[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6059-H6069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGULATORY RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, AND NONPROFITS ACT
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 897, I call up
the bill (H.R. 6094) to provide for a 6-month delay in the effective
date of a rule of the Department of Labor relating to income thresholds
for determining overtime pay for executive, administrative,
professional, outside sales, and computer employees, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6094
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Relief for Small
Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act''.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE.
(a) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding the effective date set
forth in the rule submitted by the Department of Labor
relating to exemptions regarding the rates of pay for
executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and
computer employees (81 Fed. Reg. 32552 (May 23, 2016)), such
rule shall not take effect until June 1, 2017.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to provide authority for the rule described in
subsection (a), nor any part thereof, that is not otherwise
provided by law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 6094.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6094, the
Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act. I
am proud to introduce this legislation to provide small businesses,
colleges, universities, and nonprofit organizations much needed relief
from a fundamentally flawed rule that will do more harm than good. It
is unfortunate this legislation is necessary in the first place.
For over 2 years, Republicans have urged the Department to update our
Nation's overtime rules responsibly. These rules serve as important
protections for American workers, but the existing regulatory structure
is extremely outdated and complex. The Department should have used this
opportunity to modernize overtime rules for the 21st century workforce.
They should have listened to the countless small-business owners,
heads of nonprofit organizations, State and local leaders, and college
and university administrators who warned that an extreme and partisan
rule would lead to harmful consequences. But the Department failed to
take a balanced approach and refused to listen. Instead, they stuck by
a Washington-knows-best mentality and finalized a rule that was exactly
what so many hardworking men and women had feared.
The rule doubles the salary threshold for overtime eligibility and
requires further automatic increases every 3 years. And then, to make
matters worse, the Department even kept in place the same old
regulatory maze that has existed for decades.
As the administration pats itself on the back and rushes to implement
a rule in just a few short months, those who will face the real world
consequences are scrambling to meet the unrealistic December 1
deadline.
Ernie Macewen, a South Rockwood small-business owner in my district,
[[Page H6060]]
said he already opted to hire one less employee this year in
anticipation of the rule. He said he has heard from other small-
business owners who don't even know the rule exists.
Karen Richard, who owns Culver's restaurants in Ann Arbor and
Jackson, is worried the rule will limit opportunities for the young
people she employs.
Adrian College is trying to make tough decisions that could impact
tuition and services for students, and the time crunch is making the
process even more challenging.
Bethany Christian Services in Grand Rapids is concerned the rule will
undermine support for children in need.
These stories aren't unique to Michigan. These are the types of
stories that are unfolding across the country, yet the administration
continues to quickly move toward the December 1 implementation date in
total disregard for the challenges facing the small businesses,
schools, and nonprofit organizations serving our communities.
Mr. Speaker, the administration should abandon this rule before it
limits opportunities for workers, hurts young people striving for an
affordable education, burdens hardworking small-business owners, and
jeopardizes vital services for vulnerable Americans.
It is time to go back to the drawing board and work toward the
balanced, responsible approach we have been fighting for from the
start.
Time is running out. The administration and Members of Congress
should do the right thing and provide more time to those struggling to
implement this rule before an arbitrary and unrealistic deadline. I
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and to help
deliver the relief small businesses, schools, and nonprofits in each
and every one of our districts so desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 6094, the inappropriately
named Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits
Act.
First of all, it is not limited to those. It is for all employers. It
would delay the implementation of the overtime rule for 6 months. The
rule is currently slated to go into effect on December 1, and working
families can't wait another 6 months for a long-overdue adjustment in
the overtime rule.
We ought to talk a little bit about what we are talking about. If
today you are earning $10 an hour, if you work more than 40 hours a
week, you get time-and-a-half for every hour worked over 40. And if
they change that to the same amount, instead of $10 an hour, $20,000 a
year, you still get time-and-a-half for overtime after 40 hours because
your salary is under the approximately $23,000 threshold.
{time} 1830
If you make $15 an hour, you get time-and-a-half for over 40 hours;
but if they change that and call it $30,000 a year, the hours you work
over 40 you not only don't get time-and-a-half, you don't get paid at
all. You just worked extra hours because you are over the threshold.
Now, when the threshold was established many years ago, 60 percent of
salaried workers were covered by the overtime rule. They were under the
threshold and got overtime. But because it wasn't adjusted for
inflation, it is now only about 7 percent of salaried workers who get
overtime protection. The Department of Labor overtime rule will
increase that threshold up to about $47,000, and this would cover about
only 35 percent of salaried workers, but this would still enable
millions of Americans to be compensated for work over 40 hours.
Mr. Speaker, the 40-hour workweek used to be the standard workweek,
but with this new rule, more workers will benefit from the overtime
rule and be able to get time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 hours.
We have heard this is too quick. When the last adjustment was made,
under a Republican President, only 4 months were provided to adjust.
This rule allowed 6 months. Furthermore, the administration has been
working on this for 2 years, so employers have known it was coming.
Now, we will hear exaggerated reports about the impact on
universities. Studies have shown that only a few people will be
actually affected by the rule, and of those, only a few people will
actually routinely work overtime. So the total of those affected and
routinely work overtime is about 1 percent of the university employees.
Their salary may go up a little bit or they may be only worked 40
hours, in which case there is no adjustment needed. Either way, you are
only talking about a small portion of the salary of 1 percent. That is
not going to bankrupt universities.
The nonprofits, the same thing, about 1 percent of the employees both
routinely work overtime and are affected. Their salary may or may not
go up, depending on how you respond because a lot of times you will
just make sure that people don't work more than 40 hours a week. They
can go home to their families rather than be worked hour after hour
after hour.
We have also heard an exaggeration about how it will affect jobs,
people will have to lay people off. Actually, one study showed that you
will actually create jobs, about 100,000 jobs over the economy, because
if an employer has 120 hours that need to be worked, and he is working
two people 60 hours a week without paying for the extra hours, with
this rule, he may be paying them time-and-a-half, and it may make more
sense to hire a third person; so three people work 40 hours a week.
That would create, as I said, about 100,000 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would unnecessarily delay fair pay to millions
of workers. The President, thankfully, has said that if this bill ever
sees his desk, he will veto it. We can remove that uncertainty just by
defeating the bill here and now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, a man who we will all miss next year, the wisdom, the
leadership, the success that he has brought to this committee, a man
who understands that we work together, but sometimes we press forward
to do the right thing.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his
tremendous leadership on this issue and so many more.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6094.
In 2014, the Department of Labor began an effort to update Federal
overtime rules. There would have been strong bipartisan support for
that effort if the Department had pursued a responsible approach. In
fact, we have spent years engaging in this issue because we believe
Federal overtime rules need to be modernized, both to strengthen
protections for workers and to provide more clarity and certainty for
employers.
Unfortunately, the Department took a different approach and finalized
an extreme rule that will hurt those it is supposed to help. As we have
heard from witnesses at hearings and constituents back home, the rule
will leave individuals with less flexibility at work and fewer
opportunities to further their careers or pursue jobs they want or
truly need. We have also learned that the rule will make college less
affordable and make it more difficult for charitable organizations to
serve people in need.
The purpose of the legislation we are considering today is to provide
some relief--even if temporary--to those who will be harmed the most:
men and women working hard to grow their own businesses and employees
trying to provide a better life for their families, students pursuing
the dream of a higher education, and countless Americans relying on
nonprofits for help and support.
It took the Obama administration more than 2 years--27 months--to
complete this rule, but they have given the American people just 6
months to make the difficult choices necessary to implement it.
According to one report, almost half--49 percent--of small businesses
aren't even aware the new rule exists. Imagine how many schools and
nonprofits are in the same position.
This legislation will give these men and women more time to implement
the rule and help mitigate its impact on students, workers, and
vulnerable individuals. But the clock is ticking. Important decisions
about payroll and
[[Page H6061]]
staffing have to be made and quickly. If we fail to act now, it may be
too late.
I want to thank Mr. Walberg for introducing this important
legislation and for his continued leadership in championing efforts to
responsibly--responsibly--update Federal overtime rules. I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume just to acknowledge the retirement of the Chair. I have only
been ranking member for this Congress, but we have been able to work
together constructively for elementary and secondary education,
juvenile justice, career and technical education, Older Americans Act,
several higher education bills, all working constructively together. I
want to thank the gentleman for his cooperative spirit. We agree on a
lot and we are able to work forward. We disagree, as we are on this
bill, but we are able to do that in a dignified way and still be able
to accomplish a great deal during this Congress. I want to congratulate
him on a great career.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections on the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise to voice my
strong opposition to H.R. 6094, which would delay the overtime rule. It
is not fair that the men and women teetering on the brink of poverty,
people making $23,660 a year, are asked to work 50, 60, or 70 hours a
week with no promise of extra pay. It is not fair that millions of
mothers and fathers who are forced to work long hours each week find it
almost impossible to give their children the time and attention they
deserve, yet they are still deprived of the overtime pay that could
lead to the economic security of their families.
The Department's overtime rule will extend long-awaited wage
protections to nearly 4.2 million Americans, including 331,000
Floridians. I applaud the Department and the administration for their
continued commitment to combating the wage stagnation that has left far
too many Floridians working more hours for less pay. My hardworking
constituents and Americans across this country deserve a fair day's pay
for a fair day's work.
This overtime rule makes us one step closer to this goal. Small-
business owners, nonprofits, and higher education institutions have
options for complying with this rule, which would not impose any
additional cost. Let's make that clear. H.R. 6094 will take $600
million out of the pockets of 4.2 million American workers who would
have gained overtime protections on December 1. This is $600 million
they will never see. That means, for example, that workers will have
less money to spend on their families and their futures.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds
to the gentlewoman.
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we are
required to serve the will of the people, and millions of working class
people want and need this rule now. Polls show that 76 percent of
voters say they support the rule. We must do what is best for the
American people by ensuring that all Americans are paid a fair day's
pay for a fair day's work. I remain steadfast in my commitment to
strengthening the wage and hour protections that Americans deserve. It
is critical that the overtime rule goes into effect without any changes
on December 1, 2016.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, and my good
friend.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
I rise today in support of H.R. 6094, the Regulatory Relief for Small
Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act, a much-needed piece of
legislation that will delay the Department of Labor's misguided
proposed overtime rule.
The annual wage in my home State of Tennessee is $41,300. In my
district, the median household income is even lower, $39,000. The
Department's proposed threshold for overtime is $47,000. That means
that well over half the households in my district could be impacted by
this ruling.
My question to the Department of Labor is: If over half the workers
in an area will be affected by a regulation, where will the money come
from?
The government might be able to print money, but if a local mom-and-
pop business back home in my district started doing that, it is a
felony, and the Secret Service won't be stopping by just to say hello.
The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who has run a business or had
to meet a payroll. To comply with the regulation, fewer full-time
employees will be hired, and workers will be strictly limited in their
hours. While the regulation may give a few employees a pay raise, for
many other employees it will result in fewer opportunities and
unemployment.
We all want to see wages go up and the economy recover like it has in
the past, but that happens by decreasing the number of oppressive
regulations to stimulate job creation and business growth, not by
adding yet another layer of regulation that could put small companies
and nonprofits across my district out of business or cause them to cut
back workers' hours and change salaried employees to hourly.
Additionally, if this rule is finalized, the colleges in my district
will be affected to the tune of between $1 million and $9 million
annually, which will only end up raising the price of education, which
is already too high.
I want to say in closing that I am an Eagle Scout and very proud to
be one. As you may know, the motto of the Scouts is: Be Prepared.
Unfortunately, for groups like the Boy Scouts of America that rely on
donations, there is no way that they could be prepared to pay all their
employees $47,476 or more and continue operating. This proposed rule
will do nothing but hurt an already ailing economy and force groups
like the Boy Scouts to cut back on their operation that helps kids,
rich and poor, come together and learn skills they need to be a
productive member of society when they grow up.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and a hardworking member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for his leadership on this
issue.
I am here to express my strong opposition to H.R. 6094. Prior to the
Department of Labor taking action this year, the rules governing
overtime were woefully out of date. In 1975, 60 percent of salaried
workers had access to overtime protections. Four decades later, that
number was just 8 percent. The result is that millions of American
workers were denied a fair day's pay for a fair day's work for far too
long.
On numerous occasions, my colleagues across the aisle have conceded
that the threshold should be increased, but they say that this increase
is too much too soon.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, an incremental change would have
been appropriate three decades ago. Now we need bold action to restore
overtime protections for middle class workers.
{time} 1845
I find it ironic that this bill is called the Regulatory Relief for
Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act. After decades of long
hours and low pay, it is working families that need relief. This bill
takes money out of the pockets of middle class Americans right before
the holiday season. In reality, this bill should be called the Grinch
Act.
The overtime rule will ensure that 4.2 million Americans will have
access to overtime protections. An additional 8.9 million workers will
see their overtime protections strengthened. These middle class workers
will either get an increase in pay or more time to spend with their
families or both. This is plainly one of the most significant steps we
can take to support the middle class.
[[Page H6062]]
I am not blind to the concerns of the business communities. I have
heard from small businesses, institutions of higher education, and
nonprofit organizations in my own district who are worried about the
impact this rule will have on their bottom lines; but the truth is,
while this rule is a big deal for workers, it will not have a
significant consequence for businesses. The Department of Labor
estimates that the total cost of the rule will amount to less than one-
tenth of 1 percent of total U.S. payroll costs. I repeat that: less
than one-tenth of 1 percent of total U.S. payroll costs.
Among workers affected by the rule, only one in five regularly work
overtime. At universities and colleges, employees whose primary duties
are teaching, lecturing, or instructing are exempt from overtime
coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Only 3.4 percent of all
employees in colleges, universities, and junior colleges will be
affected by this rule. Only 0.5 percent of those workers usually work
overtime.
And who are these workers? They are the people peeling potatoes in
the dining hall, they are the landscapers cutting grass in the quad,
and they are the sporting equipment managers who work in multimillion-
dollar athletic facilities, but can barely afford to support their
families. They deserve to be paid for the hours they work.
Employers have inexpensive options for complying with this rule. For
example, they can work with their teams to ensure that their employees
are only working 40 hours a week, preventing overwork, as the Fair
Labor Standards Act intended.
Yes, we have heard concerns about the overtime rule from the business
community, but we have also heard their support. Ranking Member Scott
and Chairman Kline received a letter from the American Sustainable
Business Council urging Congress to support a full implementation
deadline of December 1, 2016. These businesses believe that any delay
would be unduly burdensome, as businesses have been preparing for the
rule to go into effect this year.
We have also received support from the nonprofits. I will include in
the Record two letters to the Department of Labor offering support for
the rule during the rulemaking process: one with nearly two dozen
nonprofits, and another letter with roughly 140 organizations
supporting the final rule.
September 4, 2015.
Re Comments in Support of DOL's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive,
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer
Employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, RIN 1235-
AA11.
Mary Ziegler,
Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation and
Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department
of Labor, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Ziegler: The undersigned are all non-profit
organizations that provide direct services to low-income,
marginalized, under-represented, or otherwise disadvantaged
communities of people. We all labor under tight budgets as
well as a demand for our services that far outstrips what we
could ever hope to provide.
We are writing in full support of DOL's efforts to update
the Executive, Administrative and Professional (EAP)
exemptions to overtime coverage. These are rules which will
greatly benefit the vulnerable communities we all strive to
serve. Once they are in effect, our clients will see one of
three results, all of which are overwhelmingly positive: (1)
many will work fewer hours for no less pay, either affording
them more time with their families and children, or freeing
them up to find a second paying job, so that they can better
make ends meet; (2) others will receive more compensation in
their current jobs, in the form of overtime pay; and (3) the
many unemployed and under-employed people we serve will have
new opportunities for jobs or extra hours at their current
jobs once the extra hours now worked for free, are spread out
among other workers.
While we recognize that our organizations may well have to
reclassify some of our own workforce, we welcome the
challenge. Just as we do not want our clients to labor under
abusive situations, so too must we consider how to best and
most humanely use our own human resources. Our management
teams welcome the opportunity this will provide to examine
the work we are doing, how we are doing it, and look for
efficiencies where we can, prioritize our work better, and
ensure that our own staff have the same overtime protections
that we want for our clients. The justice we seek for our
clients in the world must also exist within our own
organizations.
The proposed updates to the EAP exemptions are long over-
due and we applaud the Department of Labor for taking the
necessary steps to make the overtime laws of this country
meaningful again.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
CASA
The Arc of Northern Virginia
Casa Latina
Center for Worker Justice
Community Service Society
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Employment Justice Center
First Shift Justice Project
Florida Immigrant Coalition
Maryland Legal Aid
Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health
(MassCOSH)
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
North Carolina Justice Center
Northwest Arkansas Workers' Justice Center
Public Justice Center
Restaurant Opportunities Centers United
Root & Rebound: Reentry Advocates
Rubicon Programs
Safer Foundation
Urban Justice Center
Worker Justice Center of New York
YWCA USA.
____
Economic Policy Institute,
Washington, DC.
Nonprofit Organizations in Support of the Department of Labor's New
Overtime Regulations
We, the undersigned nonprofit organizations, write in
support of the Department of Labor's new overtime
regulations. The updated overtime rule is a great victory for
working people across the United States.
In its recently announced final regulation, the Department
of Labor raised the salary threshold below which most workers
are eligible for overtime pay from $23,660 to $47,476. This
change will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, extend
overtime protections to millions of workers, reduce excessive
hours of unpaid work by underpaid employees, and increase
salaries for employees earning near the new threshold. In
particular, this rule represents an important step toward
fairer pay for women and people of color, who are
overrepresented in lower-paying jobs and are often required
to work additional hours without compensation.
We recognize that many nonprofit organizations will have to
think through and solve interesting problems and will face
challenges as we make the changes needed to comply with the
new regulations. These important changes will not necessarily
be easy. Nonetheless, we embrace this opportunity to restore
the overtime pay that lower-paid workers toiling more than 40
hours a week are entitled to.
For many nonprofits, including those of us that provide
human services or advocate for workers' rights, poverty
reduction, or economic and social justice, this is a critical
opportunity to improve the working conditions and the
economic lives of the people we serve. At the same time, our
own workers and the families they support also deserve fair
compensation and greater economic security.
As nonprofit organizations more broadly, we are dedicated
to improving the public good. It is time to revisit the idea
that working for the public good should somehow mean
requiring the lowest-paid among us to support these efforts
by working long hours, many of which are unpaid.
All of the undersigned nonprofit organizations are
committed to complying with the new overtime regulations. We
commend the Department of Labor for this significant reform,
which will create better jobs and working conditions for
millions of working people throughout the country. We support
this historic social justice reform.
Signed,
21st Century School Fund; 9to5, National Association of
Working Women; 9to5 California; 9to5 Colorado; 9to5 Georgia;
9to5 Wisconsin; A Better Balance; ActBlue; Advocates for
Youth; African American Ministers In Action; Agenda Project
Action Fund; Alaska People's Action; American Association of
University Women; American Family Voices; American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American
Federation of Teachers; Americans for Democratic Action
(ADA); Anti-Poverty Network of New Jersey.
Ariva; Asian Counseling and Referral Service; Atlanta Women
for Equality; Avodah; The Battle of Homestead Foundation;
Benedictine Sisters of Baltimore; Bend the Arc Jewish Action;
Black Children's Institute of Tennessee; Brevard NOW; Bus
Federation; Campaign for America's Future; CASA; Catalyst
Miami; Center for American Progress; Center for Community
Change; Center for Economic and Policy Research; Center for
Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for Popular Democracy;
Center for Women Policy Studies; Center for WorkLife Law;
Center on Policy Initiatives.
The Century Foundation; Children's Law Center (District of
Columbia); Class Action; Clergy and Laity United for Economic
Justice (CLUE); Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians);
ClimateTruth.org; Coalition on Human Needs; Colorado Fiscal
Institute; Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and
Reproductive Rights (COLOR); Community, Faith and Labor
Coalition; Community Forum for Economic Justice; Connecticut
[[Page H6063]]
Citizen Action Group (CCAG); Courage Campaign; Delaware
Alliance for Community Advancement; Democratic Socialists of
America; Democratic Women's Club of Florida; Democracy for
America; Demos.
Economic Opportunity Institute; Economic Policy Institute;
Elizabeth Coalition to House the Homeless; Emerge Colorado;
End Hunger CT!; Fair Budget Coalition; Fair World Project;
Family Values @ Work; First Shift Justice Project; FRESC:
Good Jobs, Strong Communities; Generation Progress; God's
Will In Action; Gospel Justice Committee; Greater New York
Labor-Religion Coalition; Greater Orlando NOW; HEAL; Human
Services Council of New York; Illinois Economic Policy
Institute.
Indiana Community Action Association; Indiana Institute for
Working Families; Innovation Ohio Education Fund; Institute
for Science and Human Values, Inc; Interfaith Worker Justice;
Interfaith Center for Worker Justice of San Diego County;
Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters; Iowa Coalition Against Domestic
Violence; Jobs With Justice; Keystone Research Center; Latino
Commission on AIDS; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights; Legal Aid Service of Broward County; Legal Aid
Society of the District of Columbia; Los Angeles Alliance for
a New Economy (LAANE); Medical Mission Sisters; MomsRising;
MoveOn.org.
NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado; National Alliance for
Partnerships in Equity; National Association of Social
Workers; National Black Justice Coalition; National Center
for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality;
National Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Employment Law
Project (NELP); National Employment Lawyers Association;
National Low Income Housing Coalition; National Partnership
for Women & Families; National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence; National Women's Law Center; NETWORK LOBBY; New
Jersey Policy Perspective; New Jersey Work Environment
Council; Noorvik Boys & Girls Club Alaska; North Carolina
Justice Center; One Wisconsin Now; Organize Now; PathStone
Corporation; PathWays PA.
People's Action; Pennsylvania Council of Churches;
Princeton Community Housing; ProgressOhio; Progressive Change
Campaign Committee; Public Health Advocates; Public Justice
Center; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law;
Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Sierra Club;
Sisters of the Presentation; Social Security Works; South
Carolina Community Loan Fund; Southeast Ministry DC; Teens,
Training, & Taxes; Toledo Area Jobs with Justice & Interfaith
Worker Justice Coalition; The Union of Concerned Scientists;
UltraViolet.
United Auto Workers (UAW); United States Student
Association; United Steelworkers; URGE: Unite for
Reproductive & Gender Equity; Voices for Progress; Washington
Community Action Network; Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Washington State Labor
Council, AFL-CIO; Westland Ecumenical Community Food Pantry;
West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; Wisconsin Council
on Children & Families; Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice
Workers' Dignity Project; Women AdvaNCe; Women Employed;
Women's Law Project; Working America; Working Partnerships
USA; YWCA USA.
Mr. TAKANO. Finally, I want to raise objection to the way that this
legislation is being considered. H.R. 6094 was brought to the floor as
an emergency measure, bypassing regular order.
Mr. Speaker, an emergency is the epidemic of gun violence that kills
91 Americans every day. An emergency is averting a damaging shutdown
and funding the Federal Government. Taking $600 million out of the
pockets of hardworking Americans and preventing them from spending time
with their families is not an emergency, and that is what H.R. 6094
would do.
This legislation and the way it is being considered is a message to
middle class families that they are not a priority for this Congress. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
California, that I appreciate the passion that he displays. None of us
want to be grinches. My concern, however, is that at Christmastime it
won't be the fact that they would get more money as a result of this.
The fact is many will lose their jobs. There could be nothing worse at
Christmastime than to lose jobs that they have had.
I would also suggest that the reports that were listed are similar
reports and probably from similar researchers that told us if we liked
our insurance, we could keep it; if we liked our doctor, we could keep
him or her.
We are talking about an issue here that relates to people who are
salaried. Most of the references that were made of employees by my
colleague are people that aren't salaried. We are not talking about
them. We are talking about people that are building a resume, an
opportunity for flexibility, to meet the needs of their families, to
have continued opportunity to grow in their work relationships and
responsibilities. Some, as we heard in committee, come to us having
started on the grill, went to assistant manager, and ended up owning
corporations and leading them.
So I think we need to watch those studies, as well, and what they
purport and where they come from.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany), a good friend and a gentleman who understands it from
another perspective.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the chairman for yielding time, and I stand in
support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, south Louisiana recently experienced historic flooding
that damaged 12,000 businesses, leaving them struggling to survive.
Recuperation is one thing, but survival is at stake right now for these
businesses.
The Department of Labor's overtime rule would effectively force a
choice for these flood-affected employers: either delay the much-needed
recovery efforts or rapidly deplete limited funds they have available
for recovering, paying for higher labor costs, as dictated by this new
rule.
The consequences of this rule are real. They are having a real
impact, a detrimental impact. That is why just last week, my home State
of Louisiana joined 20 other States in filing a lawsuit challenging
this rule.
This rule will force many businesses to unfairly and substantially
increase their employment costs. This rule will lead to higher
unemployment, in many instances. Small businesses will be really
affected in a big way by this, at a time when labor participation is at
an all-time low in the workforce--at least, something we haven't seen
since the seventies.
We should be encouraging growth. I don't know why our colleagues
don't understand the need for economic growth and progrowth policies.
We should be encouraging growth of small business and development in
the workplace. This rule, instead, would hinder opportunities for
employees to move up the career ladder.
That is why I support this bill, the Regulatory Relief for Small
Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act. This is really important
legislation that will delay the implementation of this ill-conceived,
disastrous rule.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6094.
There has been a lot of talk about what small businesses think about
this law. We put it in the name of the bill. Well, let me give you a
perspective of a small-business owner for 29 years.
I am, this week--maybe not right now; they might have left--paying
overtime to one of my employees. They are working extra hours because
we are extra busy at this time of year.
You know what that means when I pay them extra money? That means I am
making more money because we have got more hours that we are billing
out. All I am doing is sharing it with the employees who, otherwise,
are spending less time with their families. That is why we pay overtime
pay. It is a pretty basic concept.
The problem is, if you delay this rule for 6 months, you will deny
Americans $600 million in pay during that time. There will be 4.2
million Americans newly eligible for overtime pay, under the proposed
rule. Another 8.9 million working Americans will have their overtime
protections strengthened under this rule.
Let's make sure people really understand what it is really about. The
current level that is in place for overtime is $23,400. The Federal
poverty line for a family of four, Mr. Speaker, is $24,300. We are
asking people to work overtime--extra hours--for free who are living
below the Federal poverty line at the current level. That makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever. As an employer, I would feel terrible
that I have an employee putting 60 hours a week in and living below the
Federal poverty line.
So the problem is there are some employers and some business models
that
[[Page H6064]]
simply aren't sufficient because they are taking advantage of the
current overtime rule because it is so antiquated--it is from 2004--and
that is simply why we have to have it increased.
Only 7 percent of the full-time salary workforce right now is under
that rule. If you go back to 1975, that was at 60 percent. Even with
this rule, we are only bringing that up to a third of full-time
salaried workers. It is long overdue.
So what does this bill do? This would delay it for 6 months. Let's be
honest. This isn't about delaying it for 6 months. This is about trying
to kill the bill outright.
This is about trying not to have an increase in overtime pay. It was
very clear from the hearings that a lot of these businesses make money
off of their current model. We have seen that in the economy. Wages
have generally been flat; although, recently, we have seen a little
uptick. Corporate profits have soared. CEO profits have soared. The
stock market has soared. The only thing left behind are wages.
This is one of those things to deal with it for someone who could be
living on the Federal poverty line, giving free hours to an employer
who, I would argue, needs a better business model.
What will happen if this rule goes into effect? One of three things:
First, you will see people working fewer hours for no less pay and
able to spend more time with their family or time to get a second job
if they need additional money to support their family;
Second, they will receive more compensation in their current jobs in
the form of overtime pay;
Third, many unemployed or underemployed people will see new
opportunities for jobs or extra hours at their current jobs once those
extra hours are no longer worked for free and, instead, spread out
among workers.
It is a scare tactic to say that people are going to be fired and
lose work before the holidays. I am an employer. I am happy. I make
money this week because I am paying someone overtime. I know I am
making even more money for my business.
I learned this once when I talked to a very successful businessowner
in Wisconsin about taxes. He said, I don't mind paying taxes. If I am
making money, I pay taxes. If I am not making money, I am not paying.
That is the way it should be. That is how I look at this. I want to
share it with my employees because, if they are making the sacrifice
away from their families, that is why we have overtime pay in place.
That is why we have this rule in place.
This delay is a bad idea.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from
Wisconsin an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from
organization that support the overtime rule.
AFSCME,
Washington, DC, September 26, 2016.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I want to express our strong support for
the Department of Labor's (DOL) new overtime rule set for
implementation on December 1, and urge you to oppose any
efforts to overturn, weaken or delay it. In particular, we
are strongly opposed to the Regulatory Relief for Small
Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act (H.R. 6094), and we
urge you to vote no when this bill comes to the House floor
for a vote.
This new rule is an overdue and historic update that would
raise the salary threshold below which most workers are
eligible for overtime pay from $23,660 to $47,486. It's a
recognition of our country's forward-moving economy and is
supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans who
believe that too many workers are working too many hours for
too little pay--a major step in addressing stagnant incomes
and wage inequality. It will benefit 12.5 million people--
including 4.2 million parents who together have 7.3 million
children under the age of 18.
H.R. 6094 would hurt many hardworking Americans that the
updated rule is intended to help, and needlessly delay
implementation of the overtime rule. The stated reason for
the delay is to lessen the impact on small businesses,
nonprofits, and colleges and universities. However,
opposition to the overtime rule as it applies to nonprofits
and universities is vastly overstated. Many employees of
nonprofits who perform charitable operations are not engaged
in ``commercial sales'' or ``business transactions'' that
lead to ``enterprise'' coverage under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). For universities, the majority of their
workers are already exempt from FLSA overtime coverage,
including professors, instructors, coaches, counselors, and
most teaching assistants. Also, before the DOL's overtime
rule was made final, many businesses, including small
businesses, had forced low-level salaried employees to work
long hours for no extra compensation. Employees who work in
small businesses deserve the same protection as those who
work for medium-sized and large businesses. The updated
salary level is meant to do one thing--prevent employers from
denying a 40-hour workweek and overtime pay to workers.
Americans who are employed in these sectors should not be
exploited by employers and work excessive hours, or be denied
time with their families. They are no less deserving of
protections from working long hours with no pay than any
other workers. Experts insist this rule is a critical
opportunity to create better jobs and improve the economic
lives of low-wage working people.
Updating the FLSA rules requiring overtime pay will provide
one of the best economic boosts for working families in many
years. H.R. 6094 is a direct attack on American families and
workers, which would hinder job creation, weaken protections
for millions of workers, and deny millions of workers a fair
day's pay for a hard day's work.
AFSCME urges you to support the DOL's new overtime rule,
and to oppose H.R. 6094 and other efforts to delay, weaken or
repeal the rule.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
____
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, September 27, 2016.
Oppose H.R. 6094: The Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools,
and Nonprofits Act
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse
membership of more than 200 organizations to promote and
protect the rights of all persons in the United States, we
urge you to oppose H.R. 6094, the Regulatory Relief for Small
Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act. This bill would
delay the implementation of the Department of Labor's new
overtime protections by six months, forcing millions of
workers and their families to wait another half year before
they become eligible for overtime pay.
The Leadership Conference strongly supports the new
overtime rules, which are scheduled to take effect on
December 1, 2016. Following a lengthy comment period, the
final rule, released in May, was preceded by months of
careful consideration by the Department of Labor, which
incorporated extensive economic analysis and the feedback
from 270,000 letters of comment.
The rule raises the overtime salary threshold from $23,660
to $47,476, meaning that more employees putting in long hours
will finally get the pay they deserve for their hard work.
The Department of Labor estimates that 4.2 million workers
currently considered exempt will gain the right to overtime
pay, and the Economic Policy Institute projects that 12.5
million workers in total will benefit from the new overtime
protections. Women and people of color will benefit
significantly as more women, African American and Hispanic
salaried managerial and professional workers fall at the
lower end of the salary scale.
This month, data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed a
substantial increase in income for American households,
breaking a long-running pattern of stagnation. It is critical
that we build on the progress made in the economic recovery
by ensuring that middle-class and working families get a
raise, as planned, on December 1 when the new overtime
protections take effect.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6094, which
would unnecessarily delay by six months the new overtime
rules and the increased income they would bring to working
families. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson,
President & CEO.
Nancy Zirkin,
Executive Vice President.
____
September 27, 2016.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to urge you to
support the U.S. Department of Labor's overtime regulation
and oppose the Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses,
Schools, and Nonprofits Act (H.R. 6094), which would delay
its implementation. The new overtime rule that is scheduled
to take effect on December 1 would finally end the days when
people who work long hours for poverty wages are not required
to receive overtime pay. By updating wage and hour
protections that have been allowed to erode for decades, the
new rule will make a tremendous difference for millions of
working women and their families.
The National Partnership for Women & Families is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting
fairness
[[Page H6065]]
in the workplace, reproductive health and rights, access to
quality health care and policies that help women and men meet
the dual demands of work and family. For four decades, we
have fought for every major policy advance that has helped
women and families.
Right now in our country, only hourly workers and salaried
workers making less than $23,660 per year--which is below the
poverty line for a family of four--qualify for overtime pay
when they work more than 40 hours per week. It has been three
decades since the regulations that govern overtime pay in our
country have been updated in a meaningful way. In its final
regulation, the Department of Labor raised the salary
threshold below which most workers are eligible for overtime
pay from $23,660 to $47,476.
The rule will extend overtime eligibility and protections
to millions of women and help them support themselves and
their families. The rule will provide or strengthen overtime
protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act for as many as
12.5 million salaried workers, 6.4 million of whom are women,
boosting economic security for working families across the
country. Outdated overtime rules contribute to unfair pay,
which has harmful consequences--including for the two-thirds
of mothers who are breadwinners or co-breadwinners for their
families. In particular, this rule represents an important
step toward fairer pay for women and people of color, who are
overrepresented in lower-paying jobs and are often required
to work additional hours without compensation.
Expanding overtime protections will guarantee employees
fairer wages and hours. Under the current low and outdated
threshold, a promotion to ``shift supervisor'' for a salary
of just $24,000 a year could cost a woman her overtime pay.
The new rule will help to keep millions of workers from being
denied the pay they rightfully deserve and their families
desperately need. Employers who have been relying on their
employees' free labor now will have to acknowledge the value
of the 40-hour workweek by either limiting workers to 40-hour
workweeks, thus giving them more time with their families, or
compensating them for the hours they work.
This overtime rule is long overdue. It will help end
blatant worker exploitation and help restore basic fairness
to our nation's workplaces. It is a historic advance for fair
pay. It must not be diminished or delayed. Please support the
overtime regulation and vote no when the Regulatory Relief
for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act (H.R. 6094)
comes to the floor. Working families cannot wait any longer.
Sincerely,
Debra L. Ness,
President,
National Partnership for Women & Families.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Small Business
Committee, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his
leadership on this issue. I am a cosponsor, and I strongly support
passage of this legislation.
The Department of Labor's overtime rule is yet another one-size-fits-
all mandate out of Washington that will have severe negative impacts on
small businesses and their employees.
Countless small employers, including small businesses, nonprofits,
and counties, simply do not have the profit margins or budget
flexibility to increase the salaries of workers who are currently
exempt to the new salary level.
Not only is the 100 percent salary level increase too high, but the
compliance timeline is far too short. With the December 1 deadline
looming, small businesses are scrambling to figure out how the rule
will impact them and what they need to do to comply to stay out of
trouble with this Federal Government.
According to a survey by Paychex, 49 percent of businessowners aren't
even aware of the final overtime rule, which is rapidly breathing down
their necks.
Over the past year, the Committee on Small Business has heard from
countless small businesses that share their concerns about the overtime
rule.
{time} 1900
Many small businesses currently give their employees flexible
schedules, pay increases when they can afford it, and offer career
advancement opportunities because employees are the key to their
successes. They want to treat their employees well. They don't need the
Federal Government telling them to do that.
The new labor rule would limit the ability of small businesses to
provide these benefits, which would have a devastating impact on
employee morale. Our committee members, and other officials, including
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration,
joined small businesses in urging the Department of Labor to change
course.
In fact, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy sent the Department of Labor
a letter that described numerous problems with the rule and recommended
that small businesses be given at least a year or 18 months to comply.
Instead, the Department of Labor finalized the rule without addressing
small business concerns and made the compliance deadline December 1,
providing barely 6 months to comply, when they said that they ought to
have at least a year or 18 months.
H.R. 6094, this bill, is critical because it will provide small
businesses with 6 more months to figure out how the rule affects them,
how to deal with it, and what changes they need to make to stay out of
trouble with the Labor Department.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for small businesses and support
this bill.
I would, again, thank Congressman Walberg for his leadership on this.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the ranking member of the
Investigations, Oversight, and Regulations Subcommittee of the Small
Business Committee.
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of the Department of Labor's overtime rule
that will go into effect on December 1, 2016. This rule will protect
4.2 million workers who are newly eligible for overtime pay and
strengthen protections for 8.9 million workers nationwide. Such a
change not only puts more money in workers' pockets, it also
strengthens our economy by driving consumer spending.
H.R. 6094 is an attempt to delay the implementation of the overtime
rule, taking $600 million out of the pockets of 4.2 million American
workers who would have gained overtime protection on December 1. In
North Carolina, 425,000 workers will benefit from the new rule.
I acknowledge the concerns of my colleagues regarding the impact this
rule may have on small businesses, universities, and nonprofits. Only
3.4 percent of employees at colleges and universities and junior
colleges will be affected by this rule. Of those groups, only one-half
percent of employees will be both affected by the rule and regularly
work overtime.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. ADAMS. Preserving the right to overtime pay is crucial at the
time when lower- and middle-income family wages are stagnant. I urge my
colleagues to vote against H.R. 6094 and support working families.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member from Pennsylvania.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6094, the Regulatory
Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act introduced by
my colleague, Mr. Walberg. As an original cosponsor of this measure, I
am fully supportive of its goal--to put the brakes on the Department of
Labor's final overtime rule and continue to shield workers, small
businesses, nonprofits, and educational institutions from its
potentially devastating effects.
Under the final rule from the Department of Labor, companies and
organizations will be required to pay overtime to employees who make
less than $47,476, more than double the current salary threshold. While
there is little doubt that the current overtime rules are in need of
modernization, the Department's drastic approach will do more harm than
good, marginalizing economic growth, diminishing access to valuable
services provided by nonprofits, and discouraging upward mobility in
the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, in the midst of an economy that is still struggling, we
simply cannot allow for the enactment of ill-advised policies that make
it harder for hardworking Americans to make ends meet. For that reason,
I am proud to support this measure, and I ask my colleagues to do the
same.
[[Page H6066]]
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the
Small Business Committee.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. With the minimum wage
failing to provide a living wage, Americans are working more hours than
ever. Full-time employees are working an average of 47 hours a week.
Nearly 40 percent report logging 50 hours or more.
Yet, only 7 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime last
year, down from 62 percent 40 years ago. Updating the rule to restore
the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act was long overdue.
In New York State, an additional 23 percent of the salaried
workforce, nearly 1 million employees, will directly benefit from the
new regulations. At a time when lower- and middle-income wages remain
stagnant, these changes will be particularly helpful to American
families.
Our colleagues on the other side go on about the negative impact on
small businesses. Yet, the data shows that this rule will increase
payroll less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Furthermore, this money will
go directly in the pockets of the middle and working class, who will
spend it at their local small businesses. It is not going to diminish
job creation in this country. It will increase employment opportunities
in this country when those workers will go and spend their money in the
local businesses.
They are not going to go and get a loan to find--to buy another home.
They will not buy a second home. They will spend it in the local
economy.
So, in turn, this provides an economic boost that will create over
120,000 new jobs. This is a win-win regulation.
Let's be clear, no one is asking to be unjustly enriched, only to be
fairly compensated for a hard day's work. These ideals are advanced by
the DOL's overtime rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yet, despite this benefit for millions of Americans,
this legislation will delay the rule until June 2017, when I am sure
there will be attempts to eliminate this rule completely. I cannot and
will not support this attack on workers.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the American
Sustainable Business Council in support of the overtime regulations.
American Sustainable Business
Council,
July 12, 2016.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Education and the Workforce Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Ranking Member, Education and the Workforce Committee, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of
the businesses represented by the American Sustainable
Business Council's, ASBC, network, I write in support of the
Department of Labor's recently released overtime rule, and to
oppose a Congressional Review Act, CRA, action to roll it
back.
ASBC advocates for policy change and market solutions for
building a vibrant, sustainable economy. Through its national
member network, ASBC represents more than 200,000 business
owners, executives and investors from a wide range of
industries.
The rule creates certainty and predictability for business
owners. Since the announcement of the draft rule in July 2015
and the release of the final rule this spring, businesses
have been planning for its implementation on December 1,
2016. In fact, payroll operations companies have been
marketing solutions to help employers handle the transition.
Invoking a CRA or other legislative action delaying the
overtime rule will create unnecessary and disruptive
uncertainty for business owners. Business owners, by nature,
are creative at problem solving. When rules are established,
they make the necessary decisions to comply. However, when
the rules are in flux, business owners react to the
uncertainty by holding back on investments in growth and
expansion.
When employers set fairer, clearer wages, they earn
dividends with happier, more productive employees. That's
good news for a businesses' bottom line, and for growing the
nation's middle class. High road businesses understand that
compensating their employees for extra time spent on the job
builds a better work culture.
The American economy is fundamentally a domestic, consumer-
driven economy, unlike some countries where growth is fueled
by exports and business-to-business spending. The biggest
long term threat to our economy is the hollowing out of the
middle class, which is losing its capacity for discretionary
spending--responsible for about 70 percent of our gross
domestic product.
The new overtime rule closes a loophole which has allowed
for hourly workers to be deprived of pay by inappropriately
classifying them as exempt. Employees are consumers; if they
are not earning sufficient wages, demand will remain
stagnant. Closing this loophole will help restore consumer
spending and give the economy a needed boost.
The overtime rule has been under consideration for some
time and businesses have weighed in through the public
comment process. Most businesses are moving forward to meet
the December deadline for compliance. Congress should not
take action to stop the progress the business community is
making.
Sincerely,
Bryan McGannon,
Policy Director.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in support of this legislation to require a 6-month delay in the
Department of Labor's new overtime rule. This is an ill-advised
regulation that will result in hardworking Americans losing their jobs
and less economic growth.
Don't take my word for it. Let's look at what some actual business
leaders and organizations had to say about the change.
Richard, a businessman in Birmingham, says that he ``will cut back on
employee hours as much as possible since raising their compensation is
not my option.''
Ability Alliance of West Alabama, which provides assistance to more
than 600 intellectually disabled individuals wrote that ``the untenable
financial pressure resulting from the proposed changes would force us
into disastrous service reductions and program closures.''
Greg from Vinemont, Alabama, is much more direct. He writes that he
``will have to lay people off to meet the overtime demands.''
First Heritage Credit, LLC wrote to the Department of Labor that
``increased costs cannot simply be passed on, and the proposed rule
will mean fewer branch openings, fewer new hires, and fewer lending
options to the communities we serve.''
Our Nation's education institutions will be hit especially hard by
the change. A representative from the University of Alabama wrote that
``the proposed regulation puts more pressure on the educational system
as a whole. Institutions will either reduce the level of services and
programs or will be required to maintain services and programs with
inadequate staffing. Regardless, the quality of education will
suffer.''
All told, this change will cost the University of Alabama system $17
million in just the first year.
These are just a few stories about the reality of the overtime
change. These are real people, real families who will suffer.
I think this change should be reworked altogether, but, if that is
not an option, we should at least delay this rule in order to provide
relief to these businesses and organizations.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the co-chair of the Progressive
Caucus.
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the ranking member for the time and for his
advocacy for working people.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two articles which talk about
how the overtime rule is likely to add 100,000 jobs to the economy; one
from Goldman Sachs, and the other from the National Retail Federation.
[From the National Retail Federation, Sept. 28, 2016]
How Expanding Overtime Could Affect Retailers
The Department of Labor has proposed a major change in
federal regulations governing overtime pay that could have a
significant impact on the retail industry.
[[Page H6067]]
Under current rules, workers making up to $455 a week are
automatically entitled to overtime if they work more than 40
hours a week. Managers and professionals who make more can be
declared exempt, but only if they meet certain conditions
such as having supervision of other workers as their primary
duty. Under the proposed changes, the wage threshold would be
increased to $970 a week, and the administration is asking
whether additional restrictions should be placed on non-
supervisory duties managers can perform and still be
considered exempt.
To better understand the effects of the proposal, NRF
commissioned the research firm Oxford Economics to conduct a
study. While raising the threshold would mandate overtime pay
for many workers, the analysis found that most employees
would not actually see a change in net pay. Instead, many
employees would see their hours reduced so that overtime
would not be worked, while others would see their base wages,
benefits or bonus pay decreased in order to offset the added
payroll expense.
The study also found that updating payroll systems,
establishing ways to track employee hours and other
administrative expenses would cost the restaurant and retail
industries alone an estimated $745 million even if workers
saw no additional take-home pay.
(The original study was prepared before the Labor
Department proposal was released, and was conducted with
projected wage thresholds that might have been proposed. An
update has been prepared based on the actual proposal.)
____
[From Business Insider.com, Sept. 27, 2016]
Goldman Sachs: New Obama Rule on Overtime Likely To Add 100,000 Jobs to
Economy
(By Lucy Nicholson, REUTERS)
A new rule from the Obama administration--which will
increase the fraction of workers entitled to time-and-a-half
overtime pay--is likely to increase total employment in the
US in 2017 by about 100,000 jobs, according to Goldman Sachs.
The idea is this: Companies whose workers are covered by
the rule will try to avoid paying overtime, and they'll hire
additional workers to do this. The point is to keep from
asking their existing employees to work more than 40 hours a
week.
The rule change affects salaried ``executive,
administrative and professional'' workers, who can currently
be exempt from overtime pay if they make as little as $23,660
a year.
Following implementation of the rule (expected in December)
the overtime exemption will apply only to salaried workers
making at least $47,476--making 4.2 million additional
Americans eligible for time-and-a-half.
Of those, in any given week about 1 million actually work
more than 40 hours.
There are four ways employers may respond to this rule
change:
Simply making the overtime payments.
Reducing employees' base pay, in an effort to leave their
total compensation unchanged after the new overtime
payments--though this can be complicated, especially because
the employers don't always know in advance how much overtime
each employee will work.
Increasing employees' base pay to exceed the new threshold
so they remain exempt from overtime payments. Goldman thinks
this is most likely for employees who already earn a salary
very close to $47,476.
Employing more workers and have them work fewer hours, so
they do not run afoul of the 40-hour limit.
By examining employer behavior from the last time the
overtime threshold was changed, in 2004, Goldman economist
Alec Phillips developed a ``central'' estimate that 100,000
additional jobs will be created in 2017 as employers choose
the third option--not a huge amount in an economy creating
between 2 and 3 million jobs a year, but not trivial either.
It's important to note that employers who respond to the
new overtime pay rule by reducing overtime hours will not be
``cheating'' or skirting the intent of the rule. The point of
the rule is to ensure that lower-income salaried workers get
compensated if they have to work extra hours, allowing those
workers to collect their salaries without working
uncompensated overtime is a meaningful gain for those
workers.
The new time-and-a-half payments would also increase some
workers' hourly pay, but not for enough workers to show up in
the statistics of average hourly earnings, according to the
Goldman analysis--so don't expect this rule to drive a boost
in wages that can be felt at the economy-wide level.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, one wonders if there could possibly ever
have been any small businesses only a few years ago. At its peak, 62
percent of workers were eligible for overtime pay. Today, only 7
percent are eligible. What did they do then? They hired people.
This idea that making it fair for working people who work overtime is
somehow going to bring doom and gloom and destruction on small
businesses is absolutely nonsense.
It is typical. We hear it all the time. Anything we are going to do
for working people just can't possibly be done, or little people
themselves will be hurt. This is a constant refrain.
If big, big, big agriculture wants something, they say, oh, we are
here for the family farm.
If big, big banks want something, they say, oh, we are here for the
community banks.
And if big, big, big businesses want something, and they don't want
to pay their overtime, they say, oh, what about the small businesses.
In fact, this bill named for small businesses, folks out there
listening should know that the title of this legislation is misleading.
The legislation delays the rule for all employers, including small
businesses.
But here's the fact. Walmart, are they--do they benefit from the fact
that this overtime rule hasn't kept pace?
McDonald's, Burger King, all types of huge businesses which
absolutely have the capacity to pay people fairly simply haven't done
so.
It is interesting to me that our Republican friends have had the
gavels in their hands since 2010 now. They haven't stepped up to
improve and update this particular overtime rule.
The administration has done what they have failed to do. And now what
do they have to say about it? Oh, it can't possibly happen, can't
possibly work, and it is going to make everything worse.
How discouraging it must be to an American worker today. This
Congress won't look at increasing the Federal minimum wage of $7.25.
And the tip wage of $2.13, a national disgrace, they won't do that.
They don't take that up.
They are constantly attacking the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, which has brought consumers over $12 billion. And they are
constantly trying to cut taxes for the rich, and they don't want to
invest in anything for the working people. Yet, they always justify
everything they are doing by saying, oh, it would hurt the working
people themselves.
This is ridiculous. This argument has no merit. It has to be
rejected.
Over the past 35 years, we have failed to meaningfully update our
overtime pay regulations. Now is the right time.
As I said, at its peak, 62 percent of workers were eligible for
overtime pay. Today, only 7 percent are eligible because we have let
the working people down. We have delayed action to help working
families long enough, and we can't ask them to wait any longer. I urge
a very strong ``no.''
{time} 1915
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ELLISON. I want to say this. It is about real people. One of
those real people is Jodi T. from Minneapolis. She said:
I work more than 40 hours a week regularly, and this will
make a great deal of difference for me and my family. Lately,
I find that businesses will eliminate positions and put more
work on existing staff regardless of whether they can handle
it within the time and the workday. If they pay overtime,
they will bear some of the real costs of these decisions.
Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a bad thing.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Augusta, Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Regulatory Relief for
Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act. This legislation works
to delay implementation of the Department of Labor's new overtime rule
for 6 months.
Without this legislation, the rule goes into effect on December 1,
leaving employers scrambling to comply with the new rule and
jeopardizing employees' paychecks right before the holiday season--a
very bad time.
As a small-business owner who has employed thousands of people, I
know the challenges that the business community will face: moving
salaried employees to hourly; trouble recruiting qualified, new hires
to accept an hourly position; current employees' time being spent
monitoring the time clock; and, ultimately, the potential for hours to
be cut and paychecks to dwindle.
This is devastating to employees who have worked hard to earn a
salaried position. They have earned this position
[[Page H6068]]
to be salaried, and then to move to hourly? Many Americans will soon
realize they have fewer job prospects, less flexibility in the
workplace, and less opportunity to move up the economic ladder. In
other words, those who can least afford it will be hit the hardest:
small businesses, nonprofits, and educational institutions.
I could stand here before this body, just as Congressman Byrne did,
and tell you stories of all the small businesses in my district and
employees that have come to me to warn me of the struggles other
employees and families will face because of this overtime rule.
The President is enacting this rule a mere month before he is out of
office to try and score cheap political points when he knows he won't
be here to clean up the mess. I have to say: I am ashamed, Mr.
President. We need to take a step back and hit the pause button.
Unsurprisingly, the administration has no plans to change the rule,
so an extra 6-month grace period is crucial to the well-being of our
schools, small businesses, and nonprofits.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to respond.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind people that, of the people affected and
the people that routinely work overtime, complying with the rule will
add less than one-tenth of 1 percent to U.S. payrolls. The costs to
nonprofits and to higher education, way under 1 percent. And the time
has been sufficient. The last time this rule was changed, they got
significantly less time to comply, and that rule was even more complex
than this one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my friend and colleague on the committee.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we look at this bill, what is it about?
It is saying that you have got to pay overtime to somebody who is
making more than $47,000 a year. What will that mean? It will mean that
employers will say: You had better get out of here; we can't have you
working more than 40 hours a week. That is what is going to happen.
I am reminded of a buddy of mine back home in my district. His
daughter had a new job working for salary. He told her: Always make
sure you are the first person to show up in the morning and the last
person to go home at night, and you will advance in that company. She
was the first person to show up in the morning and the last person to
go home at night, and she is having a very successful career by doing
so.
What this bill does is it is kind of an odd thing. It makes it
against the law to work hard. Think about that gal now. Now she won't
be able to be the first person to show up in the morning and the last
person to go home at night because her boss is going to say: Get out of
here.
It is part of a pattern we are, sadly, seeing from this
administration of discouraging hard work. Just like ObamaCare, if you
work more hours, then you wind up losing your ObamaCare subsidy. You
had better not work hard. There is a plethora of welfare programs
around here. I don't care if it is the earned income tax credit, food
stamps, low-income housing, whatever; if you work hard, then you will
lose your subsidy. We are doing all we can in this country to penalize
the hardworking.
Furthermore, think just on a day-to-day basis what it means to you as
an employee who has worked for salary. Let's say you have to work on a
project. It gets near 5 o'clock, and you are not satisfied with your
work product. What are you supposed to do? Turn in a bad work product
to your boss, or hang around another hour and do a good job? This, in
essence, removes the choice from you: I have got to turn in a bad work
product because my boss is going to kick me out of here at the end of 8
hours.
So my final plea is this. Come, Republicans; come, Democrats, race to
the Chamber and vote for the bill, H.R. 6094, and stand up for the
hardworking of our society.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his
advocacy on behalf of all working families in this country--not just
today, but throughout his entire career.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and in support
of the updated overtime rule that will combat the exploitation of
workers across America and put more money in their pockets.
In 1938, Congress came together to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act,
a bill that revolutionized opportunity for Americans by ensuring they
were fairly compensated for their work and they would work in safe
working conditions. One of the provisions in that piece of legislation
was the creation of a 40-hour workweek. In addition, this legislation
required employers to compensate employees at time and a half for hours
worked beyond a 40-hour workweek. It was a compromise.
They went on to say that there is an exemption for protection of
those workers who were considered white-collar employees. As a result
of their salary, their benefits, and their high level of work within an
organization, they were exempt.
Unfortunately, the wage level which determines who is exempt from
these worker protections has been updated only once--only once--in the
last 40 years. That is where the problem lies. The last time it was
updated was in 2004, under Republican President Bush--a Republican
President.
Today, the threshold wherein an employee is exempt is $23,660. What
this means is somebody making $24,000 a year is routinely required to
work 45, 55, 65 hours a week with not just compensation for the
overtime, but they are not needed to be paid at all because they are
considered exempt employees. In other words, a family of four could be
living under the poverty line and still be considered to earn too much
money to be considered for overtime protections.
Mr. Speaker, I support these rules because I know, when American
families succeed, our country as a whole succeeds, including the entire
business community. This is a partnership working together. This rule
simply means updating our laws surrounding worker exploitation by
simply adjusting that floor to keep up with inflation.
This is not a Democratic or a Republican bill. This is a worker and
business bill.
Twelve years before the success of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Henry Ford created the 40-hour workweek. Mr. Speaker, 117 years ago,
Peter J. Maguire, the founder of Labor Day, went on to talk about just
creating a 6-day workweek.
This is very simple. The experiment with a $5 minimum wage, which
today would be $15 an hour with inflation realized, Ford realized that,
when his workers could afford to buy the cars they were making and to
drive them, his business, his employees, and the economy would do
better.
Mr. Speaker, American workers have waited long enough to get a fair
day's day for a fair day's work that they certainly deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler.)
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6094, the
Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act, a
bill I am proud to cosponsor.
This important bill would provide a measure of relief not only for
the thousands of small businesses and charitable institutions that
would be negatively impacted by the Department of Labor's overtime
rule, but also the countless workers who depend on entry- and mid-level
employment opportunities.
This rule hurt everyday Americans, raising the cost of living while
reducing wages and incomes. Many of the individuals affected by this
rule will be forced into part-time employment or be transitioned to
jobs with lower hourly wages, no benefits, and no overtime at all.
I have heard from a number of people in my district concerned about
the impacts this onerous rule will have for
[[Page H6069]]
them. A bank in my district will have to transition 13 of their
salaried tellers on staff to hourly wage workers in order to assume the
$129,000 in compliance costs they anticipate from this rule. Schools
have expressed concerns that they will be forced to cut staff and limit
the educational services of extracurricular activities they provide for
our students.
I have heard from faith-based and charitable institutions, too. These
institutions often operate with fixed operating budgets and serve the
most vulnerable in our society, yet this rule will impose similar
financial and staffing burdens on them. A senior care group in my
district, for example, has told me this rule will likely lead to a
reduction in hiring, meaning fewer seniors will be able to get care.
Mr. Speaker, for the countless families, small businesses, and
communities that I serve, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
bill and delay this onerous rule.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter), a good friend, who has a special take on this.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6094, the Regulatory
Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act.
We are at a crossroads in our country as we are still struggling to
build up our economy after the last recession. Since then,
businessowners have struggled to not only grow their companies, but
also to provide for their employees.
As a small-business owner, I had both the company's and my employees'
best interest in mind, as my employees were like a second family to me.
I would have wanted nothing more than to ensure they are getting what
they need and that they are fully compensated for all of their work.
But this rule doesn't do that.
On the surface, this administration is painting this rule as a step
forward for American workers, but it is not. Everyone from universities
to nonprofits will feel the weight of this rule as they seek to
rearrange schedules and reclassify employees so as to prevent
compounding negative effects on their organizations.
Universities and colleges will see a sharp jump in payrolls as they
have to grapple with how to manage their existing personnel while
trying to keep their institution on an upward trajectory. Tuitions will
increase. Nonprofit organizations will have to reclassify workers as
their annual budgets are stretched to the brink, resulting in a drop in
services to the people who need it most.
The Department of Labor spent the last 27 months working on this
rule. Since its implementation, they have given businesses a 6-month
window to implement it.
I have heard from countless companies, nonprofits, universities, and
chambers of commerce who are extremely worried about the impact this
will have on their operations. While this rule was intended to ensure
employees see an increase in benefits, it will have the direct opposite
effect.
This bill would delay the rule for 6 months to allow for a longer
look at its effects. It gives Congress more time to find a legislative
solution. Mr. Speaker, I have always wanted the best for my employees,
and this rule simply doesn't do that.
I applaud Congressman Walberg, Chairman Kline, and the Education and
the Workforce Committee staff for their hard work in pulling this
together.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the 40-hour workweek used to mean something. It was
installed many years ago so that people wouldn't have to work 6 and 7
days a week, 10 or more hours a day. They could work 5 days a week, 8
hours, and have an opportunity to go home. Now the 40-hour workweek
only applies to 7 percent of salaried workers, and they can be forced
to work 45, 50, 60 hours, with no additional pay.
We have heard the impact on universities. I think the gentleman from
Alabama said that it would cost the Alabama system $17 million. Well,
their budget is $2.4 billion; $24 million would be 1 percent.
{time} 1930
If his number is right--$17 million--that is still way under 1
percent of their expenditures. But there are a lot of ways to comply
with this rule without any cost at all. You can let people go home
after 40 hours, or you can honestly restate their salary. If it is
$30,000 and a lot of overtime, call it $20,000 and they have got to
make $10,000 overtime. They will get the same amount at the end of the
year at no cost to the employer, but an honest way to assess the
salary. It wouldn't cost anything. So there are ways of complying with
this honestly that make the 40-hour workweek mean something.
The new rule only covers about a third of the salaried workers. It is
a good rule. It should not be delayed. In fact, it is not being
delayed. This is the first step in trying to defeat the rule. This bill
should be defeated. Let the people get their salaries on December 1.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I want to remind my colleagues why this legislation is so
important.
We all agree our Nation's overtime rules need to be modernized and
worker protection should be strengthened. That is not what we are
debating today.
Small businesses, nonprofits, and colleges and universities play a
critical role in our communities. Right now, they are struggling to
implement a fundamentally flawed rule under an unrealistic deadline,
and many don't even know about the rule yet. At the very least, they
deserve more time. More time would allow small businesses, nonprofits,
and colleges and universities to make significant changes and mitigate
the impact on workers, students, and individuals in need--for the
positive, for the good.
I urge my colleagues to provide that time, even if they stand by the
Department's overtime rule. A vote in support of the Regulatory Relief
for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act isn't just
commonsense; it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we are intending to do. We are intending to
do the best for our citizens, our employees, and our employers.
Shouldn't it be worth an additional 24 weeks to make sure that this is
implemented to the positive?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________