insurance implications of emerging technologies and cybersecurity. to ensure coordination and consistency among insurance regulators. the nerc also continues to facilitate tabletop exercises with insurers regulators andr pe risk. the naic facilitated -- which is now aligned to be -- these disclosures cover 80% of the market by premium help insurance assess risk and actions to mitigate crime -- climates risk. we recommended that wildfires be explicitly added to the framework for catastrophe risk exposure. we are creating a catastrophe model center of excellence to provide insurance regulators to access of information and training. another area of activity is the

intersection of race and insurance. the nic's work focuses on evaluating issues of race and diversity. the nic formed a new avenue -- to help foster instruments in the insurance careers swept a focus on students from underserved communities. state insurance regulators continue to engage on a variety of issues including the development of an insurance capital standards. the naic along with partners are clear that the -- best outwork for the u.s. market and they have developed an aggregation method to that iac f.

finally, we will like to highlight a few of our federal priorities. we urge congress to pass a reauthorization that encourages investment in flood mitigation efforts and we support government scots -- pat --act. we are working on legislation to helpers -- protect policy owners during an insurance receivership. i am pleased to take questions. >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today about current issues. i am the director of the federal insurance office. i would like to begin by outlining files role --fio's

role and responsibilities. we provide a range of projects to help needs of businesses. iao --fio advises the treasury secretary on major domestic policy issues -- have access to affordable insurance products, assists in negotiating agreements with performance -- foreign jurisdictions. as fios director, i also served with a nonvoting member with the national security building

council. i would like to highlight five current fio priorities. climate financial risk is a top priority. we are focus our -- with three areas. first, we plan to publish a report assessing climate related issues and gaps in the superman -- supervision and regulation of insurance. we are evaluating the potential of major disruptions of private insurance. third, we are increasing engagement domestically and internationally on climate financial risk issues. as we move forward with efforts, we will see data to increase understanding on the wrist to climate change to policy owners. the second focus area is the growing role of alternative

asset managers. this evolution is one that our office has highlighted for several years. it warrants increased intention to ensure mechanisms are designed to address activities that we outlined in our recent letter. we encourage continued focus. fio continued to prioritize four areas of research and action. liquidity risk, credit risk and capital addicts -- advocacy, offshore -- potential conflicts of interest. we are focused on fiber related risks, which is a top priority of the federal government. we have been examining our own cyber --resistance. we have increased data

collection and have supported the development of treasuries counter ransom strategy. we have worked with agencies in connection with the recommendation that we assess the need for federal backstop for cyber insurance. we are coordinating closely with the white house cyber director on issues. our fourth priority is the representation of the united states with closed carnation with the naic -- coordination with the naic. we are considering topics -- and the related comparability work and evolving -- involving the application method. these topics are important initiatives that will affect the u.s. insurance sector and is critical for fio in the u.s. to engage with these issues.

we are prioritizing our work on diversity, equity and inclusion. fio looks at these issues through the lens of affordability with insurance products. we are working to update our study on personal auto insurance portability. these issues are key components of our climate work. on all of these topics, fio values are close relationship and ordination with state regulators, are federal partners and international counterparts. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. thank you for files --'fio's response. you mentioned that once a company transfers its pension obligations in eight pension

risk -- in a pension risk transfer -- what problems arise when pensions are transferred to life insurers and how do they pose risks to workers -- i do have that -- concerns about the broader financial system and the impact. >> thank you for that question. we share your interest. the u.s. insurance sector and the life and retirement sector is critical for working americans that rely on these products. we highlighted the four key areas. enhancing file's monitoring of the liquidity risk of the financial sector. we are looking at regulatory measures and whether they are

designed to accommodate and regulate this business model. we are looking at the officer reinsurance implications, particularly the increase entered -- interconnectedness with the u.s. and europe markets. we are looking at potential conflicts of interest. we will look with the naic and the states going forward. >> my interests in this issue has increased because congress worked a year ago and was able to fix in the congress pension system. we know that human cost of failing pensions close to workers who have the expectations. it is imperative that insurers and become a full -- we count on both of you --

commissioner, thank you for being here. i have heard from nonprofit associations greasing to state insurance about difficulties of finding -- finding affordable properties. what are tools available for state insurance commissioners to solve this market fairly -- earlier --failure? >> the in ic has long opposed the expansion of the act to allow our r.g.'s to buy commercial property insurance. we have serious concerns that nonprofits that are vulnerable to be -- could be put at greater risk by -- if they are allowed to purchase their property insurance from a into see that

is not subject to the same rigorous standards and multistate enforcement as other carriers and that creates an uneven playing field. most states have a residual market for property insurance. in my state, i have queried our nonprofits and this is not an issue that we see in the state of maryland. other commissioners are making efforts to look at their markets to see where issues exist and we would be happy to know about specific circumstances and make ourselves available to work with nonprofits that are having difficulty getting commercial property insurance. >> your assess students -- assessment differs from ours. it is a serious problem that has not been solved in the past with faced with similar issues. i am working to amend things to address the issue affecting

community-based nonprofits. director sykes, are you concerned? >> thank you for that question. we have also been tracking this issue. we have been engaging with various stakeholders on the topic. we will look forward to working with the naic and your team as we look into this issue. >> we have a working with naic to find a solution with retention groups -- under nrc regulations and commissioner, i wanted to ask, can we work together to find a solution that responsibly increases insurance capacity for rrg's to address the problem? >> we want to work together to construct an solution and we are happy to work with you. >> thank you.

i wanted to ask if their questions -- a third question about climate catastrophe risk and we will submit something in mind -- writing. >> thank you. that chairman brought up the circumstances that occur occasionally where pension risk transfer occurs and by understanding is the nature of this is when a company has a defined benefit obligation to insert retirees, it can purchase an annuity from an insurance company that transfers the management of this to an insurance company. in that scenario, it is my understanding that the pp d.c. guarantee no longer of class. there are insurance funds.

what i be correct in assuring the -- assuming that the insurance guarantee would be there as a backstop for companies to honor their obligations? >> that is correct. >> after the transfer concerns, something no longer applies but the -- >> no longer applies to be risk because what is happening is that the pension fund is find an insurance product -- buying a insurance product. >> your experience -- and you will probably agree with me that insurance companies have extensive experience in managing long-term liabilities. that is what they do. the idea of whether they are in

a good position to manage the long-term liabilities of a defined benefit pension plan suggests to me that they were -- likely while still best suited to manage the task -- they are likely well suited to manage the task. >> -- insurance regulators hold life insurance companies to must -- much bricks -- much stricter standards. >> those regulars -- rigorous standards don't go away. >> if anything, private equity funds are subject to stricter election. -- regulation. >> director sites, --seitz,

it has come to my attention that there is work being done -- done involving private equity insurance and i am not sure that you are involved with that for the international -- i lose track of my acronyms here. it is not iais. -- v iais. is that true? >> with regard to that, they have discussed the topic of private equity. i can't disclose the private conversation but it is one of the themes we are seeing in the micro production. >> are you involved in the efforts to make recommendations

regarding private equity involvement in insurance? >> we are coordinating with the federal reserve and others on issues including work related to the capital standards and regarding the holistic framework which steve and i ic is adopting -- which the naic is adopting. >> you didn't answer my question. are you involved in research update analysis that includes policy recommendations -- involving analysis that includes policy recommendations? >> we are working closely with the and aic in the states and there are topics we are discussing and one of the topics is private equity. >> you are updating my question. -- evading my question. if there is a memo or a piece of

research work that is done and you are involved and it is submits to -- submitted to the iais, the you intend to share that with the -- committee? >> we value the importance of transparency and we will work with partners to make sure that there is appropriate transparency and this is a topic that will be included in the report to this committee regarding our activities. >> i am out of time mr. chairman. >> the senator from rhode island is recognized. >> thank you. in may 2021, a study was released about challenges that ensures that policy holder space -- based -- holders face. -- ensuring that policies

provide appropriate coverage? >> thank you for your question. we have closely reviewed the study and contributed to it and we agreed --agree with the conclusions. looking at the pricing challenges that have been happening, additionally, you are seeing carriers withdraw coverage. in particular, an area of focus is the extent to which cyber coverage is available to small and medium enterprises. we have collected information for the first time last year regarding the extent to which sme's affect coverage. -- have that coverage. >> at this point, terrorism insurance, with that includes

chuck -- include cyber attacks? >> a dust cover cyber insurance rates and in the lines of insurance and regard to our work, it is an addition -- an issue we have discussed extensively, physically how the -- particularly -- >> how are you working with the insured sing -- insurance industry to address the cyber issues? there seems to be a new challenge prevented -- presented by cyber something. >> i would say with respect to the nrc, what we have got to develop as a cybersecurity supplement for ensure --

insurer's statements. we utilize data that we have captured within this cyber supplement to monitor risks. what we can confirm is that between 2020 and 2021, there was an increase of 75% indirect written premium that was clear that was growth due to primary plea to price increases -- primarily due to price increases. premiers -- premiums are going up and limits are going down. it is a much harder environment. with respect to the environment, we are engaged with efforts to look at what is the appropriate backstop, how do we make sure there is a robust financial --

financial backup available, even if the insurance market doesn't have the appetite to cover all of it. >> any comments? >> i think the commissioner said it well. >> you point out the increasing prices of cyber insurance, which affects every business and small businesses. what steps can state regulators take to try to reduce coverage? >> insurance is fundamentally based on risk. pricing is based on risks. that is what we expect them to do so as risks increase, so do premiums. we have switches we can toggle in terms of opening up markets like the surplus lines markets

or the passive arrangements will -- for certain companies. at some point, there are risks that are high are either too large or volatility there are -- or they are to certain to be affordable as we would like them to be. when we see the tightening of the market, the increasing costs and underwriting standards creates discipline and helps with good cyber hygiene. ed asks businesses -- it asks businesses to be more responsible and take cyber risks seriously. that allows their programs to be more affordable. >> thank you very much. >> thank you to both of you for being with us today.

as you are both aware, in response to the development proposed at the -- team usa propose the aggregation method at an alternative framework. comments in response to a consultation of the proposed criteria to -- it and dictates -- it indicates that the current process may be biased towards the ics. it precludes -- which we want. could each of you take a minute and explain why a eurocentric capital model would have a negative impact to consumer access to insurer products. i would begin with the commissioner. >> and you for the question -- thank you for the question. the u.s. market includes a

number of foreign owned insurance. comparability would allow the foreign jurisdiction to divert to u.s. capitol requirements. as u.s.-based insurers seek to operate abroad, it is important that those countries recognize relevant aspects of the system. the agreements between the u.s. and eu and u.k. along with all of five george edition -- qualified jurisdiction processes already require capital. >> director seitz? -- i am assuming you are in agreement with my statement that you want to maintain the current proposal we use. >> thank you for your question.

it is critically important for the u.s. sector and we have been working on this for several years in coordination. we we made engaged in the conversation. in particular, the international community is moving ahead with the international standard. we need to improve the methodology so it is more compatible to the u.s. system. vi --the ics doesn't reflect -- we look forward to working with the partners as we take this step forward. >> i believe that the u.s. system -- is the gold standard when it comes to protecting insurance markets. commissioner, do you believe our

state-based regulatory system has been effective and successful? >> what is interesting, asked senator brown referred to aig, and i know many have lived through that time, one sent --ce nt of companies that did well were insurance companies, the pic carriers that were regulated by the state. as aig stock to recover, it was those assets they were able to sell to find the -- find --fund the economy --garrett recovery. --their recovery. the notion that policyholders in those rare instances where there have been an insolvency are not

getting paid, is unheard of. what the state-based rep. torres: system has proved, having just come through a pandemic and an difficult environment -- the state insurance system is protecting policyholders and claims are being paid and it is infinitely clear that the mechanisms that exist at the state-based level are able to protect policyholders and respond quickly to changes in in circumstances -- in circumstances. >> i couldn't agree with you more and i believe that congress should allow you and the naic to do your job and i think it is imperative that congress recognizes that it has worked successfully and we will talk about the other items.

one of them is private equity. there are good messages about what private equity has done for the interest markets. my time has expired. i think you for your answers today -- i thank you for your answers today. >> senator menendez is recognized. >> thank you. last year, i introduced the clarifying law around insurance of marijuana act. [indiscernible] provided a shape -- safe harbor for insurers to involved -- provide products without the risk of federal prosecution. it was included as a provision of a state banking act. and you describe why we need the

safe banking act enacted as soon as possible? >> the naic does support the safe banking act. the safe banking act would help remove federal barriers for insurers to and short states legalized cannabis businesses. it is critical that businesses are able to buy insurance and what claims occur, they can use the banking system to pay claims. making ask what allow that to happen -- banking acts would allow that to happen. >> [indiscernible] imagine a scenario where a jersey lightbulb manufacturer

provides some products to a manager -- marijuana business and it causes a fire. >> that sounds -- the challenge that insurance companies have is using the banking system to transfer on to a cannabis business. the answer is that is a circumstance that could be challenging for that lightbulb company's and sure and trying to use the banking system to pay money to the campus -- cannabis business. >> let me turn to pandemic risk insurance. when covid-19 hit our country, small business owners discovered the most business -- disease are pandemic, leaving many

businesses without relief. congress provided a bipartisan basis -- trillions of dollars in aid to help keep small businesses afloat. i voted for the american rescue plan, which was critical to the response but we should be planning ahead to better protect our economy from the rest of a do pandemic -- a new pandemic that could overwhelm the health system. the question of the next pandemic is not if but when. commissioner, is there still limited pandemic interrupting coverage in the market? >> the scope of coverage in the market has not changed. it has not expanded. >> wouldn't business owners and employees of the federal government be better prepared for the next pandemic after congress established a public-private solution to

provide coverage for pandemic related losses? >> i think business -- 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 and in those circumstances, it is appropriate to discuss what public-private partnership you could do in order to make sure that financing is available in those circumstances. >> i appreciate that. it is critical we plan ahead for the next pandemic rather than wait to the next outbreak. what we need is to -- a way to incentivize businesses to preserve the lessons of covid and except a level of personal responsibility. i don't know those who would simply wait until eight crisis

point and have the federal government distributes -- billions of dollars instead of a targeted response. finally, mr. chairman, fema reported that over for 25,000 -- 420 500,000 -- to 20 -- 20% of the policyholders with drop coverage over 10 years. the agency predicted it would take years for 425,000 aussie overs to drop coverage but it took eight short months. i think fema has misled us and i want to work with you to advance

the bipartisan legislation we had before the problem gets worse. >> thank you. >> -- the senator from antenna is recognized -- montana is recognized. >> i want to thank the folks here. i want to touch back on cyber. commissioner, is there anything that washington, d.c. needs to do to deal with cyber from your industry perspective or are we are --or are we ok? >> are you speaking in terms of the protection cap? >> i am speaking in terms of the threats and i will get into the increase do -- due to cyber. is there anything we can do in terms of relief?

>> from the perspective of our industry is that we are looking at assuring that there are adequate controls in the insurance industry so they can withstand potential cyber threats. what the and act -- naic has been developed -- engaged in is a law -- which improves and increase the security of data and the rapid next of notice to any -- rapid next -- rapid this --rapidness. >> but between these agencies, the issue is being handled adequately? >> we have an adequate model in place. >> when senator reid was asking

a question, you said there was a 75% increase in premiums due to cyber? >> when we talk about insurance companies as risk financers, policies have become more expensive for the businesses that buy policies. >> that is what timeframe? >> one year. >> the ranking member talked about you dealing with risks. have you done that with issues around climate? where i live in montana, it is dry as hell. you probably heard about the flood in yellowstone park. it seems like we are having 500 year event every decade.

you take that into account --did you take that into account? >> we track the severity of perils in the claims. in the world of climates, --c limate, weather patterns are changing and they are causing increased claim activity. >> can you give me an idea from property damages standpoint, what the increase in premiums would be? >> i don't have the numbers and i am happy to follow-up at the increases are exponential. we are seeing larger numbers of claims. weather events are frequent and severe. >> i would love to get those numbers because there are a number of folks in the body of

congress that think ignoring climate is something that will make you go away, when in fact, my experience is it ain't going away. it is getting far worse. last year was the worst we -- crop we have ever had. we have been on the farm for 45 years. i want to talk quickly about an arab. we have passed a bill years ago and we still don't have a board through obama or trump. can you get me the benefits of that board? >> that is an issue that we

would probably do better briefing you on. the position we have is the board should be created and established. >> can you give me an update on the status of that board being -- fully functional? >> thank you for that question. we shared recognizing be importance of it and we have been meeting with stakeholders on. to sort of thing through the process and it is an issue that we have focused on through the last two years. >> i am way out of time but i would say, please be aggressive. bounce some people around and get this damn thing done. it will be a win for the consumer and industry and

nation. >> senator hagerty is recognized. >> thank you both and to our guests. i will like to turn to you, commissioner. there have been concerns raised about the lack of regulation and transparency. i would like to talk to you from a state regulatory standpoint. our insurers treated any differently than other insurers and are they able to avoid oversight at the state level? >> no. private equity owned insurers are not treated any differently than other insurance except to the extent that it has been the comments since 2013 that states have imposed greater in requirements -- they have been

required to accept additional conditions. that is the condition of the approval of their investment and their assessment of the insurance company. they are now part of the financial handbook that states use when they assess a request by any entity to purchase a insurance company. in christ -- light -- investments not just made five -- the macro potential working group has constructed a list of considerations that are focused on investment disclosures, ownership collateral, these and pension risks transfer guidance. >> you said that there are additional regulations in place

for private equity owned insurances at the state level. >> that is business standard. >> back to patient risk transfers, that is the process by which a corporation may transfer pension risk to an insurance company, what tools do state regulators have to ensure policyholders. --? >> be insurance regulators have a robust -- the insurance regulators have a robust set of tools. our system is designed to avoid failure. are system is designed to have object into the financial standing of the companies who use a variety of tools to assure that companies maintain the reserve date need, but tickly with life insurance that have long-term risks. to assure that they are adequately reserved.

the fact that -- >> in may, the national association of insurance commissioners sent a letter to chairman brown on the topic of alternative assets quantities. the state regulators possessed the tools and resources necessary to address chairman brown's concerns. like any other industry, life insurance will continue to evolve. i am certain they will provide new and better products and it is clear that state regulators have the tools they need to continue in the role. do you agree with that? >> i do. >> thank you. >> senator warren of

massachusetts is recognized. >> not content with buying newspapers and single family homes, retail chains and pretty much everything else, private equity has set its sights on a new moneymaker, american retirement savings. private equity has hoovered equity products. -- zero presents just over a decade ago. these private owned equity insurers have developed a taste for worker pension. under this model private equity giants like apollo are buying up pension obligations from big employers

like jcpenney and lockheed martin. almost 300,000 americans today have pensions that are managed by private equity firms. mr. seitz, you run the office that oversees insurance products. i want to ask you about the safety of these americans' pensions. when someone report -- retires from a company like jcpenney and alcoa and their pension was transferred over to apollo's insurance arm, you say that the retiree's pension is just as financially secure now that it is managed by a private equity owner-ensure, as it was before? mr. seitz: thank you, senator, for that question. we share your view on the importance of this issue and recognize the importance of

pensions to millions of americans relying on those for their retirement, and a dignified retirement. we are working closely with regulatory considerations as they look at their framework and how to best address not only changes in the pe sector, more broadly in the life insurance sector with regard to their investment and liquidity. sen. warren: i appreciate you care about these issues, but that is not the question i asked. once there has been a transfer to apollo's insurance arm, are the people covered just as secure as they were before the transfer? that is easy. yes or no? mr. seitz: the individuals, when their policies are transferred they are covered by the state guarantee funds, and it is an area of focus for our office to make sure the -- make sure regulatory mechanisms are being designed to reflect these new transactions. sen. warren: i'm still not hearing a yes or no.

just make clear, in a september 2021 report the federal insurance office, which you run, stated that "pe 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 tended to hold a more significant proportion of investments in alternative or non-traditional insurance assets that are associated with a liquidity and complexity premiums." do you still agree with what you said? mr. seitz: thank you, senator. we have articulated those same points in our letter to chairman brown a few months ago, and it is an issue we are focused on, and we appreciate the changing investment portfolio of those companies, as well as across the

broader life insurance -- sen. warren: in other words there is more risk? mr. seitz: it is an area of increased focus for our office. sen. warren: exposing american'' retirement savings to more risk is exactly how private equity makes its money. riskier and more complex investments means that private equity-backed insurers can jack up their returns and short-term profits. but the pensions are more vulnerable to being 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, 1/5 of the portfolio is invested in risky asset-backed securities and leveraged loans made to companies that are already highly indebted. and even worse, many of the scenes 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. so, look, this is a problem of more risk, and the risk is borne by people who have invested for all of their working lives in their retirement security. i want to underline the word security. my stop wall street looting act would strengthen private equity disclosures to empower investors and help regulators crackdown on self-dealing, that we also need federal and state insurance regulators to step up and address the risk that private equity poses to pensioners and workers. i appreciate that treasury and naic are looking at this closely, but enough studying. it is time to act. i'm looking forward to working with your offices to ensure that happens. thank you.

sen. brown: the senator from kansas. >> thank you. we start with you, director sites -- director seitz. concern has been expressed about private equity firms, however that term is defined, having a short time horizon for their investments and insurers, and thus may be willing to engage in riskier activities. can you tell me if there are insurers that have been purchased by private equity that have been sold or are up for sale, indicating a quick turnaround? mr. seitz: thank you, senator. it is an issue we are monitoring, particularly over the last -- we have seen an increase in activity over the last several years, and particularly for certain blocks of business, and it is an area

we are continuing to monitor. sen. moran: the question was, whether examples of insurance companies are there and in short fashion sold? -- are then in short fashion sold? mr. seitz: they are not making those types of movements that you described. sen. moran: thank you. i do want to indicate that my experience in kansas is a pe firm's 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 additional jobs, and helped those insurance companies continue to be in existence and

grow their book of business and economic activity in our state. then i was listening on the television about a question that the ranking member asked. it does seem to me this administration is determined to import financial regulations and 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 to hating american business and markets. and that the f's top priority should be defending american interests and preserving a system that has worked so well as i heard you indicate, of state regulation over a century. you want to be promoting that in the international forms. i was night -- i was not quite certain you answered senator toomey's question, but i will

have my thoughts to that topic. thank you. sen. brown: thank you. senator sinema is recognized, i believe from her office. sen. sinema: thank you, chairman. want to start by talking to our witnesses about our working group that i convened last year. a bipartisan working group with other members of this committee to identify advanced solutions around risksharing. our goal is to improve the resiliency of the economy to future pandemic-related economic shocks. we do this by creating insurance frameworks that bring forward the power of the private sector and provide business owners with choices to buy coverage that aligns with their needs and risk tolerance. that will reduce the price tag of any future pandemic response and address some of the waste we are seeing with respect to pandemic a. our response to future pandemics need to be leaner, faster, and

smarter, and it is important to me that future responses are fiscally responsible. it is clear that the risks of overspending, coupled with supply chain disruption, can trigger an inflationary response. as you know, for insurance policies that cover cancellation and interruptions, virtually all of them include exclusions that exempt pandemics from coverage, despite this i have heard from businesses and insurance brokers that cancellation and business interruption coverage is increasingly difficult to find and is expensive if you can find at what do you see in the market for these lines? ms. biranne: i think your characterization of the current market condition is correct, and i do not see that changing in the near future. i think there are certain types of risks that are come as i have said before, too large, too volatile for the market to be able to absorb them.

>> thank you. our working group is concerned about this because we want businesses to afford the policies they need and responsibly plan for the future. my question is for you, commissioner. i would like to also see and insurance for small businesses so they can take a level responsibility that aligns with the risk tolerance. in 2020 some businesses had to wait months to get their ppp loans, and they had to go from two to access relief. i would rather have a framework where businesses could purchase subsidized coverage where it is affordable and the business owner knows how much coverage they are getting. would you agree that a pre-established private insurance policy would generally provide faster and more predictable relief for businesses to plan around? ms. biranne: what i would suggest is that the in eic has supported the idea of a federal

backstop with respect to the eye coverage. certainly it is important that business owners have a sense of certainty about what the coverage options are, but there are a variety of models that work well when the government and private industry coupled together and draw on the strength of each. the strength of government to fund broadly and the strength of insurance companies to be able to appropriately underwrite and price and adjudicate claims and assist businesses in risk mitigation. i would say overall there is a case to be made for such a partnership and the particular model of that partnership is something the in eic does not have a position on. sen. sinema: thank you. would you agree the auditing capacities that private insurance brings would be helpful in reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in a future pandemic? ms. biranne: i would say

insurance companies, part of what they bring to the table is expertise in underwriting and risk mitigation, as well as risk financing and fraud detection. sen. sinema: thank you. i have a question for you about insurance generally. in your experience regulating insurance companies would you say an insurance carrier bearing some level of risk incentive incentivizes them to conduct more robust risk management, since their own capital is on the line? ms. biranne: i would say that insurance companies generally very effective at reviewing risks, and in helping their insured to mitigate those risks. when you have an insurance policy, particularly in the property and casualty area, the insurance company plays an integral role in the underwriting process and the pricing process in helping companies to mitigate the risks they are trying to finance. sen. sinema: thank you.

finally i will say we are working to identify thought -- a thoughtful and bipartisan solution to this issue and create a smarter response for future pandemic. our working group appreciates the commissioner's strong leadership in endorsing a federal solution and i'm looking forward to working with you and other key stakeholders. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. brown: senator van hollen of maryland is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner biranne, it is great to have a fellow maryland are here. thank you for your work protecting the interests of marylanders in your work. i want to thank you and naic for helping me and my colleagues prepare legislation to protect seniors from financial fraud. the legislation is titled 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, $3 billion a year at least in financial scams. can you speak briefly to the importance of passing this legislation to protect seniors from financial fraud? ms. biranne: absolutely. we have been very happy to work with you on this initiative. consumer protection is what insurance regulation is all about. and there is probably no more important area of consumer protection than ensuring that our seniors are not subject to aggressive marketing tactics and to other fraudulent practices. it is critically important that we have all of the resources available to ensure that we are on the ground with seniors directly to be able to prevent them from being caught up in fraud. sen. van hollen: thank you. i'm going to ask the chairman

and ranking member to join us in getting that out. sen. brown: we were just speaking about that quietly. sen. van hollen: 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 porton -- an important part of it is to ensure their ability to play 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 they overemphasize the trends of older historical data and not adequately assess your risks. so two-part question. what is the naacp doing to ensure its models incorporate the most recent and relevant climate data?

in order to reflect the true risks. secondly, from a risk management and capital adequacy perspective how important is it for insurance regulators to have -- to have standardized data on climate risk? ms. biranne: with respect to the first issue, i would say what our solvency work -- work frame is doing is working closely and making sure our models are accurate and/or up-to-date, and we are adding additional perils to the rbc capital framework. to ensure we capture more broadly the various events that can occur. that is the first thing. secondly, with respect to data collection, the in eic -- naic has data collection that captures what needs to be captured. that is something subject to constant update and improvement. we have both on the individual state level and in the aggregate through the in eic -- naic,

capture data through the way insurance regulators use that data to understand what our claims patterns and where claims are occurring and why and how claims are being paid and what the impact of that is on insolvency and the financial status of entities. sen. van hollen: is there an effort to create some kind of national standard so that states are not using, you know, 50 different standards for this purpose? ms. biranne: there is conversation through our center of excellence on the development of a single standard and being able to work 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. in the interim these data collections that occurs around natural disasters is very robust.

they -- sen. van hollen: thank you. mr. seitz, i don't know if you want to comment on the two parts of the question? mr. seitz: i would say we share your view on the importance of granular data. on our office we are looking at it through the lens of affordability, particularly in the homeowner's business line. it is an area we have seen sums -- some need for national standards and approaches. sen. van hollen: we have obviously seen a huge increase in property losses due to extreme weather events over the last couple of decades. if you could maybe try to quantify for me in the committee what the increase in premiums have been as a result of increased climate risk? i realize that as an imperfect science, but i would like a ballpark estimate if you could get back to us on that. mr. seitz: sen. brown: senator

cortez masto is recognized from her office. sen. cortez masto: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the two speakers today. let me at the very beginning show support for senator menendez's question around the safe banking act. this is about supporting small businesses, which is the backbone of our economy. it has bipartisan support. i think it should be passed. i hope my colleagues feel the same way. director seitz, let me talk to about the federal review happening. the fha recently announced a review of our home loan bank system. are you aware of the proposed review, and i have a question about whether the insurance office plans to monitor or

participate in the review of the bank review happening as well? let me put this out there. it was surprising for me to realize that 548 insurance companies are members of the federal home loan banks and they received one quarter of the advances. i'm curious if the organization is going to be reviewing and following with the -- what the fha is doing? mr. seitz: thank you, senator, for that question. the federal home loan banks play an important role in our housing markets. we are well aware that insurance companies, particularly life insurers, are increasing participants and taking advances. it is an area we have been discussing with our colleagues at the fha and we look forward to continuing to engage with them as they begin the review process that was just recently started. sen. van hollen: thank you. i hope you do continue to

monitor it. left jump to an issue my colleagues have been talking about, which is private equity. before we get there i want to follow up on business interruption insurance. in march 2020 when the covid pandemic began my office received calls from business owners who had insurance. they chose policies that included business interruption insurance and they paid the 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, talk a little bit about it. is it feasible for insurance companies to provide pandemic insurance? then, when it comes to private equity, ms. birrane, let me talk to you about this. in particular the transfer of

ownership or risk from private equity to some insurance companies. one of the things you identified is that there are certain types of risks that are too large and volatile for the market to absorb them. and you don't feel that way about private equity as they come in and purchase so many of -- unfortunately, insurance companies and so many assets. i know i am asking and conflating two questions, they are similarly related, and this is the concern. insurance companies are not covering the risk when there is a pandemic even though companies are paying for it, if there is some risk related with private equity and there is, god for bid, some disaster, economically, how can we guarantee that that coverage will exist by insurance

companies as well? is there a correlation between the two? or do you feel that protections have been put in place by the naic adopting these regulations when it comes to private equity? let's start with you. ms. biranne: when -- what i would say is let us think about this as a matter of contract. when you think about the business interruption insurance dental policies baked into policies, those contract terms exempted business interruptions caused by things like contaminations that would fall within a pandemic, or that did not result from a physical covered peril. those gaps in coverage were baked into the policies, and unfortunately many business owners were not as -- were not really 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 a set of clear rules and guidelines of air -- 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 in place. none of those are different because the owner is a private equity company. continue to monitor and regulate the performance of the company regardless of the ownership. hopefully that helps contrast those two circumstances. sen. smith: i note -- sen. cortez masto: i know my time is running out. that is very helpful. director seitz, do you feel the same way with respect to private equity companies? that they can be covered by these regulations that naic has adopted? mr. seitz: we appreciate the

importance of retirement security products for millions of americans, and we are working closely with the naic and states as they develop the regulatory considerations. as our letter noted, there are areas of focus for our office, and also to the life insurance sector more generally irrespective of sometimes the business models as well. sen. cortez masto: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. brown: thank you, senator. thanks, commissioner, and thanks, director, both of you, for answering questions forthrightly and being here today. and especially for your public service. would like to submit the testimony of a retiree of the northwestern bell telephone company, whose pension is now administered by athene. for senators who wish to register questions, those are due september 15.

please submit your responses to questions for the record 45 days -- no more than 45 days from the day you received them. with that, the hearing is adjourned.

that workon farms around americ. >> today we are meeting to examine workplace detections for child farmworkers. today's hearing represents the third in the series for spotlight workers that are all too often overlooked, neglected and exploited. the hearings have been invented to lift workers up and champion their causes. each day hundreds of thousands 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. unfortunately, the nation's labor law has left the child workers behind. while the fair standard laborers fact provides protections in the

workforce, children working in the agricultural industry are either excluded from many of these protections were provided legal protections for example unlike other industries, child farmworkers can be assigned hazardous jobs from the age of 16. this allows them to generally work longer hours compared to other child workers. additionally, supervisors often provide little to no leaving the children to manage heavy machinery, pesticides and even. [inaudible] as one of 14-year-old child said

be careful do not hurt yourself, but that's basically it. another child farmworkers said none of our bosses have told us how we can protect ourselves. our nation has turned its back on child farmworkers as a result it's devastating. a recent study showed those in north carolina found 70% of the children were exposed to harmful pesticides in the field. another study of the child farmworkers found nearly 50% of children suffered from heat related illnesses and between 2003 to 2017, child farmworkers are counted 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 and while they are entitled to the minimum wage, employers with low wages are under reporting hours. the children are also ready to purchase their own equipment, undercutting their meager income. this demands work that also results in high school dropout rates at four times the national average and as we all know it can be in the cycle of poverty. as lawmakers we have the responsibility to protect all workers no matter where and to make sure each of them have the opportunity to achieve their dream. the congresswoman of california

for her long-standing leadership to sponsor 7345 the act responsible for the safety of 2022 where the care act of 2022 without also a cosponsor. a bill that would prohibit any industry from workers under the age of 14. it would protect children from harmful pesticides and repeal the waiver that allows children under the age of ten to handpick crops and require employers to report injuries. legislation goes a long way to make sure children working in agriculture are protected for children working in other industries so i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and working with my colleagues to

protect an opening statement. >> agriculture provides valuable opportunities for young people in rural areas across the country. as a nation, we should be encouraging americans to pursue a career in not discouraging them. the average age is nearly 60-years-old. the title of today's hearing, children * examining workplace protections for child farmworkers. children at risk in america are because of policies like an open order where fentanyl comes across. where we have massive inflation in a 40 year high so parents can't afford.

children are at risk from the thispending in washington, d.c.t we've seen happening over the past few years under one-party rule from the democrats and the biden administration. they have to pay back the money and what we want to do here is villain eyes america's farmers. as a young child, i was 14, 15-years-old and i helped bale hay and do chores on the farm. as far as saying they run dangerous equipment, they don't do that. farmers don't want people hurt. ..

and a lot of things farming. i learn things are important to me as a youngster. i learned how to drive up to learn how to do a lot of things. i learn things that benefited meet later in life. like a work ethic. how to problem solve, how do do a lot of things. that is what i learned. i am reminded of a thing said by paul harvey. he's a radio personality hosts, he has a show. he would talk about things. one thing he said in 1978 and going to read it for the committee. on the eighth day, god looked down on his paradise and said i need a caretaker, so god made a farmer. god said i need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk

cows, oracle there in the field, felt cozy and come eat supper and then go down to town and stay past midnight at the meeting of the school board so god made a farmer. i need somebody's arms strong enough to wrestle a calf yet gentle enough to rock a child. someone should call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry, and have to wait lunch till's wife is done visiting and tell the legs is sure to become back real soon and mean it. and so god made a farmer. god said i need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt and watch it dive, then draw his eyes and say maybe next year. i need somebody who can shoot a horse with a chunk of carter who can make harness out of payware, she scraps, and in planting time and harvest season will finish a 40 hour week by tuesday noon and then put in another 72 hours. and so god made a farmer.

godhead of someone willing to ride the roads at double speed to get the hay in the head of the rain clouds. and yet stop in midvale and raced to help when he sees the first smoke from a neighbor's place so god made a farmer. god said i need someone strong enough to clear trees and he felt it gentle enough to take lambs, wean pigs in tend who will stop his mower for an hour choose glint the broken leg of a meadowlark. it had to be somebody who plowed deep and straight and not cut corners. somebody to feed, weed, breed rate, disk, plow, plant and tie the fleecing, strain the milk, replenish the feeder and finish her heart works week with a 5-mile drive to church. so i did bail a family together with the soft strong bonds who would laugh and then sigh and then reply was smiling eyes on his son says he wants to spend

his life doing what dad 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, cared about me coming to help on his farm. as a kid from town. and i tell you what i just want to say thank you to my stepdad for caring, for loving me. in teaching me so many valuable lessons about how special it is to be here in united states of america. we should be focusing on the issues i mentioned first that are putting our children at risk which is an open order were fentanyl's coming across killing young americans. where parents cannot afford to buy things for their parents because were dealing with record high inflation. high gas prices. for the crab to pay back the subject. if we want our kids have it better off than we did, those are the things we should be focused on. i yield back.

>> thank you to the ranking member. thank you very much for you without objection all the members of written statements sent to the record may do so. i submitted them to the committee electronically at microsoft word format by 5:00 p.m. september 21. i will now introduce the witnesses. is it senior children's rights does went rights watch human rights watch excuse me. as an expert on child agricultural labor policy and advocate stronger protections for child agricultural workers. doctor lee is a director of the national children's center for rural agricultural health and safety. and it senior research scientist at the marshfield clinic. doctor lee is an expert of the

failed health and safety issues will show the reality of the dangers and hazards facing children in agricultural settings. boswell is the council at the law firm of austin and byrd. ms. boswell has extensive experience in agricultural labor policy be previously served in the united states department of agriculture during the trump administration. was also the director of congressional relations for the american farm bureau federation. ms. norma florez lopez is a committee chair of the child labor coalition a former child work her herself. ms. florez lopez knows firsthand the dangers of agricultural labor and is a leading advocate for stronger protections for farmworkers. to the witnesses, thank you very much for participating today. we look forward to your testimony. but let me remind the witnesses

we have read your written statement. they will appear full in the hearing records. the community practice each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a five minute summary of your wit written statement. but before you begin your testimony please remember to unmute your microphone during your testimony. staff will be keeping track of time. the timer is visible to you at the witness table. beat please be in attendance to the time put wrap up when your time is over and re- mute your microphone. we will let all of 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 the responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee and therefore we will proceed with their testimony. our first recognize you are now

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you chair adams. chair scott, ranking member keller distinguished members of the committee 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 researchers at human rights watch international human rights organization pit since 2000 human righteous report on the dangerous conditions children face a working. my colleagues and i interviewed hundreds of child farmworkers and publish their accounts and detailed reports but many of them were 1214 hour days on the farm and the punishing heat without sufficient breaks or hydration. most have received no safety training or protective equipment. even though they are sharp tools and heavy machinery inclined to dangerous heights on ladders and

in barns with nothing to protect them from falling. many were exposed to toxic pesticides and nontobacco barns children face the added risk of being exposed to nicotine a neurotoxin. more than two thirds of the wondered 30 child farmer interviewed described experiencing nausea, vomiting, headaches and dizziness while working with tobacco plants. all symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning. policy governing child labor in agriculture are far too weak. there also very out of touch with the national human rights standards. agriculture's most dangerous industry for child workers forget long-standing loopholes and long regulations allow children to work from younger ages and for longer hours on farms than any other sector. under the fair labor standard act, children as young as 12 can work unlimited hours on farms of any side with parental permission as long the is no

minimum wage for children to work on farms or family farms buried all the sector 16 is a basic minimum wage for employment. employing children younger than 14 is granted. the chairman also children working agriculture u.s. department of labor has determined for tickly hazardous at younger ages than any other working children. hazardous occupations at age 16 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 a power driven circular saws. despite these dangers the department of labor has not updated the list of hazardous agricultural occupation since 1970 for example children under 16 can work at heights up to 20 feet without any protection. contacting us sector employers

must enter protections for any work over 6 feet. twenty years ago, the national institute for occupational safety and recommended updating the hazardous occupation orders for both agricultural and nonagricultural jobs. in 2011, proposed updating the list for hazardous agricultural occupation is in 2012 in response to misguided opposition. illicit hazardous occupations for nonagricultural work was completed in 2010. strongly urge the committee to press the administration to make this an urgent priority exercise several members during the july congressional letter to secretary walsh urgent to update this list. throughout history the myspace has exploited the labor of black indigenous latin exit of the people of color and their children in agriculture. the child labor exemptions we

mean nus regulations in agriculture are part of this racist legacy and disproportionally harm children of hispanic origin in the u.s. the vast majority of child farmworkers. this congress has an opportunity to make long-overdue changes to u.s. labor law. perform safety sponsored by representatives and cosponsored by many members of this committee. the same basic workplace protection as other working children enjoy. it would eliminate work by 12 -year-olds and raise the basic minimum wage for our culture work to 14. another important building children do not belong on tobacco barn farms act children under 18 with work with tobacco product urged this committee to work these important bills and also use its authority to urged to update the list of hazardous

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

appropriate supervised work for young people offers her valuable experience and perspective has delayed later become productive contributors to our society. our team in wisconsin spearheaded the 1996 national action plan for protecting children and agriculture. endorsed by congress wanting a major initiative led by the occupational and health. and the 2007 upgrade the to increase collaboration between agricultural safety researchers, educators and farm organization leaders. although this committee is addressing working please keep in mind or than two thirds of farm injuries and dust occurred to nonworking children. agricultural hazards by their

parents, work supervisors public policy playing a key role. regarding occupational injuries agriculture is a leading number of deaths across all industries for workers younger than 16. the numbers are even restarting for workers younger than 14 with about a dozen dying on the job each year. and for nonfatal work-related injuries about 2907 or 50 are seriously injured each year. most common sources of injuries and deaths are tractors and a work vehicle such as atv and skid steers. other causes are machinery and livestock. in addition to injury, youth workers also face health risks. most notably respiratory exposures from organic dust, pesticide, cleaning and gases

for there's no question climate change have negative impacts on farm work will likely intensify in the future. with conditions such as high heat in extreme weather storms. additional concerns sections relate to animals, insects and skeletal disorders and mental health. as all of these diseases the injuries can have lifelong implications for young developing bodies and minds. some changes in public policy need to account for agricultural landscape i was an expectation differ from urban settings but rural communities comprise 14% of our population and the rates of poverty, food insecurity lack of healthcare insurance is about 20% higher than urban areas.

public policy can improve protections for youth working agriculture by one raising minimum wage for hired workers from 12 -- 14 years, to come updating the hazards, occupation orders and agriculture consistent with the practices technology and science. in district attorneys their untapped exciting space opportunities for young people to have positive work experiences the political will to make these opportunities a

reality. thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. boswell, you are now recognized for five minutes. cooks chairwoman adams, ranking member keller and members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the invitation testified today i've worked in agriculture policy and law i'm currently counseled also senior advisor to secretary of agriculture sunny perdue. and member of the farm bureau federation. of all these positions is included agricultural labor and firm safety issues. let me begin by noting i am testifying today in my personal capacity and not on behalf of any clients. i was one of the young people we are here to talk about today. i grew up in a multigenerational family farm in rural, nebraska. i worked side-by-side with my dad, my mom, and my two older sisters.

i'm the first to admit farm work as hard. it is dirty. it is hot, and it is sometimes dangerous. i drove tractors drawing hay bales in the grain cart during harvest railroad horses, i fed a bucket calves and i fixed down the fence. i cut and they sprayed weeds. to some these may seem unfamiliar or scary. or even unsafe. but to me, they are completely second nature. we can all agree this critically important to ensure anyone working in agriculture is safe. farmers are committed to offering jobs that are skill level appropriate will still give it young people invaluable hands-on experience. farmers don't anyone to get hurt and they work very closely with their local ffa chapter, extension officers and safety experts to provide practical educational experience in a controlled environment like farm safety days.

also farmers to safely perform their job in a work environment. i hope we can also agree giving young people job opportunities to build responsibility and develop life skills is incredibly important. in many farming communities the only job available is working for that local farmer. that hands-on experience gives young people excited about agriculture. not for the faint of heart it takes financial investment acceptance of risk and grit. it is dedication that can only be cultivated by being engaged in 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 them. unfortunately hr 7345 fails to balance the mutual goal of safety with the need to provide youth experience in agriculture.

it completely removes parental discretion and restricts the type of jobs you can perform on the farm. it dictates an arbitrary age threshold for when youth are ready for a type of work completely ignoring their own individual experience and maturity level. break into a proposal such as the one we saw from the department of labor during the obama administration, work misguided overreaching. severely narrowing the parental exemption and opportunities for student learning. plus a desiccant everything from milking a cow to standing on a . i understand the sponsors hr 7345 do not intend to limit exemptions for family farms and student learner program. unfortunately, despite these rotations the farming community is very little confidence that any regulatory proposal would not dramatically impact the ability to work on family farms

or through programs like ffa and 4h. working on a farm gave me deep work ethic, appreciation and respect for agriculture that brought me here today. i was fortunate to have been born on family farm. however, many are not precluded my nieces and nephews. hr 7345, might nieces and nephews would not have been able to dhs accorded ages 12 and 13 despite their parents knowing they were auteur enough to handle the job. the 2011 laboratory proposal not been defeated my 18-year-old nephew who plans to farm would not have been able to work on my dad's a farm like he has for the past six years but they are the next generation of farming. we must not curb their enthusiasm by saying you can't do this. instead, let's find a way to say let me help teach you to do this safely but i hope today's hearing can be the start of an informed policy discussion that bounced safety and recognizes

the value of hands-on experience and the need to encourage participation in agriculture for our future of global food production. i appreciate the opportunity to testify and look for to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. thank you ms. boswell. we will hear now for ms. florez you have five minutes. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of u.s. child labor in agriculture and the lack of basic protection for child farm workers from joining at today the rio grande valley in south texas home to thousands of farmers all across the country to harvest fruits and vegetables american families joy every day. each year, my family packed all of our belongings into a pickup truck and headed up north to indiana, michigan, colorado and iowa to work in corn and asparagus fields, apple orchards and packinghouses. to date journey including tire

blots, bad weather and tragic car accidents. our long road trip and it dilapidated and crowded housing and isolated rural communities with the promise of backbreaking work ahead. this way of life was my parents inheritance from their parents and in turn, they pass it on to me and my four sisters. a life of surviving hard work, low wages lack of protections and unfulfilled promise. my father and mother both us-born children were pulled out of school at very young age and tasked with helping the desperately poor families working on american farms. together them over what have years of experience with no economic security official for the decades of in the fields. i was destined to be trapped in the same generational cycle of poverty as my parents my grandparents but at the age of nine i worked in apple orchards alongside my parents under the system that encourages any hands as possible to harvest while hiding child labor violations.

at age 12 i was legally permitted to work unlimited hours outside of school. this meant ten -- 12 hour days, seven days a week at times working for a week 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 sharp tools in 100-degree weather. necessity such as bathroom and clean drinking water were not always guaranteed. and neither was training. these were the everyday dangers inherent to the industry but my parents tried to keep me safe. but i learned very quickly this is not within their control. for our family to stay employed and house, we needed everyone to perform the type of work, the number of hours, and the locations are set by the labor contractors at all times. we were subjected to sexual harassment, verbal abuse and made to work under dangerous conditions with no recourse.

we were reminded daily that we were disposable and how our dismissal will be of no consequence to the farm operation. to believe we needed them more than they needed us. our desperate poverty their total control over us bolstered by the lack of oversight that are still commonplace it is a mix exploitation and agricultural problem. it is why you have the same people empower fighting to keep the system in place today. even though i've not worked in the field in 20 years, i still live with the fear of the long-term health consequences such as cancer, alzheimer's and parkinson's disease linked to the billions of pounds of chemicals they use on farms every year. the work i did under those conditions was not good for me or vocational training. and said teach me valuable life lessons to help me succeed, it attacked my helping create barriers to my education. as a migrant i tended too or even three schools in different states each school year. the destruction have a constant playing catch up and kept me

from participating in extracurricular activities. i struggled to keep my grades up at times getting failed in a course on my first live class. my parents who only had an elementary school education spoke no english did not have the ability to help me and the resources were not always available. tremendous sacrifice for my family i graduate high school and eventually earned my masters degree. however the majority of farmers do not even graduate high school they drop out four times the national average. i am not alone for these are the same harrowing experiences i heard my parents and grandparents and also heard from other farmers throughout my career. it's experience approximate 3000 farm working children today each of them a life, person, part of our community. but would be even more heartbreaking as congress chooses to do nothing will be the same experience you're going to hear from children 20 years from now. data clearly shows agriculture to the u.s. child labor laws to the detriment of child farm workers which the majority are u.s. citizens.

the care act sponsored by representative cosponsored by many members of this committee will give children working agriculture the same workplace protection that every other working child is provided. the protect 12 -year-olds from exploitation and recent basic minimum what wage of agricultural work to 14. it is sure 1415-year-old children do the work that will not require with their education, health, life at risk. thank you. >> thank you very much. brexit our committee rule 9a a question witnesses under the five minute rule. subcommittee members in seniority order. again to ensure five minute rule staff will be keeping track of time. please wrap up when your time is over. and re- mute your microphone.

i recognized myself for five minutes. doctor lee what a short knowledge of legal consequences for having adults which is working inside grain bins for hauling hay wagons behind an old tractor on a public road? >> it's a good question. our team is currently conducting research on this topic. we have searched for legal cases over the last five years. interestingly enough there is only been 12 completed cases in which some charges were filed. and of these, only one was a hired teenager for her. what we are finding is public officials such as child protective services say this is just farming. we're going to leave them alone. to me it is a double standard. guess on farms get fewer legal

oversight protection than their city friends. but when most commonly see as young children or children put in a situation where they're expected to conduct work on these are some of the bad apples out there that are misusing their kids and having them work in inappropriate situations. we doubt believe charges like jail time or penalties like that are needed. but we would really like to see happen more often is that parents or supervisors are held accountable. they are expected to improve safety conditions on the permit minute to take parenting classes or safety classes. but, what we want to see his behaviors and practices change that are right now putting some of these kids into very dangerous situations. >> thank you. so how can we ensure smaller family farms will be exempt from

regulatory changes or standards was still receive the proper training and education to protect young workers? >> that is hard. we really cannot ensure any type of voluntary training. there are many challenges to implementing a national program unless there's some kind of incentive or penalties for not doing it. we know usda has funded several initiatives to put on national programs. but they are not always available partly because of funding or personnel. art center here has been fortunate we received federal funding to develop worker guidelines, voluntary work guidelines. they are available online. they are available on mobile apps. they help parents or adults match the work with the skills and the abilities of their children. but not everyone has access to these for they do not all know

about them. we really need to have behavior changes behind educating the youth brickwork thank you ma'am. can you expand on how the current agriculture for child labor in the fair labor standards act disproportionately impacts children of color? >> absolutely. the majority of children that are working have zero two no control over their work conditions, their parents are children that look like and be part of hearing about the experiences that were detrimental that were dangerous, they were terrible to my well-being and our futures children who look like me. the fair labor standards act was set it was children that were black they're being exploited out in the fields and made for work for very, very low wages. today is very much the same conditions the difference is we are exploiting the latinos, the migrant communities that are coming into the u.s. that are

desperately poor do not have any recourse for they do not understand the language they are and do not have any real way of being able to reach out and ask for help. those are the same conditions i saw for myself and people who look just like me. i would work alongside it times next to kids that were from the community that were white that spoke english. the treatment was night and day. the fact is the law permits for them to treat me terribly while allowing children that are white of the commute sit next to mom and dad and church to be treated very differently than people like me. we need to make sure we are protecting all children. not just being okay with the fact it's those kids of the community they're being protected by the migrant ones are being left to be exploited. >> thank you very much afraid thank you both your testimony. i'm going to yield back now going to recognize ranking member for the purpose of questioning. >> ms. boswell, in july 46 house democrats sent a letter to

secretary of labor walsh asking him to revise a 2011 rule issued by the obama labor department that restricted employment on family farms. in 2012 dol it a reverse roll after farmers across the country democrat and republican members of congress and other government officials raise substantial concerns. what were some of the concerns with 2011 proposed rule? >> thank you for the question. the proposal under the obama administration was completely misguided made broad sweeping changes that completely blindsided the agriculture industry. i was at american farnborough federation at the time. there was no discussion before that proposal came out with the egg industry engaging anyone there would have first-hand experience with farming

practices. while singapore checked the family farm exemption it is completely false. the proposed language it limited the structure so that if i worked on my dad's farm in the farm was an llc i could no longer work. the legal structure in today's farming makes any difference of my dad's a care about my health and safety. also, i mentioned my nephew in my testimony. he lives a 5 miles to my dad's farm. he has worked with my dad and again hopes to be a farmer. under that proposal because he did not live with my dad for 30 days at least, he would not be covered under the redemption. for the learner redemption limits and restricted which of the hazardous occupation the student trent student learner applied to. basically only then providing that learning ability to drive a

tractor and there is an exemption for elevations above . but handling animals, an example of this would have restricted many ffa students by animal, by cattle. they take care of that herd including their health and vaccination schedule. they would not have been able to do that in that learning program. it expanded the hazardous occupation. you could not drive a tractor of any size but you could not operate operate power equipment including lawnmowers, fixing a fence near livestock, corralling livestock being in any animal pen with an animal that unpredictable behavior. frankly this proposal would be simply revise without having an informed discussion with the farmers and ranchers who want to be at the table. it will be met with opposition. it's met with skepticism the promises of keeping the family

farm intact would hold true. and again there is room for conversation. just providing that proposal would have dramatic impact on agriculture as we know it. >> is probably negatively impact the 4h students that rave trent raised livestock at the county fairs all across the commonwealth. i see how the kids really enjoy it raising those they have to clean the pens, and they have to be able to care for the animals. i think that probably impact that also, wouldn't it? >> it would produce not just showing up at the county or state fair. there is work that goes into that all through the summer and the spring. i showed pigs at the fair. i was in charge of feeding them for it i was in charge of cleaning out their pens but i was in charge of taking care of them. that was part of the work that was being performed. it's not done with proper

information, it would certainly limit those opportunities for 4h and ffa students to interact with livestock as they are preparing for the fair. >> thank you. ms. boswell, another thing we are discussing the health and safety of young people working in agriculture. as the hearing we cannot ignore the elephant in the room. president biden's border crisis is a man-made disaster illegal aliens and drugs are flowing the country at record levels with no end in sight. this also endanger the health and safety of young people under 18 years old were trying to cross the southern border. but entity border crisis, stopping illegal immigration on building the wall help alleviate danger proposed to the health and safety of young people who have been encouraged across the border by the biden administration border policies? >> i a jury addressing border security will help alleviate the dangers there being afflicted on vulnerable young people that are

crossing the border. >> thank you yield back. thank you pretty want to recognize the gentleman from new jersey you are recognized for five minutes per. >> thank you med and chairwoman. appreciate you holding the hearing. yes new jersey, the garden state. i spent my summers on a farm it was with my relatives in tennessee. and you are absolutely right. it is amazing what you learn is young person. and i certainly appreciate that. we just came off labor day. we have been celebrating this for over 100 years. mcguire of the founder of labor day it was to create a weekend. back then it was one day off. we know we know it's two days off. but the other thing was the exploitation of child labor i'm trying to put the brakes on that. because as we know during the

industrial revolution children were exploited, there is no question about that. but i do it to commend the ranking member keller for talking about the birth of the agricultural industry. yes, yes, and yes. absolutely encourage more people to get involved. one thing we do know i grew up in a slightly different area that was the construction industry. very hazardous, very dangerous one thing more hazardous than construction is agriculture. we know that. the figures speak for themselves. it is incredibly dangerous the tractor flips with piece of equipment we could stop and the rest as they say is history. one of the things i fascinating some of the opening remarks recently in the last decade

health protection of the 6-foot ladder. i, unfortunately as a young electrician and eager apprentice who fell off a ladder from just 7 feet. the idea that it is okay to put 20 feet without fall protection agriculture seems counterintuitive to everything we know. when you fall, gravity doesn't know if you're on the farm or on a construction site. it's okay to say people's lives in construction why do we have a different standard for agriculture? these are common things like maybe we should come together on. he explained to me why there are two standards and white gravity on a farm is different from a construction site? if we can say people on a construction site i do have 20 feet in agriculture customer could you answer that for me

please? >> i think there is always been a farming exemption and osha standards have not always applied on farms. you have to have ten or more employees for the osha standards to apply. but kids are kids, bodies our bodies but as you said there is no difference. sometimes it's even worse fall into a concrete platform. so i really believe the hazardous occupation need to be clear they need to keep in mind what is appropriate for young children especially. >> thank you. let's bring in farmers and have a discussion on this. these are things that have been argued for years. we've made the changes and we have saved lives. when not trying to beat up on the farmers for they are the backbone of who we are in this country. but the idea to say that children can take more risks because you're on a farm just does not play in the common

sense area. your parents being there for you, yes we get that they can help you. but the idea that we as a society have put rules and regulations in place for children being abused. to help parents make better decisions at time. just because you're on a farm doesn't mean you can't make a bad decision. we need to come together on this. it's not good versus evil it's common sense trying to save kids lives. the idea you might have maybe 14 or 15 i think is open for discussion. but having general climbing a 2f extreme. but the one thing i see is the highest fatality for children under 16 happened on farms. that is a fact. it is not an opinion. those are kids we really need to say. again i appreciate both sides.

we come together on this? i think it's a great idea. so let's bring them together chairwoman thank you for holding this. this is incredibly important considering we are in the year 2022 and start arguing this. i yield back. >> thank you sir. i want to recognize the ranking member of the committee on ed and labor. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. i appreciate it. i like to thank our witnesses for being here today. it's i want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee quoting the piece from paul harvey brett read that many, many years ago it's a good reminder of all the many things farmers do. mr. boswell, thank you so much for sharing your experience of working on a farm. i grew up also on a farm

everything we ate, we grew or killed. so thank goodness i learned how to farm at an early age. your average age of an american farmers 57.5-year-old. fewer than 10% agriculture producers are under 35 years old. we have concerns about policies to discourage youth participation in agriculture such as hr 7345. >> thank you for the question doctor fox. absolutely. right now considering the rural population, considering we just came off a pandemic we saw a shortage and disruptions in the labor supply. now is more than ever the timely to be encouraging agriculture and young people to go back into agriculture. we need to be developing those policies to get that exposure early, develop educational

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

enjoyed our garden this year. and have really been blessed with that and grateful. i understand what you say. >> at the same for 4h it's an invaluable education program that encouraged and develop young leaders for careers in agriculture. in mr. keller mentioned this before. with hr 7345 have a negative impact on participation in ffa and 4h programs will undermine the effective use of these vital programs. >> that would restricting the ability of student learners for work until the age of 14 would aptly impact the participation. ffa program start and middle school and prioritizing middle school programs and foster that interest in education at an earlier age. was rural and urban america. 4h start even younger than that.

many of those projects include work experience. now, everyone needs to be doing that work experience safely. we could make sure they understand the risk in their being supervised during. but i'm very skeptical that this legislation and regulatory changes that would follow, would not try limit the exemption as we have seen in the past. >> i now want to give a shout out to my colic i have enjoyed very much working with her over the years and going to be sorry to see her retire. but ms. boswell, we all agree the health and safety of young people working in agriculture should be protected. in your experience to agriculture employers take the safety of their workers seriously? including the workers under 18 years of age? and what are these employers doing to keep their under 18 workers safe?

>> in my experience farmers, ranchers and egg employers across the country. and i have been fortunate to travel across the country with america or vero and usda. speaking with farmers and egg employers firsthand. they want to be able to have the tools to do it right. to be able to follow the law, to understand the lot be able to treat their workers with a safe working environment with the tools they need to prevent injury. the key is being proactive here. i have represented agriculture employers and farmers with doctor lee on the board of esha. i also participated in the safety and agricultural youth the project was funded by usda. in those materials and guidelines that were put together by experts and by those directly working on the ground and representing farmers

interests are to farmers and ranchers 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 only described as participation overall. >> madam chair i yield back precooked thank you and thank you doctor fox. i want to recognize represented steven have five minutes. x-men interior can you hear me? >> yes i can. >> great, thank you for this important hearing. it's a profound honor to be with you, distinguish colleagues in the distinguished panel. i will tell you in michigan, we had more people die than work last year were continuing to toil from the effects of the covenant teen pandemic in the

opioid pandemic the overall labor shortage. and at the same time, we are hearing from our farmers in michigan about the absolute need to increase the workers through these programs. i've had this conversation with got better it made ships located in detroit. i've had this conversation with their farms. we are at a breaking point. so we look to meet the needed agricultural industry i like to take those comments made in this hearing that we have an obligation to protect our children. where they play, learn, work. we know that without basic child worker protection, child farmworkers are particularly vulnerable to abuse and

endangerment. it's totally unacceptable. i am so glad we are convening today. i understand in the absence of strong federal labor protections, child farmworkers and territories across the country of taken the initiative to implement their own standards and protections. as a subcommittee chair for research and technology and scientists and other committee where we oversee the standards certainly see how labor standards play out on this committee, can you expand on examples from's dates or localities expanded child workers can be a model for federal protection? >> thank you and i would refer the committee members to an october 2021 report by government and child labor coalition which actually looked in the state-by-state across the country comparing a protection. they did find some good examples

of positive practices per they found 14 as well as puerto rico have been factories the minimum age for agro cultural a 14 pin they also found 15 states and puerto rico have limited the number of deeds children can work in agriculture to six days a week as a post he federal standards. the state of florida very important agricultural state has enacted both of those protections. at the same as the care act would impose. on the work of farm workers under 16 to six days a week. they are ready to do this. with that said, it is state-by-state solution are piecemeal. he heard my colleague talk about traveling state to stay with her family for each state has different protections. that is why we strongly support with the care act offers which

is nationwide protection for all children. >> and ms. floors lopez, you hear family experience, and the economic situation that people are influencing families and their children of work, what contributes to that? how do unscrupulous employers exploit the economic reality when they employ child farmworkers? >> my parents and my grandparents all u.s. citizens, myself as well. we were all working out in agriculture is the desperate poverty that drove us out there. the generational cycle of poverty we were stuck in. we had no access to educational training to be able to have a protective training to be able

to access the programs like 4h and ffa. those were not a reality for any of us. we were out there and it was because we need to put food on our table. that desperate poverty is what lot those unscrupulous employers that are widespread across agriculture which has very little oversight for special when you're out there working in rural communities we are out of sight, out of mind but people to understand what's really happening out there. so it ends up happening is you have a population sometimes does not speak the language. the majority are undocumented. they are in rural communities where they don't have a lot of resources. these are different situations that create very dangerous vulnerabilities for farmworkers. especially children that again it's a desperate poverty and the lack of fair pay that really contributes and makes exploitation rights in agriculture.

>> thank you so much and madam chairman i yield back. >> thank you, thank you for your statement pretty want to recognize representative miller meeks now. >> thank you much madam chair but i think the ranking member as well. thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. although i am a doctor and lieutenant colonel -- retired lieutenant colonel from the army, and a congress or my first job was actually at 13 picking cucumbers in southeast texas britt also lived agricultural states. my district is a heavy agricultural district. i participated in over 20 county fairs and the state fair. and i know young people have even at a young age showing their rabbits, their chickens, their calves they have bottle-fed. even their llamas to name just a

few of the animals and livestock them shown. also see them develop tremendous amount of pride in their work. it increased the work ethic the ability to problem solve, to adapt, to interim provides for the tremendous confidence they have in raising an animal, showing an animal, talking about their animal in developing public speaking skills. it's interesting were having this hearing and since the time is sworn into congress in january 3020, 2020 have asked this question numerous times with education and labor and the select subcommittee on the coronavirus subcommittee task force, not once have we had a hearing on the repercussions of closing schools and masking children would not want to we talked about the health reproduction mental health consequences on our children the rate of suicide. i brought up numerous times actually put forward an amendment in the committee in

order to 2 billion go to mental health and kasich oven tubing go to mental health and undergraduate colleges. not one democrat voted for that amendment. so here we are talking about family farms, the majority of which are family farms in which children may work, try to cultivate people into the family farming business. instead were chocolate, overregulation by the federal government and the concern that we have on corporate farms and how this would enhance that. not once have 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 want to we talked about the law which we find this in the "new york times" acknowledged just recently and another article was in the wall street journal. i find it interesting that we are talking about a section of

the economy or children or young people use may work on their family farm at a young age, develop tremendous and perhaps would rather have children stay indoors in our youth stay indoors and watch television or play video games knowing that does not put them at risk for obesity it doesn't put them at risk for isolation. it doesn't put them at risk of any other health positions but yet were going to talk about this one. i find that to be unconscionable that we will not address all the negative repercussions on children to include loss of learning, mental health, suicide, addiction, and overdose as my colleague said mention on her southern border open with the amount of drugs and fentanyl coming across our borders with a record number of overdoses and drug addiction. so i'll just ask a simple question ms. basel at 90% of all farms in the u.s. are family farms. most of which are small businesses. what would changing department

of labor regulation the way the obama district proposed in 2011 that we are doing now have an small family farms customer in your experience to these businesses have in-house counseling compliant staff that they could address the administrative and regulatory burdens? >> thank you for the question. as i have said before and in my testimony, and we had not that obama would've had dramatic impact on the family farm. despite asportation's to the contrary. again 98% are family-owned. most farms do not have headquarters. they have their homes. they do business at the kitchen table. it's from the front door out to the barn to their machine shed to 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 where they do not have in-house counsel bird they do not have a team with them that's going to measure the record-keeping that increased. we see consolidation.

my nephew is going to try but it's going to be hard to find the land. mentoring in the training. this is a detrimental practice and we need to focus on the open border. i will yield back my time. representative you are recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you for holding this hearing and to all of the witnesses for being here today. the agriculture industry only employs 6% of all child workers yet the industry accounts for over half of all child workplace injuries. child farmworkers are exempt from the protections awarded to others. protections such as age requirement for hazardous work, allowable hours worked into basic training requirements. my republican colleagues will argue any attempt to regulate the standards would amount to unnecessary federal bureaucracy that leads to the affair and deprives the communities of valuable vocational training and work. when we protect the child workers from injury and death and implement standards to ensure their safety and well-being we protect the next

generation of farmers. with reasonable exemptions for their own families, farms or participation in educational and 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 migrant or seasonal workers who are not working for their own families and who may be victims of exploited labor practices performing the labor law is essential. working in agriculture than any other industry and when an average of 33 are injured each

day, something needs to change. in the written testimony, she claims a dedication to forming can only be fostered by being engaged at a young age. while there is the need to support those that want to pursue careers in agriculture, i question whether the best way to do that is to maintain labor standards and practices that we know to be actively harmful to the future of the workforce. in your testimony you stated that even today 20 years after you last worked in the field. >> thank you for the question. both of my parents are cancer survivors and so is my aunt and many family members. those are the lucky ones that survived. i also know there is just as many people that didn't survive and i grew up alongside of the

fields. for the chemicals used on farms every year. they try not to point to especially given the signs that link the long-term exposure to those chemicals into those long-term health conditions that my family and my community has endured we talked about supposedly these educational programs they didn't receive more than a 15 minute talk since i was older about the harmful effects of pesticide years after

being exposed. before that i was told meaning medicine for the plant. that is the kind of lack of oversight and the kind of danger that farmworker children are put in especially given that children are not little adults. what we are asking for is equal treatment. the same way we don't allow for others to exploit young children or have them work in dangerous conditions to keep the way of life going. we are asking that they be treated just like every other child in america and protected.

>> let me just say quickly i feel for your pain and what you described is conscionable. you and your family will remain in my prayers and i hope that your powerful testimony today will spur the congress to act in a way that it hasn't up until this time. thank you and i yield back madam chair. >> thank you, thank you mr. jones. let's recognize now mr. owens. i've been honored to have a grandfather to raise 13 children successful and learned work ethic. the professor in this arena into the last 35 years.

i was raised around the farm. a couple of things that concern me. first this one statement made earlier it ascends chills through my bones to think of the industry as figuring out how to be innovative and we are talking 90% of farmers and small business owners so first of all that is something we shouldn't even think about considering. there's also the false notion.

we need to make sure that we are not demanding this industry. the bad actors with our generations of farmers and beef and sheepherders we see the communities that are all about making sure they are mentoring their kids as they move forward and getting back because less than 1% of the farming industry supports the rest of the nation. but i do want to ask a couple of quick questions here. hr 7345 raised the age to the agricultural task by the secretary of labor from 16 to

18. in answering the question i think we need to remember that i had a 17 people in my high school class meaning main street as the bank, a small grocery store. my nephews that live in that same town can't work on farms at the age of 16 there is no other opportunities at all. there is the ability to start that work as hr 7345 does and to get any job at all either because the task would be so

restrictive even though the maturity level would base that opportunity only on their age and not a factor in any of those other considerations that could also determine. could this open the door for the new overreach as we saw with the 2011 proposed rules? >> i am concerned about bureaucrats in washington writing overly broad regulation without technical expertise on

the farming the practices and without engaging farmers and that is exactly what we saw in 2011. i do believe that there is the conversation for farmers, regulators and i know from my experience we want to make sure everyone is safe. that's why we are engaged with the extension and safety experts and committees. we want to be engaged and have that discussion but we worry the proposals will come through again and welcome and politically restrict the exemption but also not to be in touch with actual farming practices and with someone around agriculture their entire life feels comfortable doing versus may be someone who hasn't been around agriculture their entire life.

>> thank you so much and i will yield back. >> thank you. let me recognize the representative. you have five minutes. >> thank you for all the witnesses coming out today. i believe everyone wants to ensure that all workers are protected and we must be especially observant to protect those under 18. i hope everybody on the committee can agree that we want to regard the safety and agricultural health. having said that, can you find an employer's for the federal

government to improve better partnership with employers? >> in my experience, i've not worked at the department of labor. however when i was at the usda i worked with the secretary's office and worked directly on agricultural labor and safety issues. i engaged with the department of labor on a daily basis including the wage and hour division and so my experience working with them, i know as the mission states they take the health and safety of all workers very seriously and have the authority under the law to enforce those provisions of statute whether it is a violation and even increased penalties or the willful violations of those that have been offended in the

pattern within those investigations they do have a big portfolio but the child safety is elevated as a priority for any alleged violation. they are looking at those even more seriously. the goal is to keep everyone safe. to make sure they have the tools and the knowledge to do so without arbitrary restricting the jobs young people can experience. >> thank you very much for your answer and i will yield back. >> let me move to the chair of the full committee on labor. you are recognized.

>> thank you. as you recognize in the testimony of the proposals for the standards of the agricultural industry generally exempt small family farms from the regulations. can you tell us what affect the act would have on small family farms where the negative impact on the rural families? >> thank you, chairman scott, for the question. the care act the legislation we are discussing today maintains the exemption for family farms that exist today. it doesn't change that family the familyfarming and i strongle that because of the experiences it is the opportunity to have

the skills and training to pass down practices across the generation to be completely unaffected by the legislation. this legislation is about raising the basic minimum age for children who are hired to work. we are talking about the 12-year-olds, we are moving the ability of 12-year-old children to be hired to do exploited work on huge commercial agribusiness operations that would raise the basic minimum wage it wouldn't impact family funds so if they want to learn from their families and participate but still have those opportunities. the other aspect would raise from 16 to 18. children under 18 would still have ample opportunity to do the work to participate in the work. it would only be restricted from

the moment. many members of the committee today have spoken with the strong agricultural committees. it would maintain the visible workforce why should agriculture be different from other industries it is and continues to be an industry driven by not just parents or the media but

aunts, uncles and grandparents that has been restricted and the proposed regulations in the past and also congress recognized that this is food production and there's more and more demand to provide safe and affordable food and without being able to begin foster that interest to be able to safely encourage participation i do believe that this would impact that. i also believe there is room for a conversation about occupations and tasks. however, what we've seen have been broad sweeping unbalanced approaches that have opportunities and other societal needs to the agricultural bill. >> you've been working with the agribusiness and health and safety issues for a long time. what do you think the reaction

is going to be to raising the age limit of 12 to 14, and how would you respond to that criticism? >> the vast majority of producers, businesses and organizations want a positive and safe business and agriculture but at the same time in agriculture we are dealing with issues like immigration reform and labor shortages. changing the age can be a part of a good conversation. i think that they would be willing to do that as long as there are other opportunities to make sure that they have what is needed. the request that we hear most often from the industry people

is i want to do what's right but break it down, make it simple and clear and make things go the right way so i believe as long as the family farm exemption is held to maintain the agricultural employers will work with us to raise that age limit from 12 to 14. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you to the witnesses. at the time when the last americans are working more than ever before with a historical low combined with the narrative there are some jobs that americans just won't do it's appalling that we be here today and with those young people that

want to work on the farms as they have for decades. i was better as a kid for having worked on family farms. young people were better for learning the value of work and at the value of the dollar at a young age. young people were better for learning the values and the life skills and the work skills that are taught on the family farm. hard work is noble and never heard anybody. and of those who feed our country, our family farms are better for the workers they rely on. but today's hearing represents washington at its worst, those who cannot to do and those who do not know trying to dictate rules and regulations to those who do and those who know. family farms and working young people represent what is right about america and what made america great and what makes

america great today. farmers already have a tough it toughenough they are strugglo survive today. i recognize many of the majority may be have no farms in the district. perhaps they've never been on a farm or met a farmer but you cannot feed this nation and the cities. you've got to go to the rural areas and to those that are literally feeding the countries. if we really care about the nation's young people or about young people generally, why not go after the mexican crime cartels who are exploiting antitrafficking children and young people today thousands today, thousands every day along the southern border instead of going after american farmers. if the concern is with the health and safety of miners the priority should be ending the biden border crisis, stopping illegal immigration and building the wall. divide the crisis encouraging

the human trafficking including of miners on a massive scale. i appreciate you being with us today and your testimony. we know the democrats don't believe that parents should have a say in their kids education. do you believe parents would be any better situation and the federal government to make decisions regarding their work on a family farm? >> thank you for the question. that is one of the main concerns with the way the legislation is drafted. there are certainly 16-year-olds that should not be doing certain jobs and there are certain 12-year-olds and 14-year-olds who've been around. i think a parent is more equipped to look at their child and i refuse to believe that a parent is exploiting their children or worked with their children at risk or their

grandparent or their own goal i refuse to believe that so i believe that a parent can look at their 12-year-old and say this is a great opportunity for you to learn time management skills and understand what it takes to have that responsibility and maybe you can visit in washington, d.c. all those things are important and the parent can make those decisions more than the department of labor or congress who doesn't know that individuals experience or maturity level. >> the bill would give the secretary of labor unrestricted authority to limit farmworkers under age 18 from work that the secretary of labor irrespective of the qualification experience or knowledge to the detrimental health or well-being. could that phrase still be used to organize the department of

labor against the farmers? >> i do believe that it can especially the devil is in the details of those hazardous occupations and having experienced individuals out on the ground operating the equipment that has been greatly improved. thank you to the industry for putting more safety equipment and protections and putting fruits and vegetables out to help alleviate some of that hard work. of that engagement is important and there are certainly those that are dangerous but we have to have an informed discussion about what those are with people that work on the farm. >> madam chair i will yield back

you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much madame chair for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. we were 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 address all the concerns raised back then with regards to that proposed rulemaking. they could infect work on the family farm under the spell. we do nothing to change that.

the language in the bill specifically says in addition to the health and safety experts on the bill, it encourages were urges future farmers of america that they should be a part of any changes in terms of the rulemaking process. it shouldn't be done in isolation by bureaucrats. so we have addressed that concern as well. but the fact remained that the children working in agriculture, and we are not talking about mom and dad and kids we are talking about the migrant families and children that go from place to

place throughout the season are the only group of children that are not protected by the child labor laws. as a result according to the center for the rural and health and safetythe only centes dedicated to the childhood agriculture injury prevention, 33 children are injured as daily working on farms and a child dies every three days working in agriculture. that's the answer to the reason as to why we are having this hearing. my question farmers have always been a central workers and that has been highlighted over the last few years during the heat

waves and fires and especially during the covid pandemic and during these times, farm workers who are mainly hispanic and latino have faced increased demand to speed up their work putting them at greater risk for serious injury or death. can you please elaborate on the impact that the increased pressure and even the everyday pressure that they are facing on parents and their children? >> thank you for the question and your leadership. we know each other from across the aisle. she was of the american farm bureau and i'd been advocating for these issues and throughout the years roll will record.

the reality is that agriculture is the dangerous industry and the reality is that her experience in mind is so different and it's because of those differences for love to be put in place to protect children like me so that i could have opportunities like hers. that's what it comes down to so you heard also how so many of these employers and farmers want to do what's right and stick to the law. what we have found over the years both in my own personal experience and that over the years is that is the minimum. i have yet to meet employers that jump above and beyond because we are not talking about her experience and that of her family because it was more than her and her family to keep the operation going.

they hire employees and they don't have the same oversight and protection as i mentioned in my testimony they tried to keep me safe and it's not because they were exploitive. they cared for me but their hands were tied because of the desperate poverty that kept putting us in danger. i've yet to hear how anybody will address the lack of ability. that's what drives their children out there and they don't have somebody. they can't afford to somebody to take care of their kids. they can't afford to put food on the table. they have to bring their kid out there with them. to make sure children are being protected and not just folks like boswell.

>> i want to remind my colleagues that with pursuance to the hearing record and must be submitted in 14 days following the last day of the hearing so by the close of business the material submitted must address the subject matter and only a member of the subcommittee or an invited witness makes the material inclusion in the hearing record with the internet link that you must provide to the committee clerk. remember in the future that link may not work. the house rules and regulations item for the record should be for the clerk electronically i

want to thank the witnesses for their participation. members may have some additional questions for you and we ask of thewitnesses to please respond pursuant to the committee practice. the question submitted must address the subject matter of the hearing. i want to know recognize the distinguished ranking member for a closing statement. for the health and safety of all workers, workers of all ages, workers under 18, workers over 18 it's a top priority of the

agricultural employees in the federal government. as the industry faces the workforce, congress should be doing everything it can to promote opportunities for young people in agriculture committee republicans have serious concerns that the legislation could impact family farming operations and education programs like 4h and ffa j for the administrative overreach. it was mentioned that the language in the bill encourages this. i think there's a lot of concerns here. this is not an idle threat. the regulatory proposal that would have harm an opportunity

for the agricultural employmentin our family farms. immigrants want to advance policies, their own work yet another attack on the rural america. the last thing americans farmers need is more washington knows best policies. instead of demonizing farmers, the work is vital to creating and sustaining the 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 would like to think the witnesses again for participating in today's hearing and i will yield back. >> thank you. i will now recognize myself for the purpose of making my closing statement. thank you to the witnesses for your time and testimony. today we discussed the importance of increasing workplace detention for child farmworkers. too often exploited and

neglected while working in the field. the hours and dangerous work lead to low graduation rates, injuries and the disproportionate number. as the witnesses made clear, this is the direct result of those from key workplace protections that apply to those in other industries. all children should be safe while having the opportunity to achieve their dreams. so we must work together to improve for those that work and agricultural jobs. thank you to my colleagues and to the witnesses. if there is no further businesse

subcommittee of communications, media and 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 wicker, for working to get this scheduled and for being here for this important hearing, and also to the chair for the work she has done in this space, as well as her staff and the staff of the full committee. important to this conversation and having a coming together, if you will, of spectrum policy,

could not be more immediate with an upcoming deadline that must you met spectrum is a limited natural resource and the challenges are many. we have spectrum challenges across the industry, government, technology, policy and politics. when we don't find solutions, those challenges can become a national crisis. i hope those last two words get the attention of those that have not yet or do not see the reauthorization in that way. licensed and unlicensed spectrum under lays the broadband that allows us to an -- communicate with friends and family and utilize telehealth, but that are also used for national security purposes. it matters and it depends so greatly on how these 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, and even allows us to see the deepest stars and explore the origins of our universe, to places like central new 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 privately licensed spectrum bands to ensure that supply meets the demand. challenges between federal agencies, each with critical missions, negotiating how to best use spectrum and technical and engineering challenges, the solutions of which might enable more spectrum sharing and fire closer coordination. we also have policy challenges. many uses of spectrum do not have a clear market value, or should they. it is impossible to put a price on national security, public safety, or promoting innovation through unlicensed spectrum or

scientific research. finally, we have political challenges. spectrum is one of the few policy areas under our committee's jurisdiction that generates revenue. to date, these options have raised over $230 billion for the federal government. we have important decisions to make not just on spectrum policy , but on how 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 september 30. the future of spectrum depends on the decisions we make in this company and the conversations we will have today. congress must act to ensure that spectrum use best meets the public interest, and i believe spectrum requires -- i apologize, i believe spectrum revenues should be devoted in

part to updating our 911 systems and promoting digital equity. building on the work of other senators during the c band auction. we must do more to ensure the way that we are allocating spectrum provides equity. innovative auctions, structures, efforts like the cprs and tribal priority window have demo dated -- demonstrated that policy can be tailored to meet the needs of rural areas. increasing participation can allow our tribes and pueblos to exercise their sovereignty on the airwaves over tribal lands. i am excited by the progress we have already made -- last week, the house cleared a bipartisan bill extending fcc spectrum auction authority. the bill also restored and cia as the lead agency for spectrum decision by including my spectrum innovation act, which i introduced with ranking member food -- ranking member thune in

the senate. yesterday, a day before this hearing, the fcc signed an understanding that structures how agencies resolve spectrum challenges. this will reaffirm and cia and fcc's roles in managing our spectrum resources. it addresses many of the challenges for managing rod band and other bands -- apologize, that have a significant federal agency stakeholder. finally, the mou promotes better coordination and emphasizes evidence-based policymaking, something we need more of here in congress. ranking member thune and i structured this hearing towards that goal. there is a broad interest from our colleagues across the united dates senate and many who have been working on this issue

during their entire time in the united states senate. our consensus of panel brings together expert in the field of spectrum management with years in the field managing these resources directly or engaging in the broader debate at a national ale. with that, mr. chairman, i want to introduce our witnesses. but i will go to you first, sir, for an opening statement. i want to thank mr. wicker, our ranking member of the full committee, to be here with us to open up the hearing. we will welcome the ranking member of the subcommittee, the republican whip, upon his arrival. >> we expect senator thune to be here very soon. the subcommittee is convening to discuss the state of spectrum policy in the united states. thank you to chairman lujan and others for holding this important hearing. i welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses -- i cannot

wait to hear your testimony. this conversation is particularly timely, as the chair noted, with the expiration of the fcc 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 again how unleashing spectrum for commercial use generates new, cutting-edge technologies and applications for consumers. although appetite for commercial spectrum continues to grow exponentially, there is growing demand from federal agencies. auctions have proved to be a winning solution for allocating frequencies. not only do they provide a market mechanism for who should receive a license, it provides revenue for the treasury, as our distinguished chair just stated, since 1993,

when $230 billion -- more than 200 billion dollars has been collected, and that reducing the federal deficit. but the fcc statutory authority to conduct auctions is set to expire september 30. if we do not act swiftly, the agency may lose its ability to award licenses through competitive bidding. this is important with the recent start of an auction with frequencies at 2.5 gigahertz. if that auction is ongoing when the authority expires, it could cause into question the ability to finish the proceeding. one of the reasons spectrum auctions have been so successful , bitter certainty. -- bidder certainty. they know they will receive the license they bid on under the fcc rules.

any inaction or action reduces the certainty risks, depressing the value of spectrum. bidders began to lose confidence that the fcc will have the legal authority to fleet and option, we should expect bidding to be affected. congress can act to ensure that there is no lapse 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 bands for auction in the coming years. this approach of legislating the auction of particular frequencies has proved successful in recent years and we get all parties involved the ability to plan ahead. it would allow us the time to draft statutory texts without any disruption to the fcc's duties, identify specific with these for auction as well

as timelines and other can iteration which create a path to success in the united states. given the very short time for expiration of auction authority, a short-term extension is needed. beyond the extension of auction authority, we should look to the expert spectrum management agencies for guidance as the nation continues to strive for leadership in the race to 5g and beyond. the fcc and national telecommunications communication administration have worked with their respect to stakeholders to make spectrum available for commercial use while continuing to seek ways to meet the needs of federal agencies. i want to recognize that although our federal agencies are certainly inherent, these important decisions should be made by the expert agencies tasked by this statute with these responsibilities. high-profile disputes and disagreements 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 and congress has a role to play in shaping it. i would urge my colleagues to support a short-term extension of auction authority. this would 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 would also hope to work on legislative efforts to improve the coordination between federal agents these, an -- nctia, and the fcc. >> thank you for your thoughtfulness in this arena as well, mr. wicker. next, we will hear from 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 timely hearing. the ability to conduct spectrum options expire. the last time this committee held any hearings related to spectrum management was july 2020, when i was serving as chairman of the subcommittee. while i have been disappointed in the lack of progress on this issue, i hope moving forward, we can work collaboratively. spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless communications. in the global race, we deploy these networks and services, management of these resources has never been more important. it's important for those of us in more rural parts of the country. if inadequacy of spectrum resources makes 5g less viable, it will be the rural areas where it no longer makes sense to deploy next-generation

telecommunications services. the fcc took an important step in bringing 5g services to more rural and tribal areas by beginning the auction of the two gigahertz -- 2.5 gigahertz band. we should ensure this auction 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 china for 5g act by developing legislation in the key spectrums of the pipeline. one such place to start would be legislation introduced earlier this year. the spectrum innovation act would free up prime mid band spectrum, allowing the spectrum to be options for mobile services. by and acting a pipeline bill, congress provides regulatory certainty and predictability. when the spectrum is made available, it's essential there are clear rules and recognized rights for spectrum users. it's important to note the

spectrum pipeline bill will take some time. it will acquire government agencies, industry and other groups competing for these resources to come together. by doing so, we can make interests -- decisions in the interest of our national security. i know firsthand the complexity of this issue and the time it takes to work with stakeholders on spectrum legislation. the last time congress extended the fcc's general auction authority was back in 2012. at that time, congress provided the fcc with specific direction on the bands that should be can or auction. it also took years to get there. some of the spectrum bands were identified in the national broadband plan two years earlier. some the subject of multiple congressional hearings in the years leading to its passage. some reports by the end tia and fcc's office of technology, 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 coordination between ntia and the fcc. it's important this is done regularly, so i would 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. as more and more americans rely on connectivity like wi-fi, we must also recognize the critical role of unlicensed spectrum in the communications landscape. it's responsible for transmitting a significant amount of data in our networks that play a tremendous role in the development of the internet of things. finally, as we work towards freeing up additional licenses,

we must take action to remove barriers to large-scale 5g deployment. the streamline act, for example, would expedite employment of the small sales needed for 5g and elation -- installation while respecting the role of state and local governments in making these decisions. and it would make it more affordable to bring 5g to rural areas by addressing the cost of small-scale deployment. i look forward to discussing all of these issues with our panelists today and appreciate all of you being here. thank you. >> thank you, mr. thune. we appreciate your work as well. next, i want to introduce our witnesses, and then we will hear from them. i want to welcome mr. chris lewis, ceo and president of public knowledge, leading one of the predominant public telecommunications organizations and former staff at the fcc and

here at the united states senate. next, the honorable meredith baker, ceo and president of ctia , representing the wireless association's largest spectrum of users of the spectrum. next, we have the director of physical infrastructure at the government accountability office , with years of experience evaluating spectrum management over at the fcc and end tia -- and ntia. then we will hear from our fourth witness today, dr. b azlan, with knowledge of wireless options, spectrum management, and competition policy, and formerly an anise -- an analyst at

cio. i look forward to your testimony here as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member thune, ranking member wicker, thank you for having me here. i would like to summarize four guideposts that can structure innovation and provide access to communications for all. the first guidepost, we should center the public-interest objectives set by congress in our national spectrum strategy. congress directed the fcc to design spectrum auctions to safeguard public interest and make robust service available for all americans. this included promoting competition and economic opportunity, preventing excessive consolidations, providing opportunities for small businesses, especially

women-owned businesses, and making sure they effectively serve the public communications needs. we think creatively about how to best advance all of these objectives. for example, rural and tribal areas can benefit from small and creative policies. just last month, the ranking member mentioned chairwoman rosen were sold modified the special licensing rules to increase access for small carriers in tribal nations. congress could further close the access gap where the need is greatest, with simple direction to the fcc. expanded use of tribal windows in auction rules or mandate the use of spectrum sharing for authorized access systems on tribal lands. guidepost number two, we stop the balanced approach in spectrum access models. we are in the midst of a connectivity revolution and the average number of connected devices per home has risen from

11 in 2019 to 25 in 2021. smart tv's, doorbells, even washing machines now rely on spectrum and mostly unlicensed spectrum. even licensed services rely on unlicensed technology to unload their data on congested airways, and wi-fi is so ubiquitous, most americans think of it as synonymous with at-home broadband. the demand on licensed and unlicensed spectrum underscores a mix of those regimes to meet national connectivity demands. unfortunately, there are few spectrum opportunities remaining. the success of cprs and the sharing regime demonstrates that as long as we're willing to follow the facts, they can create more opportunity for innovation and shared licensed and unlicensed allocations.

number three, we should commit to a long-term spectrum plan. thanks to the bipartisan efforts of congress, the trump administration on the biden administration, wireless providers have access to 5g systems. even though the industry is already looking to 60 and wi-fi seven, standard for these systems are still years away. or 5g race with china now relies on carriers spending money to deploy networks, not on new spec trum options. an 18 month extension of option authority will not allow that careful planning. a long-term commitment by signaling that the fcc will have future options will give stakeholders the knowledge to develop future plans. a report could even be issued to identify potential bands and how they will be used to structure commercial use.

finally, number four. we must prioritize public interest needs when spending public revenue for auction -- from auctions. the reality, there are several national priorities that private investment either won't or can't fund. digital equity programs help knock down barriers to broadband adoption and help communities make greater use of their connectivity. congress provided some funding for these efforts in the broadband infrastructure package. a more sustainable source of funding is needed. we would support the airways for equity initiative, which ♪ supports setting aside funds for digital inclusion efforts. other proposals have also received bipartisan support as public interest funding needs, and they should be public-interest funding needs. the bottom line, these objectives canon should be earmarked to be paid first from revenue auctions, using public dollars to promote the health of

the sector and connect all americans to critical telecommunications services. thank you. i look forward to your questions did >> our friend and commissioner? >> good afternoon, and thank you. thanks to all of you for picking my favorite topic, spectrum. i applied your leadership from mobile now to the spectrum innovation act. we lead the world in wireless thanks to you, and we need the committee's leadership now more than ever we have an opportunity to drive next-generation leadership with 5g and a commitment to the future with national commitment to spectrum policy built on greater licensed been banned access. i will start with the good news. i testified before this committee in 2019

>> to examine the potential impact of proposed reallocation. any reallocation may require existing users to enter modified spectrum use, update modified existing limit, move services or accommodate sharing of spectra. the fcc and f tia have successfully reallocated hundreds of megahertz of spectrum across several bands. some of these are complex and can last for many years. the recent reallocation took 10 years to complete.

others can be contentious if they may affect several operations critical safety systems. a statement today is based on our recent reports of spectrum management activities. one looks at an tia process to which the agency develops a planning process. another looked at federal agencies coordination activities, specifically the extent to which an cia, ftc and others followed practices in collaborating other spectrum interference issues. with respect to the reallocation process at the time of our review, we found the end tia did not have plans of reallocation efforts from start to finish. we identified two leading practices that can fit the end tia's efforts. including having a program management in place that is updated regularly, a massive schedule updated annually. absent of these practices, we found that agency stakeholders

may not be sure they are anticipating and preparing for the many steps involved and their bases to judge whether work can be performed faster, may not be able to read on effectively. further, while the end cia is required to ensure branch views are effectively permitted, the fcc, we saw the ntia lacks agency to do so. documented procedures can provide clarity on several points, such as a level of technical detail they should be permitting to the ncia. we found the mechanism used by the agencies did not always fully reflect leading collaboration practices. two key documents, the mla between the ftc and in cia cash ncia -- ncia, had no defined and

agreed upon process. the fcc and ntia have announced an iou between the agencies to address this issue and have begun meeting. we also found the agency mechanisms lacked agreed-upon procedures to conduct feasibility and potential interference studies. recent reallocation efforts related to 5g, such as seed band and the 24 gigahertz band which involves nasa and the functioning of weather satellites which have been hampered by a lack of weather agencies that would cause harmful interference to users in adjacent vans. we have made a number of recommendations to the fcc and ntia outlined in the two reports. the agencies are agreed to work collaboratively and have begun to implement our recommendation, as evidenced by the mou released

today which we believe will help create a framework or disagreements regarding the reallocation of spectrum can be resolved based on the technical findings. this concludes my prepared remarks and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> next, we will hear from our fourth witness today. five minutes for your remarks. >> thank you. i would 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. it is only by using spectrum that we create value from it. smartphones using unlicensed spectrum and the many public missions carried out on -- create incredible value from the scarce public resource. all these valuable uses compete for access to the sixth pool of managed by the fcc and ntia.

the agency's goals of managing spectrum is all about making sure we get the most out of using it. they challenge all incumbent users with just somebody losing when spectrum is reallocated. over time, the reallocations have been done so changing spectrum will become harder. the days of mega-auctions of unencumbered bands are numbered with decreasingly few opportunities on the horizon. new tools such as incentive auctions and innovative sharing machines will be increasingly important in meeting spectrum needs. when should spectrum be moved to a new use? as i previously testified to congress, the principal spectrum of reallocation says a band of spectrum to be made available for new uses when the value in the new exceeds the cost of making spectrum available. this guidance and the cost and benefit it focuses on are not

intended to evaluate just economic market values. unlicensed uses of spectrum create value to society but in a way that does not create fit for spectrum. since governmental users uses are difficult to value, the goal for them is to make sure that you spectrum efficiently. consequently, a broad spread of information should inform spectrum policy. numerals can influence spectrum policy and we are reminded of this every time spectrum is renewed. spectrum options have been an important tool in getting spectrum from lower value to higher value uses. the options only took place because legislation authorized them. the budgetary value of spectrum is a focus of most spectrum legislation. i had some experience scoring auctions. this started my professional career in the mid-90's. the cbs scores not an estimate

of how much spectrum is worse -- worth or how much is spectrum reallocation will benefit society but an estimate of the net effect of proposed option on the federal budget. the key with budget scoring is legislation with the budgetary impact that the legislation causes. that is when it changes from current law. although budget scoring will create incentive for legislation to facilitate reallocation that might not otherwise happen. budget roles will never be a guide to good spectrum policy budget rules will never stop spectrum management. user reallocations have already been done and the demand for spectrum continue to grow, then what will spectrum management in the next decade look like? the goal is to continue to facilitate that from use from low use to higher use will not change but the tools will.

and evidently, with a cost of additional bands to reallocate options and growing, the net budgetary incentive to legislate these options is expected to become smaller over time. making existing bands available for new uses without having to clear all existing uses first which is finding ways to share and may avoid the largest of the clearing costs. if new approaches of the sharing can preserve a significant portion of the value of users, and the net benefit can remain relatively high. some of these approaches may lead to no option with a budgetary incentive preserved while others may not. so long as new creative solutions continue, the more efficient use of we all benefit. this feature of more creative ways to maximize the value we brought from the spectrum resources is one of degree. that is the choice for policymakers is not whether or

not we continue to strive to you spectrum more efficiently but the marking social pressures require we do so, but rather the degree to if it will happen. the legislature and executive will promote to do long-term planning needed to more efficiently exploit the benefits of radio spectrum for society. in this future, a more efficient use of spectrum costs. in a less supportive and cooperative environment, the future will still see gross and wireless based services but not as much and for a higher costs. i do have tattoos for everybody. [laughter] >> thank you, doctor. i appreciate that. >> i will sponsor any permanent. >> i want to thank each of the witnesses for being available today and for offering their important perspective. 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 the good policy here must be top priority. it is especially important for new mexico. any of my constituents rely on wireless technology to connect to broadband at home, for businesses, and to access critical services. we must ensure this resource is used to its fullest potential to help families in states like mine. my first question, mr. lewis, the fcc's ability to conduct spectrum office is set to expire in september. when we extend the authority, congress must ensure the commission can plan its future state of auctions and start the

complex negotiations with the incumbent spectrum users immediately. kicking the can down -- down the road benefits no one. mr. lewis, yes or no, does a longer-term extension of fcc spectrum auction authority shrinking the fcc and ntia's ability to make all americans have connection to high-speed, reliable and affordable services? can you please explain how a longer reauthorization but accelerate our mission to connect 100% of americans to high-speed, reliable, and affordable broadband yet >> a longer authorization sets up these agencies to do the tough work of analyzing what bands and with what guidelines do -- the bands can be rolled out. it is really important because we have moved into a space where

there simply are a lot -- not a lot of opportunities to get spectrum. we have to be efficient. we have to be creative and we need to look at options like sharing. that takes careful planning by the two agencies so all the stakeholders are taking into account when we think about what spectrum bands can be used for, what they are used best for, and how those might be structured. >> i appreciate that. misses baker, one of the most important tasks facing the fcc and ntia is the development of national spectrum management. the last two years have shown us the tremendous cost when conflicting interests in spectrum are not resolved swiftly. when critical infrastructure is delayed because of coordination between federal agencies, it is the people who rely on the

infrastructure that suffered. mrs. baker, do you recommend congress to increase theological expertise at both agencies so they can more efficiently address congress when they arise? >> id. i think you have two great leaders. i think enabling them to have more experts and to show the expertise and show that congress actually wants them to be the final arbiter in spectrum disputes would go a long way. >> i appreciate that. i agree that we must ensure federal agencies have the capacity to do their jobs. both the american public and commercial interests demand repertory consistency and diet -- regulatory consistency and i look forward to working with our colleagues on this important resource. today, the fcc and ntia -- well on monday, they announced an

updated rules on these goals. the agreement also increases coordination and addresses many of the challenges for managing that and have a significant federal agency equity. yes or no, does the current statute clearly identify the fcc and ntia as leaders in managing national spectrum use? >> yes it does. >> i would like to submit for the record the reports that you highlighted, that indicate the improvements that must be made of the fcc and ntia, if given the opportunity, i want to explode -- explore those more later. for that i will turn this over -- >> thank you for that mr. baker. what is the impact if auction authority lapses and would it have an adverse impact on our

ability to lead any -- lead in the deployment of next and a ration communication services? >> it would be a shame to see the authority lapses. that would be the worst case scenario. i fear the impact would signal that we are not committed to removing or even moving away from the structure that has allowed us to create greater competition and greater diverse uses of spectrum. that would be a shame. it is also why i am advocating for a longer authority to signal that we want to do this in the future with the right studies and the right data. >> i appreciate the question. it would cause uncertainty. we do not know about licenses. we do not know about auctions. if they are not able to hold auctions, we will not be able to continue to build that 5g which has any effect on our global competitiveness.

we all want a strong and powerful fcc. it is why we have an 18th month extension. >> very quickly, i mention this in my home state but it believe it is equal -- i believe it is equal to get our wireless ecosystem yield which is why i support the short-term extension as well while we are working on the longer-term pipeline build -- bill. >> i prefer a long-term extension, even a permanent authorization. >> i think we all do but that may not be an option. mrs. baker, can you talk about the regulatory -- provided to congress in the fcc direction on particular spectrum bands similar to what we did under the 2012 spectrum acts? are there any other benefits to

congress mandating what spectrum bands are auctioned? >> thank you for the question. i think we all want a longer-term authority for the fcc but it is important that bands are tied to the upcoming authority. the reason is because we needed the spectrum authority in 2012, you tied three bands to it. bands got done. the next bands are going to be more complex and hard. we have targeted the lower three as you have maybe spectrum innovation act. that is our local -- our number one goal. it targets banded jason is and will allow wider channels. we would like to see the four gigahertz and seven gigahertz added as well. they are all government bands. the government has two thirds of the prime band spectrum. many governmental agencies wake up and say i'm going to repurpose my spectrum for commercial access. i think it is important for congress to mandate the options

to make sure we motivate and can keep up with the rest of the world. i also think side benefits, as you specified in the other option, half the proceeds found first. congress can specify priority. in the last two years, we have had 100 billion spectrum options and none of those have gone to congressional priorities rated i feel pretty strongly that a long-term effect of authority is good but used to be tied to specific bands. >> could you quickly, it's because there is a -- up here by the democrats which could be vote -- a proposal up here by the democrats which could be voted on earlier this week. i know the way spectrum is treated out of the tax which allows it to be that he has over the last. ebay desilets period of years.

>> thank you for the question. it is a big deal for our industry. it is currently structured so tax provisions underline everything we are talking about. we are building out 53 twice as fast as we build out 4g and that is to the tune of $60 billion on infrastructure in the last two years. a 15% tax on the $200 billion in spectrum investments will absolutely, when it is retroactive and a surprise, so our build out. it will slow our closing of the digital divide. it will impact our global competitiveness and certainly our spectrum pipeline. congress has decided that broadband is an important infrastructure and put this in the infrastructure bill funding. i think we would very much like to see a correction would treat

spectrum the same as any other infrastructure outfit. >> presumably, and i think with the tax codes and the 2017 act was passed, it was passed with an idea in mind to encourage companies to invest in building out new technologies. this is as it been suggested closing a loophole. this was a specific design when congress passed the tax bill. could you speak very quickly? i think my time is expired but there is a loss of funding being made available to constructive employee. could you talk about whether or not you support efforts to streamline permitting requests so consumers can reap the benefits of technologies more quickly. as you know, they have a bill that would provide for that.

but, how much of an issue is that when it comes to building the new technology >> we support your bill strongly. faster we can build these networks, the faster we we can bring 5g speed which are 100 times faster, and attach more devices to the network and lead the world in innovation. streamlining is very important. >> chairman, my time is expired, thank you. >> next, will recognize senator fischer. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate our witnesses being here today to discuss critical consideration for managing america's airwaves. this is baker -- mrs. baker, i want to talk about the value of the fcc to continue holding the public spectrum options -- spectrum auctions. you addressed in senator thune's questions, when you spoke about the fcc and the issues of what

happens there with certainties and etc., if that deadline is not met and it is not reauthorized? can you speak specifically to american taxpayers? how would they be negatively affected if we do not reauthorized the fcc spectrum authority? >> thank you for the question senator. to get past all the technical stuff, and let people know why this is important. we are still in the middle of the race to 5g at this point and other countries have twice as much advance spectrum which is where 5g is being built across the globe. we simply need more to continue to increase our speed and continue to leave the world in innovation. if the fcc cannot hold options, we will not have any more spectrum and we will fall far behind and we will lose our global leadership. it will mean quite a lot.

in 40, with our leadership, all the innovative companies are in the u.s. it is why uber and all the airbnb's are here because we let the world in 4g and we need to do the same with 5g and continue to authorize spectrum before they have to have authority. >> looking at the overall spectrum management process, it is vital that all stakeholders feel fairly represented. spectrum sites have shown a lack of trust in the process, motivating certain federal agencies to want to go to an tic -- ntia. how can we strengthen the integrity of ntia's central and management of central spectrum needs and reach, to gain a trust from federal stakeholders? >> thank you for the question. i think the mou and asked today

goes a long way towards solving the issues. what you are really trying to emphasize is that all stakeholders feel fairly represent -- so when bands are defied for new allocations, they can identify concerns early and get the various technical studies necessary in a timely manner so they can be ready when the fcc does proceed with a proceeding. that was not really happening and we saw there was not really regular meetings between the fcc and the ntia occurring as regularly as they had. the reaffirmation of these agencies on a quarterly and monthly basis does a long way to get the issues resolved early in restoring that trust. >> a also served on the armed services. at times, i worry about losing dod spectrum. putting some of that up for auction. especially when we are looking

at advances. we see them in technology with regards to providing our war fighters with what they need, and to also meet the threats this country faces from our adversaries. specifically adversaries like russia and china. that is a concern that i have. i know that there has been good work in the past with bod. how can you assure me that the good work is going to continue in the future and we can make sure the security of the country will continue to be our number one priority? >> i think the mou is a good first step. i can only say that we certainly are interested to see how it gets implemented going forward. i think insuring those agencies get through the monthly meetings -- monthly meetings and shared information and consider all of the views. one of the recommendations we made that was not really part of

the new mou was that ntia really explain to federal agencies procedures for how it represents executive branch views before fcc. that would also go a long way for federal agencies to feel more comfortable about, you had to make a decision about this, so i understand it is more transparent. those two recommendations would help. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. we are going to hear from senator rosen. are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you chair lujan and ranking member thune. the importance of spectrum authority, i am partisan broadband program. it is so important. we know last year, the -- i was proud to help draft that. we drafted a key broadband

provision in the law including my own broadband meant act and the broadband equity access and deployment for beans program. this gave the last mile infrastructure. this was in a lifetime investment in our nations broadband infrastructure has the potential to only close our digital divide. this question is for all the witnesses. if the fcc's spectrum authority were to laugh, what impacted that that has not implemented the broadband provision of the bipartisan infrastructure law. the middle infrastructure program and the tribal broadband connectivity program as well as others. we can start with mrs. baker and move on to mr. lewis and then dr. a basal. >> thank you for your question and all the work you did on the infrastructure bill and also for mandating that it was technology neutral. wireless provides two parts to

the service. the infrastructure itself, which we are spending 30 million dollars a year, but also spectrum. if the fcc does not have the option authority to provide more spectrum, then there is only so much we can do. it is very important for broadband going forward and also implementation of the six mobile side of the equation for state to state side to decide how to spend the revenue. 5g home is a really good option to serve rural and unsolved areas. we look at that as an opportunity but it is important for the fcc to continue to option spectrum. >> thank you. >> thank you for that question. i do not think our work spoke to that issue so i would defer to my colleagues on the panel. >> mr. lewis!

>> thank you senator and thank you for your championing middle mile broadband deployment act. i agree that i do not think this has the direct government three effect. if we do not have the infrastructure, we do not have -- serve rulers. we do not have spectrum, then we we -- and we cannot serve rural areas. we also have to make sure folks are connected. fiber, and wireless are all part of the solution to make sure everyone is connected. >> mrs. baker. i am sorry, dr. basal. >> spectrum authorities are an inner part of our spectrum management party that strategy. it would be not good for the wireless sector to not include that. that would bias in handicap the ability to rollout those programs. >> thank you.

in the minutes i have left, i want to talk about the spectrum policy and the impact on the wireless workforce. the wireless industry has been a significant driver of innovation. they have ushered in services and devices and millions of americans have depended on. of course, all of our apps. the industry does rely on highly skilled workers to run through our networks and our telecommunications workforce is aging. they are -- there are far fewer younger employees with the experience needed to fill these. you discuss the ways the fcc could use options and design to encourage greater participation of underrepresented communities. what impact in a strong u.s. spectrum policy with hiring and training, particularly once you look to expand and diversify our workforce. >> i bel