[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14029-14033]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIIONS

      By Mr. DAINES:
  S. 3460. A bill to amend title 54, United States Code, to provide 
certain limitations on the designation and use of national monuments; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3460

       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 ``Local Community and 
     Sportsmen Input in Monuments Act''.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION AND USE OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

       Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The President may, in 
     the President's discretion,'' and inserting ``Subject to 
     subsection (e), the President may''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Consultation and Approval Required Before 
     Designation.--No national monument may be designated under 
     subsection (a) until--
       ``(1) each county, borough, parish, or equivalent unit of 
     local government within and adjacent to the boundaries of 
     which the proposed national monument is to be located--
       ``(A) has been consulted with respect to the designation; 
     and
       ``(B) has approved the designation; and
       ``(2) the Governor and legislature of each State within the 
     boundaries of which the proposed national monument is to be 
     located has approved the proposed national monument.
       ``(f) Restrictions on Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any national monument designated under 
     subsection (a) shall be open to hunting, fishing, other forms 
     of recreation, grazing, and other historic or traditional 
     uses in accordance with applicable law, unless the Secretary 
     concerned closes all or a portion of the national monument to 
     1 or more of those uses, in accordance with the purposes of 
     this chapter.
       ``(2) Review period.--The Secretary shall not impose any 
     restriction on hunting, fishing, grazing, wildlife 
     management, or other historic or traditional uses at a 
     national monument designated under subsection (a) until the 
     date of expiration of an appropriate review period, as 
     determined by the Secretary, providing for, with respect to 
     the proposed restriction, the concurrence by applicable State 
     wildlife management agencies, public input, and approval by 
     Congress.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lankford, Mr. 
        Scott, and Mr. Flake):
  S. 3464. A bill to provide incremental increases to the salary 
threshold for exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, 
outside sales, and computer employees under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act of 1938, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senate offices have been hearing about 
something called the overtime rule on a daily basis. We are hearing 
about it from colleges, universities, Boy Scout troops, church camps, 
other nonprofits, employers, and employees who don't like to be 
suddenly considered employees who punch a timecard.
  Today, I would like to talk about action that Congress can take to 
change the effect of the overtime rule the administration issued that 
will go into effect in December unless we do something.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford, and the Senator from Maine, 
Ms. Collins, introduced legislation that would delay for 6 months the 
implementation of the rule. I cosponsored that legislation and I fully 
support it.
  Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill with that same 
language which would delay for 6 months the implementation of the rule. 
That would be my preferred solution.
  Today I am introducing another piece of legislation that addresses 
the problems with the overtime rule that I hope will gather more 
bipartisan support. A similar bill was introduced in the House by 
Democrat Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon and is cosponsored by 
10 Democrats and 7 Republicans. My hope is that when we come back in 
November, Senators on both sides of the aisle will have heard from 
their Boy Scout troops, from their colleges and universities, from 
their restaurants, and from their employees, who say: Wait a minute, 
this overtime rule makes no sense the way it is being implemented. Do 
something in November to change its negative effect on our country.
  I am introducing a bill today with the cosponsorship of Senator 
Collins of Maine, Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, Senator Scott of South 
Carolina, and Senator Flake of Arizona that will protect America's 
nonprofits, churches, colleges, and communities from the effect of the 
administration's overtime rule that will go into effect on December 1 
unless we act.
  When we talk about employers that will be affected by overtime, we 
are talking about Operation Smile, which is a charity that funds cleft 
palate operations for children. Operation Smile says this rule may cost 
them at least 3,000 surgeries a year. The effect of this rule may mean 
3,000 children won't have surgeries each year for cleft palates because 
of the cost of this regulation.
  We are talking about the Great Smoky Mountain Council of Boy Scouts. 
That is my home Boy Scout council where I grew up and where I live. 
They are telling me the new rule will result in about $100,000 in 
annual costs because during certain seasons employees staff weekend 
camping trips, which mean longer hours. That is what you do in Boy 
Scouts, Mr. President--you go on camping trips. And they are not 8-hour 
trips most of the time. If you are going to start saying they have to 
pay overtime to Scout masters and others you are going to have fewer 
boys and girls having a chance for Scouting.
  Senator Isakson of Georgia spoke on the floor about a phone call he 
received from the pastor at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, 
one of the largest Baptist churches in Georgia. That church provides 
daycare, early childhood development, and sports activities at Vacation 
Bible School, a 24/7 program for underprivileged kids in the Atlanta 
area. Under the overtime rule that goes into effect in December, a camp 
counselor for their Vacation Bible School will have to be paid overtime 
for many hours of the day when

[[Page 14030]]

they are with the children, even if they are sleeping. So this rule 
could price the Johnson Ferry Baptist Church out of the business of 
providing Bible school church camp for underprivileged children.
  So there will be fewer cleft palate operations, fewer Scouting 
opportunities, and fewer church camp opportunities for underprivileged 
children.
  Here's what I mean by the overtime rule:
  Hourly workers in this country are usually paid overtime, but 
salaried workers generally don't earn overtime unless they are making 
below a threshold set by the Labor Department and required by the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. Today that threshold is a little over $23,000. 
This new rule issued by the Obama administration just 4 months ago 
raises the threshold from just over $23,000 to over $47,000 all at once 
on December 1. In other words, in 3 months it will double. This is a 
100-percent increase and on December 1, employers will have had only 
about 6 months to prepare for this, reclassify employees, put time 
clock systems in place, adjust workers' schedules, and find new revenue 
to pay for all of this. It has thrown small businesses and colleges 
into a panic in the State of Tennessee. One poll released this month 
found that 49 percent of business owners were not aware of the rule 
that goes into effect in 3 months.
  The legislation I am introducing today would stretch out over 5 years 
the administration's increase in the salary threshold for overtime pay. 
I have not met many people who don't believe the threshold ought to go 
up. I have not met many people who think that it ought to be doubled in 
6 months and automatically increased every 3 years, or that it should 
jump so high and all at once.
  On December 1, under the legislation I am introducing, it would still 
increase significantly--from $23,660 to $35,984. This is about a 50-
percent increase. This bill would modify a rule that many believe goes 
too high and too fast and will result in employers, nonprofits, 
colleges, and others cutting workers' hours and limiting their 
workplace benefits and flexibility, as well as costing students more in 
tuition.
  If there is one subject I hear about on the Senate floor, it is 
Senators from both sides of the aisle saying college costs are too 
high. Yet the independent colleges and the public colleges of Tennessee 
have written me and they have detailed how the cost of this rule will 
have the effect of raising tuition by hundreds of dollars per student. 
So how can you go around complaining about college tuition increases on 
the one hand and on the other hand issue a rule that raises college 
tuition by hundreds of dollars in thousands of schools?
  My bill will do four things:
  No. 1, it will modify the rule so that it is phased in over 5 years 
rather than all at once on December 1. Most people I talk to think it 
ought to go up, just as I have said, but they do not think it ought to 
go up all at once. There is no need for that, so phase it in over 5 
years.
  No. 2, make a significant increase on December 1, but then prohibit 
an increase in 2017 to give employers and employees an opportunity to 
adjust while our independent government watchdog--the Government 
Accountability Office, the GAO--studies the impact of the rule on 
American workers after the first year of implementation. So what I have 
said is that on December 1, the threshold goes up 50 percent, and then 
for 1 year it doesn't go up at all while the GAO studies the impact of 
that increase on colleges, church camps, businesses, workers, and 
others.
  No. 3, it would clarify that the administration does not have the 
authority to automatically increase the overtime threshold, which is 
currently set to occur automatically every 3 years, starting in 2020.
  No. 4, it would require a study of the rule's impact after the first 
year of implementation. If the study finds the impact is negative, the 
bill will exempt certain employers from future increases--nonprofits, 
including churches, colleges, and universities; State and local 
governments; many Medicaid and Medicare eligible facilities, such as 
nursing homes or facilities serving individuals with disabilities.
  These are employers who can't just raise prices. They are dependent 
on tax dollars or on charitable donations. And if they are in trouble 
because of this rule, our communities will lose critical services--
surgeries for cleft palates, Scouting opportunities, church camps for 
underprivileged kids, and others.
  This is not a partisan proposal. My bill is very similar to a bill 
introduced by House Democrat Kurt Schrader of Oregon and cosponsored by 
10 Democrats and 7 Republicans. So my hope is that our Democratic 
colleagues will take a look at this bill and say that this is a 
reasonable, bipartisan proposal to apply more common sense to the 
overtime rule when it comes to the employees, employers, and nonprofits 
that serve our country.
  Without these bills, on December 1, the salary threshold for overtime 
pay will more than double, from just over $23,000 to over $47,000. 
Representative Kurt Schrader, a Democrat, when he introduced his bill, 
said the following:

       Since the Department of Labor's immediate phase-in date was 
     announced, we've heard from business owners and their 
     employees who are worried about implementing this increase 
     overnight. Without sufficient time to plan for the increase, 
     cuts and demotions will become inevitable, and workers will 
     actually end up making less than they made before.

  Democratic Representative Schrader has 10 Democrats as cosponsors, 
including Congressman Jim Cooper from my State of Tennessee, who said:

       I am hearing from lots of Middle Tennesseans who are 
     worried about how this new rule will affect them. The 
     overtime rule hadn't been adjusted in years and needed 
     updating. But it's good to make commonsense changes and add 
     flexibility so the rule works for all businesses and workers 
     can actually have a chance to get ahead. We don't want to see 
     lost hours or shifts in job responsibility.

  I congratulate Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Lankford of 
Oklahoma for the legislation they introduced to delay the overtime 
rule's effect for 6 months. I support that bill, and I am glad the 
House of Representatives last night passed that bill, but I am also 
introducing this alternative for those in the body--especially my 
Democratic friends--who might not be willing to delay the 
implementation of the overtime rule, who believe it should go up, who 
believe it should go up as high as the President has proposed but not 
as fast as the President has proposed, and who believe the rule has 
created a problem for nonprofits, such as the Boy Scouts, or surgeries 
for cleft palates or church camps. I hope they will seriously consider 
the proposal I have made today, along with Senators Collins, Lankford, 
Scott, and Flake.
  Over the next 5 weeks between now and the election, we will all be 
home. We will have a chance to see our Boy Scout leaders. We will have 
a chance to see our doctors and visit our churches. We can go by our 
colleges and ask how much this is going to raise the tuition at 
Maryville College, the University of Tennessee, the University of 
Wyoming, or wherever we may be. And if the fact is that most Americans 
feel that to impose this salary threshold on December 1 is too high and 
too fast, there will be two alternatives when we come back. One is to 
delay the rule for 6 months, and the other is to raise the threshold 
just as high as the President proposed but do it over 5 years. Take 
half of the increase in the first year, no increase the second year, 
and exempt nonprofits, state and local governments, and many Medicare- 
and Medicaid-eligible facilities if they are negatively affected. This 
is similar to the commonsense proposal that Congressman Cooper talked 
about, that 11 Democrats as well as 7 Republicans have signed on to in 
the House, and that I hope will have serious consideration here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I wish to join Senator Alexander in 
discussing this overtime rule.
  As he mentioned multiple times, Senator Collins and I dropped a 
companion bill here in the Senate that was passed in the House that 
delays the overtime rule's implementation by 6

[[Page 14031]]

months. As he also mentioned, I am most certainly a cosponsor of his 
bill as well. That is another approach, and, quite frankly, we are all 
looking for different approaches to be able to accomplish something 
that needs to be done and needs to be done immediately; that is, to 
address a regulation which has been put in place that can have serious, 
I believe, unintended consequences but most certainly serious 
consequences across our economy.
  That is not an accusation that this administration wants to be able 
to damage the economy, wants to be able to damage small businesses, or 
wants to be able to damage universities and nonprofits. But I believe 
absolutely that is what is occurring. I am concerned, though, that the 
administration seems to have been deaf to the message that has come up 
over and over again from many of us in the Congress to be able to 
highlight that these are serious issues. Have you evaluated them?
  The Small Business Administration even has real concerns that the 
data they presented to the Department of Labor was not used, and the 
advocate for small businesses within the Department of Labor is 
challenging the Department of Labor to say: Why didn't you use the data 
that we provided to be able to evaluate this?
  There are a lot of questions about how the regulation itself was 
promulgated or what the end goal is, but let me tell you what the real 
consequences are on the ground. I will give a couple of hypothetical 
situations, and then I will go into some practical ones.
  Right now, a single mom with a couple of kids at home is able to 
telecommute into work a couple of days from her particular job as maybe 
a sales marketing manager. She can be in the office for 3 days, 
telecommute a couple of days, save child care costs, and this gives her 
some flexibility. Under this rule, those same places would not 
typically allow someone to telecommute because they have to see exactly 
the hours that someone is working. So she would have to physically be 
present in the office every day so the work hours could be tracked, 
removing that flexibility and causing her increased child care costs 
and actually moving her to more of a situation where she is in a more 
structured environment, less suitable for her kids.
  I will give another thought on this. What if we reach into a 
situation that many of us face as many of the millennials now leaving 
college are going into the workforce, well-trained, well-equipped, 
wanting to get an assistant manager's position or wanting to be able to 
work into a salaried position. It will be much more difficult for those 
individuals coming out of college now to land a salaried position 
because, overall, companies around the country that are hiring don't 
want to hire salaried positions anymore; they want to be able to hire 
hourly people. So it will be tougher for the generation coming out of 
college right now to be able to land in those early management 
positions.
  Is that a hypothetical situation? No. I would say it is already 
occurring. It is already happening around the country. When I was home 
in August, traveling around the State, this overtime regulation was the 
No. 1 question that came up when I talked to any business owner, any 
business person, any manager. The first thing they raised was the 
coming overtime rule, both in its complexity and in trying to figure 
out how to be able to actually implement this into the cost of their 
business. The conversations were already occurring with employees where 
they were moving someone from a salaried position to an hourly 
position, and their employees hated it because they liked working to a 
spot where they were in a salaried position.
  During the August time period, I had a conversation with a youth 
pastor at a church. That youth pastor said they had left a conversation 
with their pastor just a couple of days before in which their pastor 
said: You are going to have to start documenting your hours--each hour 
that you are actually working with kids, even your time at home that 
you are preparing a Bible study to actually teach the kids--because we 
can't afford for you to go over 40 hours.
  This is someone who feels a calling to be able to work with students, 
and literally their pastor has to tell them: I know you want to help. 
You can't help more than 40 hours. Most youth pastors don't go into 
youth ministry because they anticipate getting wealthy in it. They go 
into it because of a sense of calling and passion to be able to help 
students. This regulation is telling that person: Turn down your 
passion to work with the next generation. You are limited in what you 
can actually do, and, if you choose to volunteer beyond that, you put 
your employer, that church, at risk.
  The Osage Nation--their HR folks, William Scott Johnson, said this:

       I'm an HR professional at the Osage Nation and am concerned 
     about the impact that changes to the overtime regulations 
     will have on my organization and employees. NAFOA has heard 
     from tribal governments who are concerned the use of a single 
     national salary threshold would adversely affect already 
     limited revenues, especially for tribes in rural areas.

  From the YWCA battered women's shelter:

       I'm a human resource (HR) committee member at the YWCA 
     Battered Women's Shelter and am concerned about the impact 
     that changes to the overtime regulations will have on this 
     nonprofit organization and employees. All employees make less 
     than $50,000 except top management. The impact of this new 
     legislation could be catastrophic for payroll as employees 
     will have to be moved from exempt to non-exempt status simply 
     due to the salary base being proposed.

  The Counseling & Recovery Services of Tulsa, Oklahoma, wrote me:

       I am the executive human resource (HR) professional at 
     Counseling & Recovery Services of Oklahoma, a nonprofit 
     community mental health center, and am concerned about the 
     impact that changes to the overtime regulations will have on 
     my organization and employees. As a nonprofit, our agency is 
     clinical staffing heavy; thus, about 80% of our workforce . . 
     . will be impacted. The costs to meet the proposed 
     regulations are expected to be in the 100s of thousands [of 
     dollars] and will have a devastating impact to the community 
     mental health industry overall.

  I received a note from a small business owner in Edmond, right in my 
hometown. They said:

       The proposed changes will require us to make significant 
     changes [in the way we do business]. If the proposed salary 
     threshold moves forward, we will be forced to change all our 
     employees to hourly, which will result in the elimination of 
     our bonus program. Our salaried managers make a significant 
     amount of their income based on performance bonuses. 
     Calculating bonuses for employees that have potential 
     overtime is extremely complicated, labor intensive and opens 
     up a huge liability risk if miscalculations occur.

  One of the universities in my State wrote me and said about this 
rule:

       Essentially, it would turn millions of dollars of 
     professional, salaried jobs into hourly positions overnight, 
     resulting in limited flexibility for workers and increased 
     costs for colleges, universities, other nonprofits and 
     public-sector employers that operate on very tight budgets as 
     we attempt to keep the cost of education as low as possible 
     for constituents.
       We do not disagree that overtime rules need to be updated 
     to ensure the law remains relevant for today's workforce. But 
     we're deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of a 
     massive increase in such a narrow implementation window which 
     will impose serious hardships on our students, employees and 
     institutions.

  Last week, I met with leadership of the Department of Labor in a 
hearing. We discussed this exact issue. I talked about nonprofits and 
what a unique dynamic they really are. Nonprofits actually raise money 
based on their low administrative costs. They can tell donors: The 
money that you give will get directly to the individuals who need it 
most because our administrative overhead is low. This overtime 
regulation will increase their administrative overhead and will make it 
harder for them to raise money.
  When I raised that issue to the Department of Labor, the officials of 
the Department of Labor told me: We understand that, so we met with the 
leadership of some of the nonprofit foundations around the country and 
told them that they should donate more to be able to cover the 
increased costs.
  That has to be one of the most out-of-touch statements I have ever 
heard from someone in the Federal Government. In shock, my response was 
to

[[Page 14032]]

say: Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of nonprofits are in 
the country? You met with a few foundations and told those foundations 
that they should donate more to be able to cover, when almost every 
church and almost every small nonprofit around the country that deals 
with mental health, that deals with domestic violence shelters are not 
tapping into big, massive foundations. They are individuals within 
communities that donate, and they anticipate their donations are going 
to help those of greatest need.
  The people who work in those nonprofits are most often volunteers, 
but the very few numbers of individuals within the nonprofits who are 
paid salaries make a meager salary because they choose to--because they 
have a passion for the work of helping in domestic shelters or helping 
at a church or helping reach out to people who are in poverty or 
helping with a clothing shelter or a food pantry. Now you are forcing 
those organizations to dramatically increase salaries, which will 
dramatically decrease services to those in greatest need across our 
country.
  I am astounded that the administration believes they can talk to a 
few people in a few foundations and just tell them: Donate more, and 
that will fix this. There aren't more donors to just donate more.
  There are real needs in a lot of communities around the country. 
Small business owners that I have spoken to of late all tell me about 
the complexity of this. It is not just a matter of every employee. 
There is a tremendous number of exemptions as they work through the 
process. They want more time, and they don't like the cost increase. 
They don't like what this is doing to their relationships within their 
businesses, and they do not like telling salaried employees: I'm sorry, 
you're going to have to move to hourly.
  All of this headache was created by an administration that knew all 
of this in advance. The letters that I read earlier--those letters that 
were written to me I presented to the Department of Labor a year ago. 
The Secretary of Labor assured me they would take those things into 
account. We have seen the final rule. I can assure you, they were not 
taken into account.
  As tuition goes up in universities, this administration needs to stop 
complaining about the high cost of tuition in higher education because 
this overtime rule will directly increase the cost of tuition in every 
university in the country.
  On the day the final rule was proposed, the first text message I 
received about it was from a university president who texted me and 
said: Don't blame me next year when tuition goes up. There is no way I 
can stop it now.
  I responded back to him: Don't blame me for this overtime rule. This 
is not one we put in statute. This is one the administration created.
  All of us want to see workers protected. All of us want to see things 
happen well in the United States. But the way this rule was 
implemented, the short period of time in the implementation, the size 
of the salary increase, and the few exemptions that are put into place 
have created an incredibly toxic effect for business across the 
country, whether it is a large business, medium business, small 
business, university, nonprofit--and I haven't even mentioned local 
government, which will be forced to raise taxes to be able to cover the 
cost of this. All of them are dramatically affected, and all of them 
are affected in a short period of time.
  This is why Senator Collins and I proposed a bill that lines up with 
what the House has already passed to say: Delay this 6 months. Most 
businesses are just trying to figure out what in the world they do with 
this and how they handle the implementation. Delay it for 6 months.
  I would say there is a tremendous amount we have to deal with on top 
of just the delay, but at a minimum let's delay it. There is no reason 
it has to go into effect right now, and it directly harms our economy 
in the days ahead.
  These are serious issues. I hope the administration will take them 
seriously and understand the effect on the coming economy. I am very 
well aware that this administration will be out of office when most of 
the economic effects will be felt. But the economic effects will most 
certainly be felt by this economy, and the long-term effects for those 
individuals graduating from college right now, trying to land their 
first job in management, will be even tougher based on this one rule. 
There is no reason to do that to the next generation of leaders. There 
is no reason to raise tuition in every college. There is no reason to 
do this rule right now. I would challenge it to be readdressed and, at 
a minimum, to be delayed for 6 months.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues to call for action 
to prevent the version of the overtime rule that the U.S. Department of 
Labor finalized this past May from going into effect on December 1. I 
want to commend Chairman Alexander, Senator Scott, and Senator Lankford 
for their leadership in this area.
  Federal regulations can impose unexpected and costly requirements on 
small businesses, educational institutions, and nonprofit 
organizations. The new U.S. Department of Labor rule on overtime pay is 
a prime example that could harm the very workers it intends to help, 
cause small businesses to curb hiring, and force universities and 
colleges to either raise tuition or cut programs.
  The new rule will double the annual salary threshold from $23,660 to 
$47,476 for mandatory overtime, effective December 1.
  While it is time for a reasonable update in the threshold, doubling 
the threshold overnight and with so little time for employers to 
prepare will have negative consequences. I have spoken with small 
businesses, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations 
across Maine, and it is clear that this huge and sudden increase in the 
threshold is far too much and too fast. Rather than producing bigger 
paychecks, this new rule is likely to produce reduced hours, benefits, 
and flexibility for Maine workers.
  Many small employers in Maine have told me that they do not have the 
margins to pay overtime to salaried employees earning up to $47,476. 
Some will have to shift their employees to hourly positions. Formerly 
salaried employees used to flexibility in their work schedules will 
have to track closely each hour they work each week, instead of being 
able to leave work to pick up a child at school without worrying about 
the impact on their paycheck.
  The new rule is also a problem for those seasonal businesses in Maine 
that make an effort to keep their employees on the payroll all year 
round. In the summer and fall, these employees often work for more than 
40 hours a week, but in the winter and spring, they usually work far 
fewer than 40 hours a week. The current system allows them to have a 
constant, consistent year-round salary that they can count on. The new 
overtime rule would upend that and result in many workers being moved 
from salaried to hourly positions or even being let go during winter 
months. This will make it harder for workers to make ends meet and 
harder for employers to retain high-quality employees.
  Although the regulation is touted as a means of boosting employees' 
pay, a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation found that 
most employees would see no change in net pay. Instead, many employees 
would see their hours reduced to avoid overtime, while others would see 
their base wages, benefits, or bonus pay decreased in order the offset 
the added payroll expense.
  Moreover, the National Federation of Independent Business, a leading 
voice for small business, has noted that the new overtime rule would 
particularly hurt small businesses in rural areas. The Maine Department 
of Labor believes that the rule would have a disproportionate economic 
effect on Maine businesses, where salaries and the cost of living are 
not as high as in other regions of the country. For instance, the cost 
of living in Bangor is roughly 37 percent lower than in Washington, DC. 
While $47,476 might seem like a reasonable threshold for an employee 
living in a high-cost area like Washington, DC, it is the equivalent of 
a salary of more than $74,000 in Bangor.

[[Page 14033]]

  Businesses are not alone in their concern. Nonprofit organizations 
are also struggling with the impact on their workers and those whom 
they serve. The executive director for Habitat for Humanity in greater 
Portland states that the ``new overtime rules will so drastically 
change our current compensation obligations that we may no longer be 
able to give our workers the benefits, schedules and other incentives 
that drew them to us in the first place.'' And he notes that ``services 
to those in need will be reduced and organizational funding will 
decline as resources are spent on overhead instead of programs.''
  Indeed, nonprofit organizations would be among the hardest hit by 
this rule. Cutbacks in essential services are predicted by the 
Salvation Army, youth services providers, home health care services, 
and blood centers throughout the country.
  In addition, higher-education groups nationwide are urging the 
Department of Labor to take a more measured approach. When the final 
rule was published last spring, Molly Corbett Broad, the president of 
the American Council on Education, noted that ``requiring such a 
dramatic and costly change to be implemented so quickly will leave many 
colleges with no choice but to respond to this regulation with a 
combination of tuition increases, service reductions, and, possibly, 
layoffs.''
  She went on to note that those harmed by the new rule will include 
``a wide array of non-faculty employees--from athletics coaches and 
trainers to admissions recruiters and student affairs officers--whose 
work is not well suited to hourly wage status and who will face 
diminished workplace autonomy and fewer opportunities for flexible work 
arrangements and career development.''
  This is not a theoretical concern. The University of Maine system 
would face an estimated $14 million increase in annual operating costs 
if it restructured employees' pay to maintain the exempt status of 
these workers. To avoid changes in its salary structure that could 
force tuition increases or threaten university services, Maine's 
University System is conducting an arduous and costly position 
realignment that could still result in an increase in annual labor 
costs.
  The overtime threshold has not been increased in a number of years 
and should be raised, but doubling virtually overnight and with so 
little time for employers to prepare will be extremely costly and 
damaging to small businesses, universities, nonprofit organizations, 
and so many other segments of our Nation's economy and our society.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of the resolution of disapproval of this 
rule introduced by Chairman Alexander and Senator Scott's Protecting 
Workplace Advancement and Opportunity Act, which would ensure a 
balanced approach to updating Federal overtime rules by requiring that 
any new regulation on overtime consider the impact on small business 
and nonprofits, differences in geographical regions, and impacts on 
lower-wage industries, startups, and workers.
  Today I am joining Chairman Alexander in introducing legislation that 
would phase in a more reasonable increase to the overtime threshold 
over five years. I am also cosponsoring another bill introduced today 
by Senator Lankford that would delay the effective date of the new rule 
by 6 months, from December 1, 2016, to June 1, 2017, to allow more time 
for Congress to work on this issue.
  The flurry of bills on this topic is indicative of just how much 
concern there is about the potential harm this rule could inflict on 
the very workers it intends to help, on small businesses, on students, 
on nonprofits, and on countless others.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
rejecting this onerous and ill-advised rule.

                          ____________________