[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13946-13957]
[From the U.S. 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, 
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,

[[Page 13947]]

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.

[[Page 13948]]

Important decisions about payroll and 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.

[[Page 13949]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 13950]]

     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 
     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

[[Page 13951]]

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 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

[[Page 13952]]

     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 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

[[Page 13953]]

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.
  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.''

[[Page 13954]]

  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.
       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

[[Page 13955]]

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 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

[[Page 13956]]

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 pay 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 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,

[[Page 13957]]

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.

                          ____________________