children work to get agriculture to do work that the u.s. department of labor has determined it's particularly hazardous, at younger ages than any other working children. child farmworkers can do these hazardous occupations that age 16, while in all other sectors workers must be 18 to do hazardous work. for example, workers at a deli counter cannot use a meat slicer until they're 18. but in agriculture, children at 16 can use power driven circular saws. despite these, dangerous the department of labor has not updated the list of hazardous agricultural of reparations it's 1970. for example, children under 16 can work at heights up to 20 feet without any fall protection. by contrast, in the construction sector, employers must ensure

fall protections for any work over six feet. 20 years ago, the national institute for occupational safety and health recommended updating the hazardous occupation orders for both agricultural and non agricultural jobs. in 2011, d. o. l. proposed updating the list for hazardous occupations, but it withdrew the proposed rules in 2012 in response to misguided -- the list of hazardous occupations for non agricultural work was updated in 2010. we strongly urge this committee to press the administration to make this in an urgent priority, and we recognize that several matters of the committee joined a congressional letter to secretary marty walsh, urging d. o. l. to update this 50 year old list. throughout history, the united states has exploited the labor of black, indigenous, latinx and other people of color and their children in agriculture. the child labor exemptions that we need in u. s. law regulations for agriculture are part of this

racist legacy and disproportionately harm children of hispanic origin in the u.s., who make up the vast majority of child farmworkers. this congress has an opportunity to make long overdue changes to u.s. labor law. the children's act for responsible employment and farm safety, the care act, sponsored by representative allard and co-sponsored by many members of this committee, would give child farmworkers the same basic workplace protections that other working children enjoy. it would eliminate work by 12 year olds and raise the basic minimum age for agricultural work to 14. another important, bill the children don't belong on tobacco farms act, sponsored by david cicilline and dick durbin, would prevent children under 18 from working with tobacco. i urge this committee to work to pass both of these important bills, and also to use its discretion and authority to urge d. o. l. to update the list of hazardous agriculture occupations. farmworkers have

equal right to protection under the law. existing child labor laws are woefully out of date and put child farmworkers and unacceptable risk. congress should act swiftly to ensure that all working children are protected equally, thank you. >> thank you, thank you very much. doctor lee, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman adams and ranking member taylor for addressing this important issue. my comments are based on the 35 year career dedicated to improving the health and safety of children younger than 18 years, who live and or work on our nations 2 million farms and ranches. agriculture remains one of the most dangerous industries in our country and, despite considerable progress in the last 30 years, far too many young people suffer health conditions and injuries associated with farm work. at the same time, we know that

appropriate supervisory work for young people offers valuable experiences and perspectives, as a later become productive contributors to our society. our team here in marshall wisconsin spearheaded the 1996 national action plan for protecting children in agriculture, endorsed by congress and launching a major initiative led by the national institute for occupational safety and health, niosh. and a 2007, we helped create the agricultural safety and health consoled of america, or africa, to increase collaboration between agriculture safety researchers, educators and aggro business leaders. although this committee is addressing working used, excuse me, please keep in mind that more than two thirds of injuries and desecrated non working children. certainly, they all deserve protection from their parents, guardians

and our work supervisors, with public policy playing a key role. regarding occupational injuries, the simple fact is that agriculture has the leading number of deaths across all industries for workers younger than 16. and the numbers are even more startling for workers younger than 14, with about a dozen dying on the job each year. four non fatal work related injuries, about 2900 farm use and 750 hired u. s. are seriously injured each year. most common sources of injuries and deaths are tractors and work vehicles such as atvs and get steers. other possibilities our livestock. in addition to injuries, youth workers also face health risk. most notably, there are respiratory exposures from organic dusts, pesticides, cleaning agents and toxic gases. and there is no question that climate change is having negative impacts on farm work

and will likely intensify in the future. with conditions such as high heat and extreme weather storms. additional concerns are infections related to animals, insects and rodents. plus, noise induced hearing, was skin cancer, muscular skeletal disorders and mental health. and all of these diseases and injuries can have lifelong implications for young, developing bodies and minds. so, changes and public policy need to account for our nation's agricultural landscape. because traditions, values and expectations differ from urban settings. rural communities comprise 14% of our population and the rates of poverty, food insecurity and lack of health care insurance is about 20% higher than urban areas. these are factors of influence with adults decisions about youth work. so, public policy can and prove protections for youth working in agriculture by one,

raising the minimum wage for hired workers from 12 to 14 years. two, updated the hazardous occupation orders and agriculture, consistent with work practices, technology and science. noting that this must occur in partnership with representatives of agribusiness, farm organizations and youth serving groups. and third, training and encouragement should be provided to local public agency such as child wear fair services and district attorneys, to intervene in cases where young people, whether hired or family members, are endangered to farm work that compromises their overall safety and well-being. there are untapped, exciting and safe opportunities for young people to have positive work experiences in the expanding realm of global agriculture. what we need now is the political will to make these opportunities a reality. thank you. >> thank you very much,

doctor lee. miss boswell, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> tillman, adams ranking member, colored members of the subcommittee, thanks for having me today to talk to agriculture. for over, decades african agricultural policy and law, i'm currently council at all student bird law firm. i served as senior adviser to secretary of agriculture, sunny purdue. before, that i was at the american farm bureau federation. and all of these positions, my portfolio has included agricultural labor and farm safety issues. let me begin by noting that i'm testifying today in my personal capacity and not on behalf of any client. i was one of the young people that we are here to talk about today. i grew up on a multi generational family farm in rural nebraska. i worked side by side with my dad and my mom and my two older

sisters. and the first to admit that farm work is hard, it is dirty, it's hot and it's sometimes dangerous. i drove tracker just with tables in the harvest, i rode horses, i corralled cattle, i've had bucket calves and i fixed down fence. i cut and sprayed we'd. to, some these tasks may seem unfamiliar or scary or even unsafe. but to me, they are completely second nature. we can all agree, it is critically important to ensure that anyone working in agriculture is safe. farmers are committed to offering jobs that are skill level appropriate we'll still giving people invaluable hands on experience. farmers don't want anyone to get hurt, and they work very closely with their local f a chapter, extension officers and safety experts to provide practical educational experience in a controlled environment like farm safety days. but also,

farmers guide their employees to safely perform their jobs in a work environment. i hope we can also agree that giving young people job opportunities to build responsibility and develop life skills is incredibly important. in many farming communities, the only job available as working for that local farmer. that hands on experience gets young people excited about agriculture. farming is not for the faint of heart, it takes substantial capital investment, acceptance of risk and grit. it is a dedication that can only be cultivated by being engaged at a young age. with the average age of a farmer being nearly 60 years old and the need to feed an ever growing population, it is critical now more than ever that our policies develop our next generation of farmers and ranchers, rather than discouraging but. unfortunately, hr 70 3:45 fails to balance the mutual goal of safety with the need to provide youth experience and agriculture. the bill completely restrict parental discretion and restricts the types of jobs

that youth can do on the farm. it has an arbitrary age threshold for when youth are ready for a type of, work completely ignoring their own individual experience and maturity level. past regulatory proposal such as the one that we saw from the department of labour during the obama administration were misguided and overreaching. severely neighboring the parental exemption and opportunities for student learning. plus, designating everything from milking a cow tuesday night on a six foot ladder as hazardous. i understand but sponsors of i h. r. 7345 do not intend to limit exemptions for family farms and student loan or programs unfortunately, despite these agitations, the farming community has very little confidence that any new regulatory proposal would not dramatically impact the ability to work on family farms or in programs, through programs, like f f a and for age. working

on a farm gave me a deeper thick work ethic, appreciation and respect for agriculture that brought me here today. i was fortunate to have been born on a family farm. however, many are not. including my nieces and nephews. under h. r. 7345, my nieces and nephews would not be able to two tasks at 13, 14 to spite their parents knowing they're mature enough to handle the job. if the 2011 regulatory proposal had not been defeated, my 18 year old nephew, who plans to farm, would not have been able to work on my dad's farm as he has the past six years. they are the next generation of farming. but we must not curb curb their enthusiasm by saying you can't do this. instead, let's find a way to say, let me teach you how to do this safely. i hope that today's hearing could be the start of an ad foreign policy discussion that balances safety and recognizes the value

of hands on experience anthony to encourage participation and agriculture for the future of global food production. i appreciate the opportunity to testify and look for to answering your questions. thank you very much. thank you, miss -- from mrs. lopez. you have five minutes. >> thank you chair adams, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of child labor in agriculture and a lack of basic protections for charred farmworkers. i'm joining you today from the rio grande valley in south texas. home to thousands of migrant workers who travel across the country to harvest fruits of vegetables americas appreciate every day. each year, my family pack all of our belongings into a pick up truck and headed up north indiana, michigan, colorado and iowa to work in corn in asparagus fields, apple orchards, and packing houses. looming over our two-day journey tire blowouts, bad

weather, and tragic accident. our loud road trip ended in dilapidated in crowded housing in isolated rural communities with the promise of backbreaking work ahead. this way of life was my parents inheritance from their parents. in turn they passed down to me in my four sisters. a life of survival and hard work, low wages, a lack of protection and unfulfilled promise. my father and mother, both u.s. born children were pulled out of school at a very young age and tasked with helping their desperately poor families by working on american forms. together they have over 100 years of experience in agricultural industry with no economic security or retirement to show for their decades of toiling in the fields. i was destined to be tracked in the same generational cycle of my parents and grandparents. by the age of nine, i work apple orchards alongside my parents in the peace ring system that encourages as many hands as possible to harvest while hiding child labor violation in which the. and each 12, i was

then legally permitted to work and-limited ourselves at a school. this meant 10 to 12-hour days, 70s week at times working for weeks straight with no days off during peak harvest. i was expected to keep up with adults and often push myself beyond my limits while performing dangerous and backbreaking work with corrupt tools in 100-degree weather. processes such as bathrooms and clean drinking water were not always guaranteed. neither was safety training or equipment. these were the everyday dangers considered to be inherent to the industry. my parents tried to keep me safe, but i learned very quickly that this was not within their control. for our family to stay employed and housed we needed everyone to perform the type of work, the number of hours and the locations that were set by the labor contractors at all times. we were subjected to sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and we need to work under dangerous conditions with no recourse. we were reminded daily that we

were disposable. how are our dismissal would be of no consequence of the farm operations. to believe that we needed them more than they needed us. it was our desperate poverty and the total control over us, bolstered by the lack of oversight that are still commonplace today that makes exploitation in agriculture so prevalent. it is why you have the same people in power keeping this system in place today. even though i have not worked in the fields in 20 years i still live with the long term health consequences such as cancer alzheimer's and parkinson's disease which are linked to the billions of pounds of chemicals that are used on farms every year. the work i did under those conditions was not good for me for vocational training. instead of teaching me valuable life lessons to help me succeed, it attacked my health and created barriers to manage occasion. as a migrant i attended two or even three schools in different states each school year. the disruptions had me constantly playing catch-up and kept me

from participating in extracurricular activities. i struggle to keep migrates up, at time being failed in the course of my first day of class. my parents, who only had an elementary school education and spoke no english, did not have the ability to help me and the resources were not always available. through tremendous sacrifice of my family, i graduated high school and eventually are my masters degree. however, the majority of farm children did not even graduate high school. the dropout it four times the national average. i am not alone. these are the same heard experiences from my parents and grandparents. also heard from other from work or youth i've met throughout my career. it is the experience of approximately 300,000 farmworker children today. each of them of life, a person, a part of the community. what would be even more heartbreaking is if china -- choosing to do nothing, it will be the same experience as you will hear from children 20 years from now. the data clearly shows that agricultural exemptions from the u.s. labor law as to the detriment of child farmworkers of which the

majority or u.s. citizens. the care act, sponsored by representative ballard and co-sponsored by many members of this committee would give children working in agriculture in the same workplace protection that every other working child is provided. the bill will protect 12-year-old from exploitation and raise the basic minimum age of agricultural work to 14. it will ensure that 14 fraternal children do the work that is not requiring them putting their education, health, or even their life at risk. thank you. thank you very much. under committee rule nine a, we will now question witnesses under the five minute rule. i will be recognizing some committee members in seniority orders. again to ensure that the five minute rule isn't here to, staff will be keeping track of time. please be attentive to the time, wrap up on your time is over and re-mute your microphone. as chair i now recognize myself for five minutes. dr. li, what is your

knowledge of legal consequences for having adult high risk jobs, such as working inside of grain bins or hauling hay wagons behind a tractor on a bumpy road? >> wow, that is a good question for me because our team is currently conducting research on this topic we have searched for legal cases over the last five years. interestingly enough there has only been 12 completely cases where a criminal charge was filed. of these, only one was of a higher teenage farmworker. what we are funding is public officials, such as child protective services nda say, this is just farming. we are gonna leave them alone. to me this is a double standard. kids on farms get a few were legal oversight protection from -- then their city friends. what is most commonly seen's young children or children put in a

situation where they are expected to conduct work, they are just in the worksite. these are just some of the bad apples where they are misusing their kids having them work in inappropriate situations. we do not believe charges like jail time or penalties like that are needed. what we would really like to see happen more often's parents or supervisors are held accountable. they are expected to improve safety conditions on a farm. they might have to take parenting classes or safety classes. what we want to see is behaviors and practices change that are right now putting some of these kids into very dangerous situations. >> thank you, thank you. how can we ensure that smaller family farms can be exempt from any proposed regulatory changes were standards, while still

receiving the proper training and indication to protect young workers? >> that is hard because we really cannot ensure any type of voluntary work safety training. there are many challenges to implementing a national program unless there is some kind of incentive or penalties for not doing it. we know that the usda has funded several initiatives to put on national programs. they are not always available. partly because of funding or personnel are center here in marsh field has been fortunate in that we have received federal funding to develop work guidelines, voluntary work outlines. there weren't as youth guidelines they are available online there available on google maps they help parents or adults match the work with the skills and the abilities of their children. not everybody has access to these. they don't all know about them. education alone will not do it. we really need to have behavioral changes beyond educating the youth. >>

all right, thank you ma'am. miss worth, can you expand on how the current agriculture exemption for child labor and the fair labor spanned index disproportionately impacts children of color? >> absolutely the majority of the children that are working that have zero to no control over there were conditions, the parents not have the work conditions of children who look like me. if you hear about the experiences that are detrimental or dangerous were terrible to my well-being and my future it was children that look like me back when the fair labor standards act was set it was children that were black being exploited out in the fields and made to work for very very low wages today it is very much the same conditions but the differences now we are exploiting that latinos and the migrant communities coming into the u.s. they do not have any recourse. they do not

understand the language. they are isolated in rural communities. they do not understand how they can reach out and asked for help. those are the same conditions i saw myself and other people that looked like me. i would work alongside kids who were white, in the community they were white and they hosted english. the treatment was night and day. the fact is the law permits them to treat me terribly while allowing children that are white, of the community, sitting next moment out in church to be treated very differently than people like me. we need to make sure that we are protecting all children, not just being okay to cases of white kids in the community are protected while migrant kids are left to be exploited. >> thank you very much. thank you both for your testimony. i'm going to yield back. now i'm going to recognize ranking member for the purpose -- [inaudible] --

house democrats sent a letter to agriculture secretary waltz asking him to implement a rule implemented from the obama to youth employment on family farms. in 2012, the d. o. l. withdrew the past rule, the proposed rule after farmers across the country, democratic and republican members of congress, and other government officials raised substantial concerns. what were some of the concerns with the 2011 proposed rule? >> thank you for the question. the proposal under the obama administration was completely misguided. it made broad sweeping changes that completely blindsided the agricultural industry. it was at the american farm bureau administration at the time. there was no discussion before that proposal came out with the ag industry or engagement with anyone who would have firsthand experience with farming practices. while saying that it

protected the family form exemption, it is completely false. the in the proposed language-limited the structure so that if i worked on my dad's farm if the farm wasn't llc, i no longer could work as if the legal structure in today's farming made any difference of my dad's care about my health and safety. also, i mentioned my nephew in my testimony. he lives five miles from my dad's farm. he has worked with my dad, again hopes to be a former. under that proposal because he did not live with my dad for 30 days, at least, he would not be covered under parental exemption. similarly with the student learner exemptions, it-limited and restricted which of the hazardous occupations the student learner exemption applied to. basically only done providing that learning ability for driving a tractor, there was an exemption for elevations above six feet, handling

animals, an example that this restricted many fa students by animal, cattle, they take care of that herd. including their health and vaccination schedule. they wouldn't be able to do that in that learning program. then it did. it expanded the hazardous occupations. you couldn't drive a tractor of any size. you could not operate power driven equipment, including lawnmowers. fixing offense near livestock, corral-ing livestock, being in any animal pan which will have an unprintable animal behavior. frankly this proposal would simply be revived without having an informed discussion with farmers and ranchers who want to be at the table, it would be met with vicious opposition. there is a healthy dose of skepticism that the promises of keeping the family farm intact with those

exemptions would hold true. again, there is room conversation but just reviving that bronze friedman proposal would have dramatic impacts on agriculture as we know a. >> yeah, i think it would probably negatively impact the 4h who raise livestock. the u. s. last across county affairs and a livestock -- i see how kids raise those animals. clean the pen, they have to go in and be able to care for the animals. i think that will probably impact that also, wouldn't it? >> it was. it's not just showing up for the county or state fair. there is work that goes into that all through the summer in spring. i should pigs at the fair. we purchase the pigs i was in charge of feet of them cleaning out their pens i was in charge of taking care of them! that was part of the work that was being performed. if not done with proper information it would certainly limit those opportunities for 4h and ffa students to interact with the livestock that they prepare for the fair. >> thank

you. another thing, today we are discussing the health and safety of young people working in agriculture. as i said at a recent hearing, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room, which is president biden's border crisis is a man made disaster. illegal aliens and floods of flooding the country at record levels with no end in sight. the open border has also endanger the health and safety of young people under 18 years old who are trying to cross the southern border. would ending the border crisis, stopping illegal immigration, and building the wall help alleviate danger posed to health and safety of young people who've been encouraged across the border by the button mysteries an open border policy? >> i agree that addressing border security will help alleviate the dangers that are being inflicted on vulnerable young people that are crossing

the border. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you mister color. i want to recognize the gentleman from mr. norcross from new jersey. >> thank you chairman lemon i certainly appreciate you holding the meeting. yes, new jersey. the garden! today i spent my summers on the farm but it was with my relatives in tennessee. you are absolutely right, it is amazing what you learn as a young person. i certainly appreciated that. we just came off labor day. we have been celebrating this for over 100 years. peter jay maguire, the founder of labor day, one of his hallmarks was to create a weekend -- back then it was actually one day off. we now have the weekend with two days off. the other thing was the exploitation of child labor. trying to put the brakes on that. as we know looking back in our industrial revolution children were exploited. there

is no question about that, it is a fact! it is not up for debate. why do you want to command ranking member color for talking about the worth of the agriculture industry. yes, yes, yes! absolutely! i encourage more people to get involved. the one thing we do know, and i grew up in a slightly different area and that was the construction industry, very hazardous. very dangerous. no shot has saved countless lives. one thing more hazardous thing construction is agriculture. we know that. the figure speak for themselves. it is incredibly dangerous. quite often you are out alone a tractor flips, a piece of equipment you get stuck, the rest is, as a say, history. one of the things i found interesting from some of the opening remarks is salt protection. recently, in the last decade, full protection has come down from a six -- unfortunately, as a young electrician buried and apprentice who fell off a

letter from just seven feet. the idea that it's okay to put 20 feet without fall protection in agriculture just seems counterintuitive to everything we know. when you fall, gravity doesn't know that you're on us for more on a construction site. if it's okay to save peoples lives in construction, why do we have a different standard for agriculture? i mean these are common themes i think we should come together on. directly, can you explain why there are two standards? like somehow gravity on a form is different than a construction site? if we can save people on a construction site, why do we have 20 feet in agriculture? can you into that for me, please? >> i think

there has always been this farming exemption, osha standards have not always applied on farm. you have to have ten or more employees for the standards to apply. kids are kids, bodies are bodies. as you said there is no difference. sometimes it is even worse falling from a silo onto a concrete platform. yes i really believe that the hazardous occupation orders need to be clear. they need to keep in mind what is appropriate for young children, especially. thank you, yes! bring the farmers in and have a discussion on this. these are things that have been argued for years. we made the changes, they have saved lives! we are not trying to beat up on the farmers. they are the backbone of this country. the idea that this -- children are making more risk because they are on a farm interest doesn't play in common sense areas. the parents are there for you, yeah we get

the. they can help you. the idea that we, as a society, have put rules and regulations in place for children being abused while parents make that decisions at times. just because you're on a farm doesn't mean you can't make a band session. we need to come together on this. this is not good versus evil. this is common sense trying to save kids lives. the idea that you might have a 12, 13 or 14 -- i think it is open for discussion. having a ten year old go to work climbing a 20 foot ladder? that is a potential extreme but the highest fatalities for children under 16 happen on forms. that is a fact. it is not an opinion. those other kids we really need to save. again, i appreciate both sides. can you try to come together on this? i am the co-sponsor of this bill. i think it is a great idea. let's bring folks together, chairwoman thank you for holding this. this is

incredibly important, considering we are in the year 2022 and still arguing this. i yield back. >> thank you sir. i want to recognize the ranking member of the committee on labor doctor foxx, you are recognized for five minutes, sir. >> thank you madam chair, i appreciate it. i thank our witnesses for being here today. i want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for the piece from paul harvey. i had heard that many years ago but it is a good reminder of the many things that farmers -- so much for sharing your experience is working out of far. i also grew up in a

farmhouse with no electricity, no running water, everything we ate we grew, new, or killed. thank goodness i knew you had a farm at an early age. you know in your testimony the average age of the american farmworkers 57. 5 years old. while fewer than 10% of agriculture producers are under 35 years old. do you have concerns about policies that this current use participation in agriculture, such as hr 37 -- >> thank you for the question, doctor fox. absolutely. right now, considering the growth of the world population, considering we just came off the pandemic where we saw shortages and disruptions in the labor supply, now more than ever is the time we need to be encouraging growth and agriculture and young people to go back and agriculture. we need to be developing those policies to get that exposure early, developing educational programs that give youth those skills

that they need to be successful. it isn't glamorous. it is hard work. it really takes cultivating that passion at a young age. i get emotional at the paul harvey poem because i see my parents in that. i see my neighbors in that. i see that because i worked with them, side by side. i saw them cry when a hailstorm came through. i saw a joy of a successful harvest. everything in between! that comes from a passion in agriculture. it is not something that you can pick up at the age of 18 and all of a sudden want to move from the city out to rural america and want to start growing fruits and vegetables. >> yes, well we are very, very, fortunate who have people that feel that passion. as a small time farmer myself, i tell you we really

enjoyed our garden this year. we have really been blessed and we are grateful. i understand what you say. as this proposal ffa and 4h are invaluable education programs which encourage young students to reach careers in agriculture. mr. keller mentioned this before but would hr: 7345 have a negative impact on youth participation in ffa and 4h programs? would it undermine the effectiveness of these programs? >> in my opinion it would. restricting the ability of student learners to work until the age of 14 would absolutely impact the participation. ffa program started middle school. they're actually prioritizing middle school programs to try to foster that interest and education out an earlier age. this is in rural and urban america. four h clubs, star even younger than that. many of those projects include work experience. everyone needs to be doing that work experience

safely, we need to make sure that you are doing tasks that you understand the risks, they are being supervised during. i am very skeptical that this legislation and regulatory changes that might fall a would not try to limit that exemption, as we have seen in the past. >> i want to give a shout out to a colleague, miss roy olive. i've enjoyed very much working with her over the years. i will be side to see her retire. miss boswell, we all agree that the health and safety of young people working in agriculture should be protected. in your experiences, do agriculture employers take the safety of the workers seriously? including workers under 18 years of age? what are these employers doing to keep their under 18 workers safe? >> from

my experience, farmers and ranchers and ask employers across the country -- i have been fortunate to travel across the country with the american farm bureau and the usda, speaking with farmers and act employers firsthand. they want to be able to have the tools to do it right. they want to follow the law, understand the law, and be able to treat their workers in safe working environments with the tools that they need to prevent injury. the key is being proactive here. i personally have represented agriculture employers and farmers with dr. li on the board of africa, also participated in the safety of african ultra news by the usda and distributed those materials and those guidelines that were put together by safety experts and buy those directly working on the ground representing farmers interests out to those across america to help them apply those. again the key is to be proactive here. setting an arbitrary age limit does not

give those resources, it only discourages participation overall. >> thank you madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you, thank you doctor -- i want to recognize representative stevens. you have five minutes. madam chair, can you hear me? >> yes i can. >> great, thank you for the important hearing. lot a profound on are to be with you, distinguished colleagues. distinguish panel. i will tell you in michigan we had more people died than who were born last year. we are continuing to you deal with the covid-19 pandemic, the opioid pandemic, and an overall labor shortage.

with that said, at the same time we are hearing from our firm in michigan about the absolute need to increase the workers through visa programs. i have had this conversation, we have many tips located throughout detroit. i've had this conversation with farms. we are at a breaking point. while we look to meet the needs of the agricultural industry, i would like to associate myself with the comments made in this hearing, we have an obligation to protect our children. where they play, learn, work, anything. we know that without basic child worker protections, how farmworkers are particularly vulnerable to

abuse and endangerment. it is fully unacceptable. i am so glad that we are convening today. mid worth i understand in the absence of strong federally protection for farm child workers safe initiatives across the country have taken the initiative to take their own standard of protection. as -- we certainly see how labor standards are laid out here in this committee. can you expand with some examples over mortality that has expanded protection for child farmworkers. how they can serve as a model for federal protection? thank you so much for the question, representative. i would refer the committee members to an october 2021 report for work and the government and the child labor coalition. it looked, state by state, across the country, comparing state protection for child child for --

they did find some good examples of positive practices. they found that 14 u.s. states as well as d.c. and puerto rico have in fact raise minimum age for agriculture work to 14. they also found the 15 states, in puerto rico, have limited the number of days, each week, that children can work in agricultural to six days a week as opposed to the federal standard. honing in on one state, in the state of florida obviously a very important agricultural state has enacted both of the protections. and has the minimum age of 14, and same as what the care act when imposed. and limits the work of child form workers under 16 to 6 days a week. states do you have discretion and the authority to do this. it is very important. that said, the state-by-state solutions are piecemeal. you heard my colleague norma talk about traveling from state to state with her family. if each state has different protections, children are not going to be protected in certain environments where they are working. that is where we

strongly support what the cataract offers. nationwide protection for all children working in agriculture. >> and miss flores lopez, you with your family's experience and the role the economic situations in families sending children over different -- how do you expect agriculture employers to exploit economic realities when they employ child farmworkers? >> as you heard from me, my parents and my grandparents, all of them u.s. editions, myself as well, we all were working out with agriculture but it was the desperate poverty that drew us out there. it was a generational cycle poverty that we were stuck in. we had no access to onsite location training to be able to have protective training. to be able to have access to programs like

4h and ffa. none of that was a reality for any of us. we were out there because we needed to be able to put food on the table. that desperate poverty is what a lot of those scrupulous employers, who are widespread across agriculture, with very little oversight especially when you are out there working in rural communities where you are out of sight, out of mind. people do not stand what is really happening out there. what ends up happening is you have a vulnerable population, we sometimes doesn't beat the language, the majority of them are undocumented, they are in rural communities where they don't have a lot of resources. these are different situations that create very different vulnerabilities for farmworkers, especially children. again it is the desperate poverty and the lack of fair pay that really contributes and makes the exploitation ripe in agriculture. >> thank you so much, madam chair i'm going to

yield back. >> thank you, representative stevens. i want to recognize representative needs now. for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i think ranking member keller as well. thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. although i am a doctor and the lieutenant colonel, retired lieutenant colonel from the army. and a congresswoman my first job actually was at 13 picking cucumbers in southeast texas. i also lived in an agricultural state. my district is a heavy agricultural district. i participated in over 20 county fairs and state fairs. i know with pride the young people at a young age showing their rabbits, chickens, their calves that they have bottle fed. -- even their llamas, to name just a few of

the animals and livestock that have shown! i have also seen them develop tremendous amount of pride in their work, increased work ethic, the ability to problems of and to adapt an improvised. the tremendous confidence they have in raising an animal, showing an animal, talking about the animal and developing public speaking skills. it is interesting that we are having this hearing, since the time i've been sworn into congress on january 3rd 2020, i have asked this question numerous times both with education in labor and in the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic task force that not once have we had a hearing on the repercussions of closing schools and masking children. that once that we talked about the mental health repercussions, consequences on our children. the rate of suicide -- of at numerous times, actually put forward an amendment in the labor committee -- in order to have 2 million of our funding go to mental health and k-12, and 2 million go to men to

health and undergraduate colleges. not one democrat voted for that amendment. here we are talking about talking about family farms, the majority of which are family farms on which children may work, trying to cultivate people into the family farming business. instead we are talking about overreach, overregulation by the federal government. we are concerned that we have on corporate farms and how this would enhance the. not once when we talked about the rate of youth suicide from the covid-19 pandemic and shutting down schools at the behest of the teachers union. not once that we talked about the learning loss, we finally see the new york times acknowledged recently in another article within the wall street journal. i find it interesting that we are talking about a section of the economy where children, youth, young

people may work on their family farm at a young age. developing tremendous skills. perhaps we would rather have children stay indoors and are you stay indoors watching television or play video games knowing that that doesn't put them at risk of obesity. it doesn't put them at risk of isolation. it doesn't put them at risk of any other health condition. yet we are going to talk about this one sector. i find that to be unconscionable. we will not address all of the negative repercussions on children to include loss of learning, mental health, suicide, addiction, and overdose and my colleagues have mentioned on our sovereign border wide open with the amount of drugs in fentanyl coming hostile border with record numbers of drug addiction and -- i will ask a simple question, 98% of all family farms in the u.s., most of which were small businesses. what impact would a change in the department of regulation and the way the obama

ministration proposed in 2011, like we are doing now, have one small family farms? in your experiences, do these been this is have in-house counsel and compliance stuff that they could address the administrative and regulatory burdens? . as i have sai >> thank you for the question. as i have said before, in my testimony, had we not defeated the obama administration proposal on child labor it would've had dramatic impact on the family farm, despite ascertains to the contrary. 98% are family owned. most farms to not have headquarters, they have their homes. they are doing business over the kitchen table. they are walking their commute from their front door

to the barn or the machines and start the day. that was my experience, that is the experience of most of my classmates and friends. they are savvy, no question about it. to operate a farm you have to be savvy. however, they don't typically have hr teams. they don't typically have in-house counsel. they don't have a team with them that is going to manage the record keeping as the record keeping burden has blazed in this legislation which would age finds just record keeping, rather than putting resources to educational materials or making for farmers have access to prevent injury. to tools they may need to prevent injury on the farm to those working their. >> do you think that this would create more detriment to being able to have a family own and operate farms? lead to more big business corporatization of farms? >> along with decreasing the

interest of young people and impacting the desire of young people going into farming, we already see consolidation. it is really hard to be a farmer. my dad just retired this year. it's ending that cycle, my nephew is going to try to jump in but it's going to be hard to find land, to have the capital investment. that is why there is a lot of farming and ranching programs. mentoring, training, from the usda and state governments. maybe we should keep those, also start that interest at a young age. get that mentoring and real hands on experience. >> the lady's time is up. >> thank you very much, i was at the show and all of those young 14 a 15 year olds went to go into farming. this is detrimental practice. we need to focus on the open border with people being sex -- traffic-- >> ma'am, your time is up. representative miller, your time is up. >> we need to concentrate on that. yield back my time. >> thank you. representative jones, you are recognized there. five

minutes. >> thank you madam chair, for holding this hearing again following the witness. -- the agriculture industry only employs 6% of all child workers, yet the industry accounts for over half of all child workplace industries and death. child farmworkers are exempt from many of the protections awarded to other child workers. protection such as age requirements for hazardous work, allowable hours worked, and basic training requirements. my republican colleagues will argue that any attempt to regulate the labor standards of child farmworkers would amount to unnecessary federal bureaucracy that wades into the affairs of small farms and deprives children in rural agricultural communities a valuable education training and work. this presents and false dilemma. when we protect child workers from injuries and death,

and implement standards for their safety and well-being, we protect the next generation of farmers. with reasonable exemptions for their own family farms or participation in educational or vocational programs, we can take steps to protect young children from the dangers of farm work without taking away their opportunities to learn and support their own families. for the child farmworkers, many of whom are people of color and are migrant or seasonal workers who are not working for their own families and who may, in some circumstances, be victims of exploited labor practices, reforming our labor laws is essential. the cases of these children who are not working to support their own families, there is no reason why they should be subject to different labor standards than any other child in this country. when more u.s. child workers are dying while working in agriculture than in any other industry, and when an average

of 33 child farmworkers are injured each day, something needs to change. in miss boswell's written testimony she claims that it dedication to farming, quote, can only be frosted by being engaged at a young age. while there is a need to support youths who want a career in agriculture i question whether the best way to do that is to maintain labor standards and practices that we know to be actually harmful to the future of our agricultural workforce. in your testimony, miss flores lopez, you stated that even today, 20 years after you last worked in the fields, you are still worried about the long term health impacts in your time in those fields of the child. would you please expand on the sorts of long term health impacts that farmworkers face? >> thank you for the question. both of my parents or cancer survivors, so is my aunt, many of the family members. those are the lucky ones that survived. we also

know there are just many people that did not survive who i grew up alongside in the fields. as i mentioned, because of the fact that we were exposed to the billions of pounds of pesticides and chemicals that are used on farms every year. after years of exposure, it is hard not to point -- especially given there is science that links the long term exposure to those chemicals and the long term health conditions that my family and my community has endured. and while we may not have access to capital, retirement plans, any of those things to be able to show for the decades of working out in agriculture, but we have shown is the health disparity that my community has had to deal with, including myself. every year when i go to my annual checkup i wait to see if any of those impacts of that exposure. we talked about supposedly these educational programs and safety training programs, the entire time that i was out in the fields i did not receive more than a 15-minute talk once i

was older, about the harmful effects of pesticides, years after i had already been exposed. before that i was told that pesticides were [speaking spanish], meaning medicine for plants. that is the type of lack of oversight, the time of farming children approach that. especially given that children are not little adults. they are much more susceptible to a lot of these harms as they grow, and their bodies are growing. they are exposed to high levels of chemicals -- weather conditions, like extreme heat or cold, having to really push their bodies to be able to help and meet. there are a lot of those dangers that are happening. what we are asking for is equal treatment. the same way we do not allow for other industries to explain young children and having them work through dangerous conditions, having them keep a way of life going. we are asking that farmworker children be treated just like every other child in america. and be protected! >> miss my

flores lopez, mu time has expired but let me say quickly, i feel for your paint. what you just described is unconscionable. no one should ever have to experience that. you and your family will remain in my prayers. i hope that your powerful testimony today will spur this congress to act in a way that it has not up to this time. thank you so much, i yield back manager. >> thank you, thank you mr. jones. we will recognize now mr. owens. you are recognized, representative owens. thank you >> madam chair, thank you so much. let me start off -- i have a grandfather who raised 13 children in texas. successful farmer, every one of these kids grew up on a farm. they learned work ethic which was invaluable to their success. my father was a professor, he taught this in

this arena, in agriculture. he had a fund last 35 years of his life. i was raised around the farm. i actually thought, in one point, going into that industry because i have so much respect for it. i think a couple things that concern me. first of all, i will start off with this one statement that was made earlier -- having training for those in this industry, it just sends chills to my bones to think about any bureaucrat who thinks the farming industry, which is really a culture of our nation. a lot of hard work is done. -- figuring out how to be innovative, that it is all done by the small business owners. 98% of farmers are small business owners. i wondered first of all if that is something you should even think of considering. there is also a notion that there are events being seen here that kids their youth and the community than these folks are parents and

those who are actually running this process. i will say this, we need to make sure that we are not demeaning this industry. the bad actors -- as a matter of fact i would suggest come to utah, see what five generations of farmers, herders, beef and sheep herders look like and what they do. you will see a community that is all about proud and what there are, mentoring their kids as they move forward, giving back to our country because less than 1% of the farming industry -- actually 1% of the farm industry supports the rest of our nation. i do want to ask a couple questions here, miss boswell. hr: 7345 raises the age of workers who perform agricultural tasks deemed hazardous by the secretary of labor from 16 to 18. what impact would that change have on our younger workers who hoping to gain and valuable

skills in the agricultural industry? >> thank you for the question. and answering it i think we need to remember that farms are informing communities. i grew up in a town of 300 people. i had 17 people in my high school class. main street was the bank, a small grocery store that most around d. c. would call a bodega, and to well drilling companies and a private company. if my nephews who live in that same small town cannot work on forms at the age of 16, their sophomore year of high school, there is no other opportunities, at all! they are driving. they can drive to and from a consolidated school about 20 miles away on roads going 70 miles an hour, changing and restricting the ability to start that work as hr: 7345 does would limit their ability to get any job at all either because the task that

they would be doing would be so restrictive even though their maturity level, they've been around agriculture their entire life it would erase that opportunity, basing it only on their age. not factoring in any of those other considerations that a parent or supervisor and act educator could also weigh in to determine what is safely rebuilt them and what they are ready for. >> thank you so much for that. hr: 7345 grants the secretary of labor new with authority to prohibit young people from serving agriculture work if the secretary finds it detrimental to their health and well-being. do you have concerns about congress granting the secretary this such authority? could this open the door for administrative overreach as we saw in the 2011 obama proposed rule? >> i have concerns about bureaucrats in

washington writing overly broad regulation without technical expertise on farming practices. and without engagement with farmers. that is exactly what we saw in 2011. i do believe that there is room for a thoughtful conversation. farmers, ranchers, ad employers that i know. in my experience they want to make sure that everyone is safe. that is why we are engaged with the ffa and extension with safety efforts. on board and committee and hosting the progress shows. we want to be engaged. we want to have that discussion. we worry that that will not hold true. broad sweeping proposals will come through, again, that will completely restrict the exemptions. and also not be in touch with actual farming practices. what someone around agriculture their entire life feels completely comfortable doing versus maybe someone who has not been around agriculture their entire life. >> your time is up. >> thank you so much,

your concerns are very well founded. i appreciate your experience and your passion, thank you so much. madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you, thank you mr. >> let me recognize representative steel. you have five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. thank you to all the witnesses coming out today. i believe that everyone wants to ensure that all workers are protected. we must be especially observing to protect those under 18 who enter the workforce. i hope every member of this committee can agree that we want to -- those who disregard the safety of those under 18 workers in

agriculture industry are helpfully acountable under the law. having said that, miss bostock and you share procedures and do your well to find if employers are caught breaking the law? are there ways for the federal government to improve better partnership with employers noncompliance in education? >> thank you for the question. in my experience, i have not worked at the department of labor. however when i was a usda, i work directly with the secretary's office. i worked on agricultural labor and safety issues. i engaged with the department of labor nearly on a daily basis, including the wage and hour division. from my experience working with them, i know haster mission states that they take health and safety of all workers very seriously. they have the authority under the law to enforce those provisions of statute and even increased penalties or fines for willful violations for those who have offended in a multiple pattern. i am also

aware that child safety within those investigations, they do have a big portfolio. child safety is elevated as a priority status if there's any alleged violation. they are looking at those even more seriously, understandably so. again the goal is to keep everyone safe. farmers want to be able to make sure that they have the tools and knowledge to do so, without arbitrarily restricting what tacit or jobs that young people can experience. thank you very much for your answer. madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you very much, is mr. good, is mr. good -- i don't see him. all right, let me move to the chair of the full committee, mr. scott. you

are recognized, sir. >> thank you. miss worth as you share it in your testimony, proposals to improve child labor standards in the agriculture industry generally exempt small family farms from the regulations. can you tell us what affects the care act would have on small family farms? would it really be a negative impact on rural families? >> thank you chairman scott, for the question. the care act, the legislation we are discussing today maintains the same exemption for family forms that exist in the fair labor standards act today. it doesn't change that family farm exemption. i strongly believe that the kinds of experiences

that miss boswell is speaking of, these opportunities to gain skills, training, to pass down practices across the generations would be completely unaffected by this legislation. this legislation is about raising the basic minimum age for children who are hired to work on farms. we are talking about 12-year-olds, removing the ability of 12-year-old children to be hired to do exploitative work on huge commercial agribusiness operations. it would raise the basic minimum age, it would not impact family farms. those younger kids who wanted to learn from their families, we want to participate in on student programs but still have those opportunities. the other aspect of the bill would raise the minimum age from hazardous work from 16 to 18. it would still exclude family farms. children under 18 would still have ample opportunities to do

hard work, to participate and work that wasn't hazardous. it would only be restricted from the most dangerous jobs. many members of the committee today have spoken about the strong and vibrant agriculture communities and the importance of passing these traditions through the veneration's. this bill will not change that. i will just protect a very vulnerable and often invisible workforce by giving them the same protections that all other working children have. >> thank you. miss boswell, why should agricultural be different than other industries? fast food restaurant, for example, and other jobs when it comes to child labor? why wouldn't the arguments you make extend to all child labor laws? >> thank you for the question. congress recognized the distinction in agriculture when it passed the fair labor standards act that

it is and continues to be a industry driven buyer family operation and not just parents, not just immediately. aunts, uncles, grandparents which have been restricted in proposed regulation in the past. also, congress recognize that this is food production. there is more and more demand to supply safe and affordable food without being able to foster that interest to safely encourage participation, i do believe that this bill would impact that. i do also believe that there is room for a conversation about occupations antacids, however what we've seen has been broad sweeping unbalanced approaches that outweigh those that do not balance safety interests with other opportunities and other societal needs that agriculture

fills. >> dr. li, you have been working with agribusiness and farm organizations with health and safety organizations for a long time. what do you think their reaction is going to be to raising the age limit of 12 to 14? how would you respond to that criticism? criticism? >> the >> thank you for the question. and as we have been hearing, the vast majority of producers, aggro businesses, farm organizations really want you to have a positive, safe experience in agriculture. at the same time, in agriculture we are dealing with issues like immigration reform, labor shortages, we need to bounce that all out always with the thought of children and their protection at the top. i think that from the agribusiness side, changing the age can be part of a good conversation as miss bottle said. i think they would be willing to do that, as long as there are other opportunities to make sure they

have the labor pool that is needed. that request that we hear most often from industry people is, i want to do what's right. break it down, make it simple and clear. let's make things go the right way. i believe as long as the family farm exemption is held in place, maintaining that agricultural employers will work with us to raise that age limit from 12 to 14. >> thank you madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you sir. mr. good? is mr. good on camera? >> yes, thank you madam chairman. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chairman, thank you to our witnesses. at a time when last americans are working than ever before, with a historic low labor participation rate, combined with some 10 million open jobs in this country -- their continued democratic narrative that there are some jobs americans just won't do, it is appalling that we will be

here today [inaudible]. those young people who want to work on those farms, as they have for decades. i was better as a kid for having worked on a family farm. young people are better for learning the value of work, the value of $1 at a young age young. people are better for learning the values, the life skills, and their work skills that are taught on the family farm. hard work is noble. it never hurt anybody. those who feed our country, those are family farms. they are better for the young workers who they rely on. today's hearing represents washington and it's where those who cannot do, those who do not

know, trying to dictate rules in regulations who do and those who know. family farms, hardworking young people represent what is right about america. yes, what made america great. what makes america great today. farmers already have it tough enough. they are struggling to survive today. i recognize that many in the majority maybe have no farms in the districts, perhaps they've never visited a farm or they have never met a farmer but you can't feed this nation in the cities. you've gotta go to the rural areas, gotta go to the farmers. that's who is literally feeding our country. it's incredible that we'd be trying to make it tougher on them today. if we really care about the nations young people, are about young people more generally, why not go after the

mexican crime cartels who are exploiting and trafficking children and young people today? thousands today, thousands every day, along our southern border. instead of going after america's farmers. if our concern is with the health and safety of minors, our top priority should be ending the biden border crisis. stopping illegal immigration and building the wall. the biden border crisis in the biden policies are encouraging human trafficking, including of minors, on a mass scale. miss boswell, i appreciate you being with us today, appreciate your testimony. we know that the democrats don't believe that parents should have a say in their kids education, they labeled them domestic terrorists. do you believe that parents would be in a better situation than the federal government to make decisions regarding their work on a family farm? >> thank you for the question. that is actually one of my main concerns with the way this legislation is drafted. there are certainly 16 year olds that should not be doing certain jobs. and there's 12 year olds, 14 year olds, like myself, who have been around this equipment, been around animals and livestock their entire lives. i think a parent is more equipped to look

at their child, and i refused to believe that a parent is exploiting their children or wants to put their children at risk or their grandparent, or their uncle. i refused to believe that. i believe that parent can look at their 12, y'all just as my sister did with her, son and say this is a great opportunity for you to learn time management skills. for you to understand what it takes to have that responsibility. free to earn some cash. then, maybe, you can visit your aunt in washington, d. c.. with all those things are important and a parent can make that decision much more than the department of labor or congress. who doesn't know that individuals experience on that maturity level. >> well said. this bill will also give the secretary of labor and restricted authority to limit farmworkers under the age of 18 from work that the secretary of labor, irrespective of their

qualifications, experience or knowledge, the secretary of labor, quote, finds detrimental to their health or well-being. ms. boswell, could that phrase, detrimental to their health and well-being, in this bill, be used to weaponize the department of labor against rural farmers? >> i do believe that it can. especially if uninformed. the devil is in the details with those hazardous of occupations. having experienced individuals out on the ground, operating the equipment, that has been greatly improved. the farm today is not the farm i grew up on. thank the industry for stepping up and putting more safety equipment and protections and equipment for putting fruits and vegetables on trellises to help alleviate some of that hard work. that engagement is important. and there certainly are tasks, i said in my testimony, there are certainly tasks that are dangerous and agriculture. but we have to have an informed discussion about what those are with people who actually worked on the farm. >> thank you, miss boswell. i'm thankful for america's farmers, thankful for what i learned on a farm, thankful for a testimony today.

madam chairwoman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. i will yield now to miss allard of california, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair, for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. i just want to make it very clear before i ask my question that we were very, very careful in drafting this bill to make sure that we did not, in any way, change current law as it impacts family farms and educational programs. in fact, we looked at the obama language that has been referred to to make sure that we addressed all the concerns that were raised back then, with regards to that proposed rulemaking. miss boswell nephew could in fact, work on the family farm under this bill. we do nothing to change that. secondly, i agree with the concern that it can't just be bureaucrats who are making these decisions. that is why, in the language in our bill,

specifically it says to the secretary, that in addition to having health and safety experts, i'm reading from the bell. it urges them to include agriculture, groups agriculture youth training groups such as 4h and future farmers of america. that they should be a part of any changes, in terms of the rulemaking process. they should not be done in isolation, by bureaucrats. we have addressed that concern as well. but the fact remains that children working in agriculture, and we're not talking about mom and dad and the kids, we're talking about the migrant families and the children that go from place to place throughout the seasons. that

migrant children, children, working in agriculture are the only group of children that are not protected by our child labor laws. as a result, according to the national children center for rural and agricultural health and safety, the only center that is dedicated to childhood agriculture injury prevention, 33 children are injured daily working on farms. and a child dies every three days working in agriculture. that is the answer to the reason as to why we are having this hearing. my question, to miss flores lopez, is that farmers have always been essential workers and that

has really been highlighted over the last three years, during our heat waves, our fires, especially during the covid pandemic. during these times, the farm workers who are mainly hispanic and latino have faced increased demand from their employers to speed up their work, putting them at even greater risk for serious injury or death. can you please elaborate on the impact that the increased pressure, even just the everyday pressures that they have faced, has on parents and ultimately their children? >> thank you for the question and for your leadership, congresswoman. he as christy mentioned, she and i know each other from across the aisle. she was at the american farm bureau when i had been advocating for these issues. throughout the years, while i've heard her testimony and she's heard me speak as well, i have yet to hear an argument against that data and the dangers that it presents. the data is there, there are dangers to what is happening to these children. those numbers

are there and they don't lie, they're not influenced by anybody's opinions or feelings about things. the reality is that agriculture is a dangerous industry and the reality is that her experience and mine were so different. it's because of those differences that points to the need for laws to be put in place to protect children like me, so that i can have opportunities like hers. that's what it comes down to. you heard her also, miss boswell, talk about so many of these growers, employers, farmers want to do what's right and stick to the law. but we have found, what i've seen over the years, both in my own personal experience and that of the children that i hear over the years is that that is the minimum, that is the floor. i've yet to meet employers who are willing to jump above and beyond, because that is not the norm. we're not talking about her experience and that of her family, because it was more than just her in her family that it takes to be able to keep the operations going. they

hire children, these farms higher employees and they don't have that same oversight and protection and hearsay. as i mentioned during my testimony, my parents try to keep me safe and it's not because they were exploited, it is not because they didn't love me. their hands were tied because of the desperate poverty that kept us in danger. i've yet to hear how anybody's going to address the lack of a fair living wage for farmworkers. that's what drives the children out there, that's what makes the children be at. there because they don't have somebody, they can't afford somebody to take care of their kid. bring them out with them, they can't afford to put food on the table. they have to bring their kids out there with them. >> -- time is up. >> at the end of, it we're not seeing anything, they don't notify. my parents don't own anything. we need this bill to -- >> the gentlelady's time is up. >> -- make sure that children are being protected, all children, not just folks like miss boswell. >> thank you. i want

to remind my colleagues that, pursuing to committee practice, details for submission to the hearing record must be submitted to the committee clerk within 14 days following the last day of the hearing. so, by close of business on september 21. preferably in microsoft word format. the material submitted must address the subject matter in the hearing and only a member of the subcommittee or and invited witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing record. documents are limited to 50 pages, documents longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via an internet link that you must provide to the committee clerk within the required timeframe. please recognize, that in the future, that link may no longer work. house rules and regulations, items for the record should be submitted to the clerk electronically by email, submissions to ed and

labor.hearings., i want to thank the witnesses for their participation today. members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for you and we ask our witnesses to please respond to those questions in writing. the hearing record will be held open for 14 days, in order to receive those responses. i remind my colleagues that, pursuant to committee practices, witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted to the majority committee staff or committee clerk within seven days. the question submitted must address the subject matter of the hearing. i want to now recognize distinguished ranking member keller for a closing statement. >> i'd like to thank the witnesses for participating in today's hearing. ensuring the health and safety of all workers on the farm. workers of

all ages, workers under 18, workers over 18, is a top priority of agriculture employees and the federal government. as the industry faces an aging workforce, congress should be doing everything i can to promote opportunities for young people in agriculture, not creating new barriers. the legislation we have discussed today, h.r: 7345, i is misguided in this regard. committee republicans have serious concerns that this legislation could impact family farming operations and valuable youth education programs like 4h and ffa by opening the door to administrative overreach. it was mentioned that the language in the bill encourages this. it doesn't require the input. i think that's important, because the sponsor of the bill was reading from the bill. it says it encourages the secretary, doesn't require it. i think there's a lot of concern here. this is not an idle threat. in fact, the obama administration

pushed a regulatory proposal that would have harmed opportunity for youth and agriculture employment and on family farms. democrats want to advance policies that are un-workable, yet another attack on rural america. the last thing american farmers need is more washington knows best policies. instead of demonizing farmers, whose hard work is vital to creating and sustaining our nation's food supply, we should be doing everything we can to support agriculture and young people who choose to pursue careers in this important profession. i'd like to thank our witnesses again for participating in today's hearing, and i yield back. >> thank, you mr. keller. i now recognize myself for the purpose of making my closing statement. thank you to our witnesses for your time and your testimony. today, we discuss the importance of increasing federal workplace protections for child farmworkers. too often, child

form workers are exploited and neglected while working in the field. the grueling hours and dangerous work lead to low graduation rates, injuries and a disproportionate number of deaths. as our witnesses made clear, this is a direct result of the exclusion of child farmworkers from key workplace protections that apply to child workers in other industries. all children should be safe while working, and have the opportunity to achieve their dreams. so, we must work together to improve protections for children that work in agricultural jobs. so, again, thank you to my colleagues. and thank you to our witnesses. if there is no further business before the committee, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. >> january 6th committee returns wednesday for the ninth hearing. ahead of the release of their

report. expected by the end of the year. you can watch the hearing alive beginning at 1 pm eastern on c-span 3. c-span now or anytime on demand at c-span dot org. >> judy shelton has been appearing on c-span since 1989. her first visit was on book notes to discuss her book titled the coming soviet crouch. during the past 33 years since her first appearance on c-span, judy shelton has been in and out of politics, she worked for a time with three presidential candidates including bob dole, and carson and donald trump. it was president trump nominated her to serve on the board of the federal reserve. her selection to the fed was controversial and eventually president joe biden's administration withdrew her nomination in february of 2021.

>> judy shelton, on this episode of booknotes+. look knows plus is a available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, or where you stand on the issues, c-span's americas network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or hear, or hear, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> next policy advocates industry stakeholders and government officials testify in front of a senate congress subcommittee about the future of commercial spectrum for broadband and telecommunications. this hearing is just over two and a half hours.

>> the hearing on this subcommittee on communications media broadband will now come to order. today, the subcommittee is convening a hearing on the future of spectrum. i want to thank ranking member thune and ranking member of the full committee, roger would care for working to get the schedule and to be here for this important hearing. also to cantwell for the work

that she has done in this base as well as her staff in the staff of the full committee. the importance of this conversation and having a coming together if you will of spectrum policy could not be more immediate with an upcoming deadline that must be met. spectrum is a limited natural resource and the challenges are many. we have spectrum challenges across the industry, government, technology, policy and politics and when we do not find solutions, those challenges can become a national crisis. i hope that those last two words get the attention of those that they have not yet or do not see the reauthorization in that way. licensed and unlicensed spectrum under leads the broadband network that enables us to communicate with friends and family, work and learn from our homes and utilize tele-health but that are also

used for national security purposes. it matters and it depends so greatly on how those resources are managed and how we can coordinate to make better use of them. spectrum helps us respond to floods and wildfires and other natural disasters. it even allows us to see the deepest stars and explore the origins of our universe through the very large array in places like central you mexico. this hearing will consider the many challenges we face as we manage this essential and limited resource. there are many things to consider including commercial challenges and identify license spectrum brands to ensure supply meets the demand. erratic challenges between federal agencies each with critical missions negotiating how to best use the spectrum and technical and engineering challenges, the solutions to more spectrum sharing and

require closer coordination. gossip policy challenges. many uses of spectrum do not have a clear market value nor should they. it is impossible to put a price on national security on public safety or on promoting innovation through unlicensed production or scientific research. finally we have political challenges. spectrum is one of the few policy areas under our committee's jurisdiction that generate revenue. today, these options have raised over 230 billion dollars for the federal government. we have important decisions to make not just on spectrum policy but on how new revenue might open doors and support other critical priorities in the united states and abroad. the authority congress granted to the federal communications commission to conduct spectrum auctions expires on september 30th. the future of spectrum depends on the decisions we make in

this committee and the conversations we will have to date. congress must act to ensure the spectrum use meets the public interest and i believe spectrum requires -- i paula joins, there i believe spectrum revenue should be devoted in part to updating our 9-1-1 systems and promoting digital equity. pulling on the word from senator schatz marketing during the sea band auction, we must also do more to ensure the way we're using allocating spectrum providing equity. innovative options, structures, efforts like the cbrs and tribal priority window have demonstrated that spectrum policy can promote competition and be tailored to meet the needs of rural areas. increasing participation can allow our tribes to exercise their sovereignty on the airwaves over tribal lands. i'm excited by the progress we have already made. last week, the house cleared

bipartisan bill extending fcc spectrum auction authority. the bill also restored dia is the lead agency for spectrum decisions by including my spectrum innovation act, which i introduced with ranking member -- here in the senate. well i support the progress on that bill in the house, i believe we must go further. yesterday, a day before this hearing, chairwoman, rosa marshall, an administrator davidson, signed an updated memorandum of understanding that structure is how they're to agencies resolve spectrum challenges. this reaffirms their roles as the sole agencies in charge of managing our spectrum resources. it increases coordination and addresses many of the challenges for managing abroad bans and other brands, apologize there, that have a significant federal agency stakeholder. finally, it promotes better coordination emphasizes

evidence based policy making. something we need more of here in congress. ranking member -- structure this hearing toward that goal. there is a broad interest from our colleagues across the united states senate and many who have been working on this issue during their entire time in the united states senate. our consensus powell of four witnesses brings together experts in the field of spectrum management with many years of experience either managing these resources directly or engaging in the broader debate at a national scale. with that, mister chairman, i want to introduce our witnesses, i'm gonna go to you first for an opening statement. i want to thank mr. wicker, our ranking member of the full committee for being here with us to open up the hearing, will welcome the ranking member of the subcommittee, the republican rep upon his arrival as well. >> great, yes, we do expect senator to be here very soon,

today, for the first time two years we discuss the state of spectrum policy in the united states, thank you to chairman and to -- for holding this important hearing. i welcome our distinguished panel for -- can wait to hear your testimony. this conversation is particularly timely as the chair noted with the expiration of the sec statutory auction authority in less than two months. spectrum is a critical component of enabling innovation in our modern wireless economy. we have seen time and then for spectrum for commercial use, new cutting edge technologies and applications for consumers. however, although appetite for commercial spectrum continues to grow exponentially, there is also growing demand from federal agencies. the resource is scarce and effective spectrum management has become essential. options have proved to be a winning solution for allocating

frequencies. not only do auctions provide a market mechanism, determining who should receive a license, it also generate sufficient revenues for the treasury, as our distinguished chair just stated, since the advent of spectrum auctions in 1993, where the 230 billion dollars has been collected and used for a variety of expenditures, including funding -- reducing the federal and reducing federal deficit. however, the fcc statutory authority to conduct auctions is set to expire september 30th. if we do not act swiftly, the agency may lose its ability to award licenses through competitive bidding. this is especially important with the recent start of an auction of frequencies at 2.5 gigahertz. if that option is ongoing when the authority expires, it could call into question the authority to finish the proceeding. one of the reasons that spectrum auctions has been so

successful is bitter certainty, bitters know they will receive the license they bid on during fcc roles in the timeframe that the agency announces, any action or inaction that reduces that certainty risks oppressing the value of spectrum. if bitters began to lose confidence that the fcc will have a legal authority to complete an auction, we should expect the bidding to be affected. congress can act to ensure that there is no laps in authority and no reason for bidders to doubt. a short term extension of auction authority would allow the committee to continue working with stakeholders to develop a session that identifies specific bans for auction in the coming years. this approach of legislating the auction of particular frequencies has proved successful. in recent years. and we give all parties

involved the ability to plan ahead. he would allow us the time to draft statutory text thoughtfully and carefully, without unnecessary disruption to the fcc's duties. identifying specific frequencies for auction, as well as timelines and other considerations would create a path to success for the united states, given the short time for exploration of auction authority, a short term extension is needed. beyond the extension of auction authority, we should look to the experts spectrum management agencies for guidance as the nation continues to strive for leadership in the race. the fcc in the national telecommunications information administration have worked with their respective stakeholders and each other to make spectrum available for commercial use while continuing to seek ways to meet the needs of federal agencies. i also want to recognize that although our federal agencies are certainly inherent,

important spectrum interest, these decisions should be made by the expert agencies tasked by the statue with these responsibilities. high-profile disputes and disagreements about interference only weaken our spectrum management systems. these concerns should be handled through existing processes and should be resolved using technical analysis and data. spectrum policy is complex. congress has a role to play in shaping it. i would urge my colleagues to support a short term extension of auction authority. this will allow the fcc to continue its important work while we work with stakeholders to develop more comprehensive legislation, laying out a long term pipeline of frequencies for auction. i'd also hope to work on legislative efforts to improve the coordination between federal agencies and -- the fcc to ensure that there is an open and effective

communications. i yield back to you, mister chair. >> thank you very much, mr. wicker, the ranking member of the full committee. thank you for your thoughtfulness and your policy approaches. in this arena as well, mr. wicker. next, we will hear from the ranking member of the subcommittee, our republican whip, for his opening statement. mr. thune? >> thank you chairman lujan for holding what i think is a very timely hearing. in 22 legislative calendar days, the sec's authority to conduct spectrum auctions expires. and yet the last time this committee held any hearings related spectrum management was july 2021 as serving as a chairman of the subcommittee. well i have been disappointed in the lack of progress on this issue, i hope moving forward we can work collaboratively. we all know that spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless communication. next generation networks require efficient and effective use of low, mid, and high bands of spectrum. in the global race, we deploy these networks and services, proper management of this limited resource has never been

more important. it's particularly important for those of us and more rural parts of the country. if inadequate sea of spectrum resources makes 5g less viable, it will be the -- where it no longer makes sense to deploy next generation telecommunications services. last week, the fcc took an important step in bringing 5g services to more rural and tribal areas by beginning the auction of the two and a half gigahertz ban. it is my view that congress should provide a short term extension of the sec's auction so we can ensure this option continues and is completed without any delays. at the same time, i believe it is equally important for congress to build upon the success of the mobile now act and beat china for a 5g act by developing legislation in the key spectrum of the pipeline. one such place to start would-be legislation chair lujan and i introduced earlier this year. the spectrum innovation act would free up prime and mid band spectrum, along the spectrum to be the auction for

mobile services. by enacting a pipeline bill congress provides regulatory certainty and predictability, and when that spectrum is made available it is essential that there are clear rules and recognized rights for spectrum users. it is important to know the spectrum pipeline bill will take some time. it will require government agencies, industry, and other groups competing for this resource to come together. by doing so, we can make spectrum decisions in the interest of our economic and national security. having led the efforts of the mobile now act, i know firsthand the complexity of this issue, and the time it takes to work with stakeholders on spectrum legislation. mobile now didn't involved in general auction authority. the last time that congress extended the fcc's general auction authority was back in 2012. at that time, congress provided the fcc a specific direction on the bands that should be considered for auction. but it also took years to get there. some of the spectrum bands reidentify it in the fcc's

national broadband plan two years earlier. some subject of multiple congressional hearings in the two years leading to its passage. some included in studies and reports by antifa and the fcc's office of engineering and technology years before, we extended auction authority. it is my hope that this committee can work together in a bipartisan manner to develop a larger spectrum package. sound spectrum management also requires proper coordination between ntia, the fcc, another federal agencies. i was pleased to see the fcc and ntia reach an agreement updating the spectrum coronation processes. it's important that this is done regularly, so i'd encourage this committee to advance the improving spectrum coordination act, which is legislation i have sponsored with ranking member wicker and senators lujan and blackburn. and as more and more americans rely on connectivity like wi-fi, we must also recognize the critical role of unlicensed --

landscape. unlicensed spectrum is responsible for transmitting a significant amount of data and our networks will play a tremendous role in the development of the internet of things. finally, as we work towards unlicensed spectrum, from -- we must also take action to remove barriers from large-scale 5g employment. my streamline at, for example, would expedite deployment of the small skills needed for 5g insulation. while respecting the role of state and local governments in making deployment decisions. importantly, would make it more affordable to bring 5g to rural areas by addressing the cost of small scale deployment. so, mister chairman, i look forward to discussing all of these issues with our panelists today and appreciate all of you being here. thank you. >> thank you,, we appreciate your work on this issue as well, not just in the senate but in previous years as well. next i want to introduce our

witnesses and then we will hear from them. first, i want to welcome mr. chris lewis, ceo and president of public knowledge, leading one of the predominant public telecommunications organizations and former staff of the fcc and here at the united states senate. next, the honorable meredith baker, who is the ceo and president of cta, the wireless association representing the private sector's largest users of public spectrum and former commissioner at the fcc and appointee to ntia. next, we have mr. andrew, who is the director of physical infant structure at the government accountability office with years of experience evaluating spectrum management over the fcc and the ntia. welcome. we will hear from our fourth witness today, doctor coleman, did i say that correctly? boston, i apologize.

doctor basil on who is principal at the battle group with expert knowledge of wireless knowledge -- spectrum management and competition policy. formerly an analyst at cbo who is the importance of all of us to get no spectrum policy better. so, i appreciate your minder today, sir, i look forward to your testimony here as well. the floor is yours for five minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman. ranking member thune, ranking member wicker, thank you for having me here. in the brief time i have are like to summarize for guidepost for national spectrum policy that can drive innovation and promote equality access to communications for all, first guidepost is that we should center interest set by congress in a national spectrum strategy, telecommunications act congress directed the fcc to design spectrum options to protect

public interest and fill the goals of its foundational purpose to make communications service available for all americans. public -- includes promoting competition economic unity, excessive consolidation, providing opportunities for small businesses especially minority and women owned businesses and ensuring their limited spectrum airways effectively and efficiently serves the public's communication needs. we need congress, the fcc and ntia to think creatively about how to best advance all these objectives. for example, rural and tribal areas can benefit from small but creative policies. just last month, the ranking members mentioned and modify the fcc spectrum licensing role to increase spectrum access for small carriers and travel nations. congress can further close the excess gap in travel areas where the need is greatest. with simple direction to the fcc. the mandate expanded use of travel trouble window and commend the use of cpr style spectrum sharing through

generalized authorized access systems for all federal spectrums on tribal lands. number two, we must adopt inspection access bottles. we are in the midst of a cognitively revolution. the average gamble of connected devices for home has risen from 11 in 20 19 to 25 in 2021. these are smart tvs, doorbells, even washing machines and that now rely on spectrum unlicensed spectrum. even listen services rely on licensed technology to upload their data on their airways. the unlicensed bertram innovation known as wi-fi they so ubiquitous that most americans think of it as synonymous with at-home broadband. the demand on unlicensed and license spectrum underscores just how critical a mix of access regime is to meet national coating to be demands. unfortunately, are very few spectrum field opportunities remaining. every spectrum stakeholder must work together for enhancing

efficiency. the success is a shared regime demonstrates that as long as we are willing to follow the engineering facts and future spectrum bands can create more opportunity for innovation and competition through a balance shared license and unlicensed allegation. number three, we should commit to a long term spectrum plan. thanks to the bipartisan efforts of congress. the trump administration in the biden administration, wireless providers now have access to specific spectrum state-of-the-art 5g systems. even though the industry is already looking to 60 and wi-fi seven, standards for the systems are still years away. our 5g race with china now relies on the spending the money to deploy networks not a new spectrum options. on both the industry side and federal sites, now is the time to step back and carefully plan for the future. and 18-month expansion will not allow the and see cnn fta for planning. the fcc will have future

auctions and private stakeholders and thoughtful planned for the future of the spectrum commercialization. congress could even address the ntia that identifies potential band and how they may be structuring to come on your show use between license and unlicensed. finally, number four, prioritize public spending needs. the reality is that there are several national priorities and communications policies that private investment either won't or cannot find. digital equity programs help knock down barriers, broadband adoption and help communities make greater use of the connectivity. congress provided some funding for these efforts and broadband infrastructure package. the bipartisan infrastructure package but a more sustainable source of funding is needed. both knowledge supports the knowledge for airway -- proposes revenues to digital records. finishing the work of replacing

other proposals of also received bipartisan support as public interest and they should be public interest funding needs. the bottom line is that these public interest objectives, should be earmarked, to be paid first from revenue auctions or auction revenues using the public dollars to promote the health of the sector and help connect all americans to telecommunications services. thank you, i look forward to your questions. >> her friend in commissioner. >> good afternoon and thank you chairman,, lujan ranking member thune, and ranking member wicker. thank you for picking my favorite topic, spectrum. i applaud your leadership from mobile now to the spectrum innovation act. we lead the world in wireless thanks to you. we need this committee's leadership now more than ever. we have the opportunity to drive next generation leadership in 5g, and industries of the future, with the national commitment to

spectrum policy built on greater licensed mid band access. i will start with the good news. i testified before this committee in 2019 about what 5g could be. i am happy to be back today to talk about what 5g is. most importantly, 5g is here. 5g is being deployed across our country, almost twice as fast as 4g. every year, we invest 30 billion dollars into our nation's infrastructure. thanks to that investment, 5g will drive 1.5 trillion more into our economy and over 4 million new jobs. 5g will be the platform for tomorrow's innovation. it found that 5g will have the impact of removing 72 million cars from the road. gm is using 5g to reimagine

manufacturing. the va is utilizing 5g better care for our veterans. 5g is also about greater competition. the fastest growing home broadband company is a wireless provider. 5g home will be key in closing the digital divide. we also know that the job is not complete. 5g goes further and faster every day. we need to keep building in new mexico south dakota, and across the nation. this is about opportunity and equity. to do all this, we need your help. we need more spectrum. three items stand out in my mind. number one, spectrum auctions fuel all of this. in the last three years alone we have invested over 115 billion dollars in new mid band spectrum. the challenge is fcc statutory

authorities to conduct auctions expires legislative days. need to provide the fcc the authority to hold future spectrum auctions. the lessons of your prior extension fraught strongly favor and approach to preserve the key congressional role in spectrum policy by packaging authority with designated future auctions. it explicitly directs the sec to hold three separate auctions. that is why we endorse the house's bipartisan approach to extend fcc authorities for 18 months to give all stakeholders the time a new spectrum pipeline. that pipeline is number two. the 2.5 gigahertz option and this committee is uniquely

situated next set of options. we need the same objective, a balanced approach that enables government agencies to meet their missions. while expanding commercial access. today, we are out of balance in the mid band. roughly two thirds is held by the government. maximizing the amount of commercial access in the three gigahertz, four gigahertz and seven gigahertz bans should be our immediate focus. we strongly support chair lujan that would immediately address access in the lower three gigahertz. importantly, by identifying specific options, this committee would also then have the opportunity to fund key priorities from angie 9-1-1 to be replaced. number three, it goes to inner agency coordination.

we need to empower the fcc and the ntia to spectrum matters. we have strong leaders in place which arab woman and administrator davidson. i applaud their work to enhance coordination and improve spectrum management. i thank you all for holding this hearing and focusing on the critical spectrum issues that can create real opportunities for all americans. i also urge this committee to engage the proposed corporate minimum tax effect on spectrum. this will be a 15% tax on spectrum holdings that could undermine all of our work that we are doing on spectrum policy. spectrum should really be treated no different than any other asset in our nation's infrastructure. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, miss baker. next we will hear about honorable mr. -- >> chairman lujan, members of the subcommittee, i am pleased

to be here today as you examine federal agency management spectrum and consider authorizing fcc auction authority. regulating in managing the diversity suspect shot's responsibility shared by all ccc, which does both and ntia which manages federal use. legislation introduced, we authorize fcc's auction authorities 200 megahertz of spectrum currently used by federal agencies and others available for 5g mobile communications. as we have passed reallocation, is a key role for ntia is to work with federal agencies to examine the suitability of spectrum bans to be relocated to federal used non federal use such as 5g. it's part of its relocation efforts, and tie a court meets with fcc and federal agencies to examine the potential impact of the proposed reallocation. any reallocation requires existing user stand to modify their spectrum use, update or modify existing equipment, move effective services to other bands or accommodate sharing of the spectrum. fcc and ntia have successfully

relocated hundreds of megahertz of spectrum across several bands. some of these relocations are highly complex and can last from many years. for example, a recent reallocation in the five gigahertz band took ten years to complete. other can be contentious as they may affect several agency operations or affect critical safety systems. my statement today is based on toolbar recently reports on spectrum adjectives. one which looked at ntia spectrum reallocation process and in particular the extent in which the agency has developed a planning process to guide its efforts. another look at federal agency coronation activities. specifically the extent in which ntia, fcc and other federal agencies follow leading practices and collaborate on potential spectrum interference issues. with respect to the relocation process at the time of our review, we found that ntia did not have a documented process in place. the relocation efforts from start to finish. we identified three leading practices for program and intimate that could benefit

ntia's efforts including having a program management plan in place and that is updated regularly, having a masters schedule updated regularly and conducting risk management throughout the life of the program. absentee practices we found that ntia in the agencies and stakeholders involved may not be sure they are anticipating and preparing for the many steps involved in real allocating spectrum have no basis to judge whether work has been performed faster. it may not be able to respond effectively to risks as they arrive. for the, while ntia is required by statute to ensure executive branch views on spectrum matters are effectively presented to fcc. we found ntia lacks documents and procedures for doing so which led to some agencies believing their views were not adequately represented in certain circumstances. document the procedures can provide clarity on several points such as the level of technical detail that agencies should be submitting to ntia. the reasons for why agencies comments are or not incorporated in the final submissions of cc. with respect to collaboration,

we found that the mechanism used by the agency is to not always fully reflect leading collaboration practices. for example, two key documents, the am away between the fcc and antifa and the general guidance document -- for international proceedings had no defined agreed upon process for resolving matters when agencies could not do so. fcc and ntia have announced an updated and a liu that addresses the issues and have also begun meeting regularly under the spectrum coordination initiative. we also found that the agencies mechanism lacked agreed upon procedures to conduct a review, feasibility and potential interference studies. that's result, recent relocation efforts related to 5g such as in the sea ban which involved fa in the functioning of radio altimeters and the 24 gigahertz ban which involve nasa, noaa and the functioning of weather satellites, have been hampered by lack of agency consensus on what the proposed uses, refusal or would cause harmful interference in the users tracey ban.

we made a number of recommendations have cc and ntia to address all these issues, which are outlined in the tahrir poets and in my written statement. the agencies have agreed to work collaboratively and have begun to implement our recommendations as evidence by the mou released today. the believe will help create a framework or disagreement regarding the relocation spectrum can be resolved based on the agree technical findings. this concludes my prepared remarks. i'm happy to answer any questions you and the subcommittee may have. >> next, we will hear from our fourth witness today, dr.. five minutes for your remarks. ity to testify toda>> thank you. i like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today. radio spectrum is a scarce natural resource owned by all of us and one way or another used by all of us. in fact it is only through using radio spectrum that we create value from it. smartphones using license spectrum, wi-fi and bluetooth

using unlicensed spectrum and the many public missions carried out on governmental assignments create invaluable -- incredible value from the scarce public resource. all of these valuable uses compete for access to the fix full of radio spectrum managed by the fcc at ntia. those agencies goals and managing and all about making the most out of using it. their challenges that all spectrum has incomplete users. that is somebody who loses one spectrum is reallocated. overtime, these year relocations have been down so going forward, freeing up large swaths of spectrum will be harder, more expensive and require more creativity. in fact, the days of major auctions of unencumbered bands are numbered with decreasing lee fuel opportunities on the horizon. new tools, such as incentive auctions, innovative sharing regimes will be increasingly important in meeting future spectrum needs. when should spectrum be moved when you use? as i have previously testified to congress, the principal

spectrum relocation says that a band of spectrum should be made available when the valuable and you use it exceeds the cost of making a spectrum available. this guidance and the cost and benefits have focuses on, is not intended to evaluate just economic market value. unlike some uses a spectrum create value to society but in a way it does not create bitters with market demand for spectrum. whereas mobile broadband network operators regularly billions of dollars for spectrum licenses. since governmental users -- uses are difficult to value, the goal for them is to make sure they use spectrum efficiently. consequently a broad set of consideration should inform our spectrum policy. budget rules can influence policy and we are reminded of this intersection every time spectrum auction authorities were reduced. spectrum auctions have been important tool and getting spectrum from a lower valued used to higher value uses. these auctions only took place because legislation authorized them.

the score, a budgetary value of real allocated spectrum and auction is a focus of the most spectrum legislation. i have had some experience scoring options. this is how i started my professional career in the mid 90s. the score is not an estimate of how the spectrum is worth or how much they do is will bid. nor doesn't measure how much a spectrum allocation benefit society, rather it is an estimate of the net effects that proposed option on the federal budget. the key budgets going as a legislation is credited with the budgetary impact the legislation causes. that is what it changes from current law. although budgets going rules can create an incentive for legislation to facilitate we all locations that might not otherwise happen. budget rules will never be a guide to good spectrum policy. budget rules alone will never substitute for thoughtful deliberative spectrum management. if the easier relocations have already been done and demand for using spectrum continues to grow, what will spectrum

animate in the next decade look like? the goal continuing to facilitate spectrum migrate to lower value and higher value uses will not change but the tools to achieve this will. the traditional clear an auction approach will become less attractive. inevitably, with the cost of clearing additional bands to relocate an auction growing, as the easier ones have already happened, the net budgetary incentive to legislate these auctions is suspected to become smaller overtime. making existing bounce for new uses available for not having to clear all existing users first. that is finding ways to share bands, may avoid the largest of the clearing cost. if new approaches to share and preserve a significant portion of the value of users, then the net benefit of such approaches will remain relatively high. some of these approaches may lead to auctions with a budgetary incentive preserves while others may not. so long as new cases solutions continue to facilitate, the

more efficient use a spectrum, we will all benefit. the future -- this future a more creative ways to maximize the value we derived from the fixed spectrum resource degree, that is the choice for policymakers is not whether or not to continue to strive to use spectrum or officially, market and social pressure for part that we do so, but rather the degree to which it will happen. preferably the legislative -- to do the long term planning needed more efficiently exploit the benefits of radio spectrum for society. and this future, more efficient use of spectrum costs the spectrum based services lower and consumption that service is higher. in a less supportive improbable environment, the future will cc -- will still see growth and wireless base services but not as much and with a higher cost. thank you. i do have tattoos for everybody. >> thank, you doctor. i appreciate that. temporary tattoos.

although you alerted everyone you will get a permanent one. >> i will sponsor any permanent one. >> i appreciate that, dr.. again, i want to thank each of the witnesses for being available today and for offering your important perspective. we all agree that developing good spectrum policy directly informs everything from how we innovate and compete globally to how we access public services to making broadband accessible and affordable in places like new mexico and across the country. if we are serious about closing the digital divide, developing good policy here must be a top priority. this is especially important for new mexico. many of my constituents rely on wireless technology to connect to broadband. at home and access critical services. we must ensure this resource is use to its fullest potential to serve families and states like mine. now my first question, mr.

lewis, the fcc's ability to conduct spectrum auctions is set to expire in september when we extend that authority, congress must ensure the commission can begin planning its future slate of auctions and start the complex technical evaluations and negotiations with incumbent spectrum users immediately. kicking the can down the road, benefits no one. mr. lewis, yes or no, does a longer term extension of fcc spectrum auction authority strength in the fcc and ntia's ability to make spectrum available to connect all americans to high-speed reliable and affordable broadband services? >> can yes. >> can you explain how a reauthorization will accelerate our mission to connect 100% of americans to high reliable and affordable broadband? >> the longer authorization

sets of the agencies. these are the expert agencies. to do the tough work of analyzing what bans and with what guidelines can be rolled out. it's really important because we have moved into a space where they are simply a lot of -- not a lot of opportunities to get greenfield spectrum. we have to be efficient, we have to be creative and we need to look at options such as sharing and a good mix of the license unlicensed. that takes careful planning by two agencies so that all the stakeholders are taken into account when we think about what spectrum bands can be used for, what they're used best for and how those allocations might be structured. >> appreciate that. miss baker, one of the most important tasks facing the fcc and ntia right now is the development of a coronated strategy on national spectrum management.