U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–778 PDF 2016

HOW THE ADMINISTRATION’S REGULATORY 

ONSLAUGHT IS AFFECTING WORKERS AND 

JOB CREATORS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 9, 2015 

Serial No. 114–36 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Dave Brat, Virginia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, 

Ranking Member 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 9, 2015 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Batkins, Mr. Sam, Director of Regulatory Policy, American Action Forum, 

Washington, D.C. .......................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Beebe, Mr. Ralph, President, Highland Engineering, Inc., Howell, MI ....... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Hammock, Mr. Bradford, Shareholder and Co-Leader of the Workplace 

Safety and Health Practice Group, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Reston, VA ...... 58 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61 

Owens, Ms. Christine, Executive Director, National Employment Law 

Project, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................ 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Additional Submissions: 

Chairman Walberg: 

Report from Mercatus Center, George Mason University, entitled 

′′The Unintended Consequences of Federal Regulatory 

Accumulation′′ ........................................................................................ 83 

Working paper from Mercatus Center, George Mason University, entitled ′′Regulatory Overload: A Behavioral Analysis of Regulatory 

Compliance′′ ............................................................................................ 86 

Article from Mercatus Center, George Mason University, entitled 

′′Do More Regulations Equal Less Safety′′ ........................................... 118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

HOW THE ADMINISTRATION’S REGULATORY 

ONSLAUGHT IS AFFECTING WORKERS 

AND JOB CREATORS 

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Tim Walberg [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Thompson, Rokita, Brat, 

Stefanik, Wilson, Pocan, Clark, and DeSaulnier. 

Also Present: Representative Kline, Representative Courtney and 

Representative Takano. 

Staff Present: Andrew Banducci, Workforce Policy Counsel; Ed 

Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Jessica Goodman, Legislative 

Assistant; Callie Harman, Legislative Assistant; Tyler Hernandez, 

Press Secretary; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; John Martin, Professional Staff Member; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary, 

Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy 

Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; 

Loren Sweatt, Senior Policy Advisor; Olivia Voslow, Staff Assistant; 

Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Christine Godinez, Minority 

Staff Assistant; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Richard Miller, 

Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Amy Peake, Minority Labor 

Policy Advisor; Saloni Sharma, Minority Press Assistant, and Elizabeth Watson, Minority Director of Labor Policy. 

Chairman WALBERG. Good morning. It is sure quiet in the room. 

After running up two flights of stairs, let me get my wind back 

here. 

A quorum being present, the subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning. I would like to thank you all for joining us today, 

and thank our witnesses for being here with us to share their experiences and perspectives. 

The end of the year is an important time to reflect on what has 

been accomplished and what work remains to be done. As members 

of the Education and the Workforce Committee, this is especially 

important as we consider the significant challenges many workers 

continue to face. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Recent months have shown signs of economic improvement and 

signs of continued concern, both. Roughly 8 million Americans are 

still unemployed and searching for work, and an additional 6 million are working part-time hours when they really need and want 

full-time jobs. That does not include the millions of individuals who 

are so discouraged by meager job prospects that they have simply 

dropped out of the workforce entirely. 

Meanwhile, those with jobs are facing fewer opportunities to advance and earn higher wages. Some will say the problems facing 

workers and job creators can be solved with more spending, more 

Government mandates, and more regulation. Perhaps we will hear 

some of those claims today, but that is the same failed approach 

that the Obama administration has pursued over the last seven 

years. 

The results have been an anemic economy, sluggish job growth, 

and most importantly, less opportunity and prosperity for millions 

of hard working men and women. 

Time and again, we have called on the administration, including 

those at OSHA and the Department of Labor more broadly, to pursue a different, more responsible course, and time and again, our 

calls have been rebuffed. 

The most recent example was the release of the administration’s 

regulatory agenda, which doubles down on the same extreme regulatory approach that has made the problems plaguing the country 

worse at the expense of those struggling the most. 

Let me be clear. Federal policies do play an important role in ensuring safe and healthy workplaces and protecting the basic rights 

of hard working men and women. That is not what we are here to 

discuss today. 

The question is not whether there should be rules of the road for 

workers and employers to follow. The question is how we ensure 

those rules are implemented fairly, responsibly, and in a way that 

promotes the best interests of both workers and their employers. 

Unfortunately, more often than not, what we have seen from this 

administration is an overly punitive and unnecessarily burdensome 

approach. Adding insult to injury, often these rules and regulations 

are being developed and changed without any public input. This 

regulatory approach is holding us back, and that is the focus of today’s hearing. 

We know there are areas where we can make meaningful change 

without creating costly consequences and unintended harm. For example, Chairman Kline and I have said we are open to modernizing current overtime rules to strengthen protections for workers 

and help employers fulfill their legal responsibilities. 

Instead, we have had to confront a proposal that will limit workplace flexibility, make it harder for workers to advance up the economic ladder, and impose a significant burden on small businesses. 

Earlier this year, Nicole Berberich, director of human resources 

at the Cincinnati Animal Referral and Emergency Center, testified 

in front of this subcommittee about the challenges employers are 

already facing because of complicated federal wage and hour regulations. She also explained that small businesses like the one she 

works for are likely to experience the burdens of these regulations 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

disproportionately. She added that those burdens will continue to 

worsen with the expected overtime changes. 

At a separate hearing before this same subcommittee, Eric Williams, who worked his way up from crew member at a fast food 

restaurant to become a franchise and chief operating officer at CKE 

Restaurants, shared his fears that the administration’s overtime 

proposal, and I quote, ‘‘will severely limit hard working, talented 

Americans from realizing their dreams,’’ as he dreamed and realized. He worries that because of the proposal, some employees, and 

I quote, ‘‘may never reach their full potential.’’ That is a shame. 

The overtime proposal is just one example of this administration’s misguided approach to regulating. At another hearing, Drew 

Greenblatt, a steel wire manufacturer from Baltimore, spoke to us 

about how Government policies are hindering growth and how he 

and others in his industry find themselves stuck between a rock 

and a hard place. 

He explained the situation as between, and I quote, ‘‘A rock of 

harsh and unforgiving global economic competition and a hard 

place of inflexible and ever proliferating regulations.’’ 

It should be clear to anyone who is listening that the current regulatory onslaught is making life harder for working families and 

small business owners, not better. 

According to a study commissioned by the National Association 

of Manufacturers, federal regulations cost more than $2 trillion in 

lost economic growth annually, and the American Action Forum estimates that the administration imposed more than $181 billion in 

new regulatory costs during 2014 alone. These are staggering statistics that in many ways represent lost wages and fewer jobs for 

American workers. 

Today, we will hear from our witnesses how this unprecedented 

regulatory approach has created troubling concerns for workers and 

small businesses during the past year. My hope is that by demanding more responsible regulatory policies we can ensure a prosperous 21st century workplace. 

With that, I will now recognize my Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, 

for her opening remarks. 

[The information follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections 

Good morning. I’d like to thank you all for joining us today and thank our witnesses for being here to share their experiences and perspectives. 

The end of the year is an important time to reflect on what has been accomplished 

and what work remains to be done. As members of the Education and the Workforce 

Committee, this is especially important as we consider the significant challenges 

many workers continue to face. 

Recent months have shown signs of economic improvement and signs of continued 

concern. Roughly eight million Americans are still unemployed and searching for 

work, and an additional six million are working part-time hours when they really 

need and want full-time jobs. And that doesn’t include the millions of individuals 

who are so discouraged by meager job prospects that they have dropped out of the 

workforce entirely. Meanwhile, those with jobs are facing fewer opportunities to advance and earn higher wages. 

Some will say the problems facing workers and job creators can be solved with 

more spending, more government mandates, and more regulation. Perhaps we will 

hear some of those claims today, but that’s the same failed approach the Obama 

administration has pursued over the last seven years. The results have been an aneCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

mic economy, sluggish job growth, and most importantly, less opportunity and prosperity for millions of hardworking men and women. 

Time and again we have called on the administration – including those at OSHA 

and the Department of Labor more broadly – to pursue a different, more responsible 

course, and time and again our calls have been rebuffed. The most recent example 

was the release of the administration’s regulatory agenda, which doubles-down on 

the same extreme regulatory approach that has made the problems plaguing the 

country worse at the expense of those struggling the most. 

Let me be clear: Federal policies do play an important role in ensuring safe and 

healthy workplaces and protecting the basic rights of hardworking men and women. 

That’s not what we are here to discuss today. The question isn’t whether there 

should be rules of the road for workers and employers to follow. The question is how 

we ensure those rules are implemented fairly, responsibly, and in a way that promotes the best interests of both workers and their employers. 

Unfortunately, more often than not, what we’ve seen from this administration is 

an overly punitive and unnecessarily burdensome approach. Adding insult to injury, 

often these rules and regulations are being developed and changed without any public input. This regulatory approach is holding us back, and that is the focus of today’s hearing. 

We know there are areas where we can make meaningful change without creating 

costly consequences and unintended harm. For example, Chairman Kline and I have 

said we are open to modernizing current overtime rules to strengthen protections 

for workers and help employers fulfill their legal responsibilities. Instead, we have 

to confront a proposal that will limit workplace flexibility, make it harder for workers to advance up the economic ladder, and impose a significant burden on small 

businesses. 

Earlier this year, Nicole Berberich, director of Human Resources at the Cincinnati 

Animal Referral and Emergency Center, testified about the challenges employers 

are already facing because of complicated federal wage and hour regulations. She 

also explained that small businesses like the one she works for are likely to experience the burdens of these regulations disproportionately. And she added that those 

burdens will continue to worsen with the expected overtime changes. 

At a separate hearing, Eric Williams – who worked his way up from a crew member at a fast-food restaurant to become a franchisee and chief operating officer of 

CKE Restaurants – shared his fears that the administration’s overtime proposal 

‘‘will severely limit hardworking, talented Americans from realizing their dreams.’’ 

He worries that, because of the proposal, some employees ‘‘may never reach their 

potential.’’ 

The overtime proposal is just one example of this administration’s misguided approach to regulating. At another hearing, Drew Greenblatt, a steel wire manufacturer from Baltimore, spoke to us about how government policies are hindering 

growth and how he and others in his industry find themselves stuck between a rock 

and a hard place. He explained his situation as between, ‘‘A rock of harsh and unforgiving global economic competition and a hard place of inflexible and ever-proliferating regulations.’’ 

It should be clear to anyone who is listening that the current regulatory onslaught 

is making life harder for working families and small businesses owners, not better. 

According to a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, 

federal regulations cost more than $2 trillion in lost economic growth annually. And 

the American Action Forum estimates that the administration imposed more than 

$181 billion in new regulatory costs during 2014 alone. These are staggering statistics that, in many ways, represent lost wages and fewer jobs for American workers. 

Today we will hear from our witnesses how this unprecedented regulatory approach has created troubling concerns for workers and small businesses during the 

past year. My hope is that by demanding more responsible regulatory policies, we 

can ensure a prosperous 21st century workforce. 

With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Wilson for her opening remarks. 

Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding 

this hearing and giving us an opportunity to discuss the Department of Labor’s work to ensure more American workers have the 

protections they need to build a better life for themselves and their 

families. 

The legislation establishing the Department of Labor memorialized the agency’s honored purpose, to foster, promote, and develop 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

the welfare of working people, to improve their working conditions, 

and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. 

Since its inception in 1913 and throughout America’s ever changing economic and social landscape, DOL has held steadfast to this 

original purpose. Using its court affirmed statutory authority, the 

department has proposed rules to promote fair wages, safe workplaces, and equal employment opportunities. 

For instance, I was pleased to hear that DOL released the persuader rule for OMB review this week, and will soon finalize the 

rule. Four years in the making, this rule will level the playing field 

for workers wishing to organize by strengthening disclosure requirements for employers that hire pricey outside consultants to 

bust union organizing efforts. 

It is my hope that our subcommittee, also tasked with promoting 

the welfare of working people, will join DOL in its efforts by passing legislation that supports working families. Instead, it seems we 

are stuck in a perpetual state of inaction or flat out obstruction. Efforts to derail DOL’s regulations do not help workers struggling to 

get by, create safer workplaces, or promote equal opportunity in 

employment. 

The men and women teetering on the brink of poverty, people 

making $23,660 a year, who are asked to work 50, 60, or 70 hours 

a week with no promise of extra pay, are not helped by efforts to 

block DOL’s rule to extend overtime protection to 5 million working 

Americans. 

The nearly 2.1 million workers exposed to silica and at risk of 

contracting potentially lethal silicosis are not made safer by efforts 

to block full implementation of DOL’s crystalline silica dust rule. 

Expectant mothers who want nothing more than the ability to 

work and save for their new additions are not comforted by efforts 

to impede EEOC’s work to address pregnancy discrimination in the 

workplace. 

Americans are no longer persuaded by some of the offered justifications for attempts to block regulations designed to protect 

workers. It is hard to argue the Department of Labor’s regulatory 

agenda is causing historic job loss when we are in fact in the midst 

of the longest streak of job growth on record. Our economy has 

added over 13.7 million jobs over 69 straight months, and we are 

seeing the lowest unemployment rate since April 2008. 

These questionable arguments for blocking DOL’s rules must 

make us question the purpose of our pursuits. 

If there is genuine concern for workers, as well as businesses, 

then support a working families agenda that boosts wages, so more 

Americans are economically secure and have the increased spending power that supports job creating consumer demand. Take up a 

vote on a working families agenda that promotes the strong work/ 

family balance needed for productive workers. Pass a working families agenda that promotes the equal employment opportunity that 

is linked to increased profitability and ensures all workers have a 

fair shot at success. 

I must remind my colleagues that the department’s purpose as 

well as our own is singular and clearly defined, the welfare of 

working people. It is this purpose that we must look to when judgCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

ing DOL’s actions as well as our own. We are the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. We must protect the workforce. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and what we can 

do to support DOL’s efforts to promote the welfare of working people. 

To the witnesses, I have read your statements. I want to work 

with you and do what we can to support DOL’s efforts to promote 

the welfare of working people. 

Very shortly, in Emancipation Hall at 11:00 a.m., members of the 

Congressional Black Caucus and House and Senate leadership will 

commemorate the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the 13th 

Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished 

slavery in the United States. The very slaves who built the United 

States Capitol. 

Thousands fell to their death trying to erect the dome. They slept 

outside in the snow while laying the marble floors and columns. 

The ultimate workforce on whose shoulders we stand. They never 

had or received any protection. There was no Department of Labor, 

no Workforce Protections Subcommittee. 

We cannot turn back. We have made so much progress. Let us 

vow to protect our present workers. After all, we are the Workforce 

Protections Committee, and I want to be proud of our work as we 

protect our workers. 

I want to thank Representative Pocan for substituting for me. I 

have to attend the ceremony, and I yield back my time. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 97778.086
8 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 97778.087
9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 97778.088
10 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady and I thank you for 

reminding us of this celebration today and the 13th Amendment 

and the impact. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record, and without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions 

for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witnesses. Mr. Sam 

Batkins is director of regulatory policy at the American Action 

Forum here in Washington, D.C. 

Prior to joining AAF, Mr. Batkins worked at the U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce, Institute for Legal Reform, and the National Taxpayers Union. His work has focused on lawsuit abuse, tort reform, 

federal regulation, and state and federal spending. 

Mr. Ralph Beebe is president of Highland Engineering, Inc. in 

Howell, Michigan. It is good to see a Michiganian here. That is just 

kind of a personal side line between us, right? 

He is testifying on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business. Highland Engineering manufactures troop support equipment and contracts with all branches of the Department 

of Defense, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

and foreign militaries. 

In addition to its DOD work, HEI works with commercial customers in automation and water treatment areas. 

Ms. Christine Owens is executive director of the National Employment Law Project in Washington, D.C. Prior to working with 

the National Employment Law Project, she worked at the AFL– 

CIO as a senior policy analyst specializing in workplace equity 

issues. Much of her work has focused on minimum wage and living 

wage hikes, pay equity, and state unemployment insurance coverage expansions. 

Mr. Bradford Hammock is a shareholder and co-leader of the 

Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group for Jackson Lewis in 

Reston, Virginia. Prior to this, Mr. Hammock served as an attorney 

at OSHA, working on regulatory initiatives, compliance assistance, 

and enforcement policies. 

I welcome you all, and as is the policy in this Committee, we 

would ask you now to rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. You may take your seats. Let 

the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain the lighting system, which is probably not unfamiliar to 

most of you. It is like traffic lights. Green, keep on going, you have 

five minutes for your testimony. Yellow hits, you have a final 

minute to wrap up. When red hits, you do not have to screech to 

a stop but come to a conclusion. You will have an opportunity to 

answer further questions during our questioning. The same will be 

true for the members of this subcommittee. 

Now, let me recognize for five minutes of testimony, Mr. Batkins. 

Welcome. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

TESTIMONY OF SAM BATKINS, DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY 

POLICY, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BATKINS. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. 

In this testimony, I wish to highlight the following points: first, 

by virtually any metric, regulatory activity has increased across the 

federal government, from the 100 major rules issues in 2010 to the 

more than $100 billion in new annual regulatory costs. These new 

measures will affect employment. 

Second, there is a general consensus that regulations have statistically significant but small effects on industry employment. The 

American Action Forum’s work has found that $1 billion in new annual regulatory costs could cut industry employment by 3.6 percent, and third, even federal agencies routinely acknowledge the 

impact of regulations on employment. 

From 2012 to present, 22 rules have conceded they could negatively impact employment, resulting in nearly 86,000 lost jobs. 

Regulatory activity has undoubtedly increased in recent years. 

The paperwork burden, the number of major rules, and monetized 

regulatory costs, have all trended upward. What does this mean for 

employment? 

We know there are more regulatory compliance officers now than 

ever before, approximately 246,000. As the regulatory burden 

grows, so, too, does demand on businesses, to shift employees from 

profit making endeavors to compliance. 

A 2013 Minneapolis Fed study emphasized paperwork burdens 

and what being forced to hire additional compliance staff means for 

small banks. The study found that hiring two additional compliance officers reduced profitability by roughly half a percent, and 

that one-third of the banks studied would become unprofitable if 

forced to hire additional compliance officers. 

For regulatory costs, EPA and the Department of Energy alone 

have added $39 billion in new annual burdens since 2009. For employees in fossil fuel power plants, these costs are one leading factor to a 28 percent decline in industry employment since 2008. 

There are other factors in play but regulation has definitely 

made its mark. According to the most recent literature, regulation 

has a modest but significant impact on industry employment. 

In one seminal study, Professor Michael Greenstone examined 

how employment in pollution intensive industries in non-attainment ozone counties differed from attainment counties. The results 

were dramatic. Non-attainment counties, those with more stringent 

EPA controls, lost 590,000 jobs, $37 billion in capital, and $75 billion in output. 

Dr. Richard Morgenstern, whose work is often cited in regulatory 

impact analyses, summarizes the intersection of regulation and employment writing, ‘‘there is only limited evidence that environmental regulation leads to significant job loss.’’ Note, he did not say 

there is evidence environmental regulation leads to major job 

gains. 

The American Action Forum’s work found that for every $1 billion increase in regulations, industry employment declines by 3.6 

percent. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

12 

More important than a top line number, however, is the human 

element to regulation. Even if a rule leads to a net zero impact on 

aggregate employment but results in thousands of job transfers, 

there still might be individual job losses and stagnant wages. 

For instance, research has found job displacement can lead to a 

15 to 20 percent increase in death rates in the 20 years following 

displacement. This should not be discounted by regulators or policymakers. 

Finally, regulatory agencies need to perform more employment 

impact analyses. Rutgers University Professor Stuart Shapiro examined a regulatory impact analysis of 56 major rules and found 

that just 11 quantified the rules’ impact on employment. On rules 

since 2012 that had discussed the impact on employment, the 

American Action Forum found 22 admitted some job losses were 

possible, including 11 to date in 2015. 

As the Department of Energy once conceded, ‘‘it is possible small 

manufacturers will choose to leave the industry or choose to be 

purchased by or merged with larger market players.’’ 

Likewise, a Department of Labor rule admitted its implications 

would result in a dead weight loss and dis-employ roughly 1,000 

workers annually. The combined employment loss from the 22 

rules, according to agency estimates, could top 85,000 workers. 

Based on the research from Professors Eric Posner and Jonathan 

Masur, the cost of an individual job displacement is $100,000. If we 

take this 85,000 jobs figure at face value, it means $8.5 billion in 

costs, human costs, a human toll from regulation. 

The proposed overtime expansions, the fiduciary rulemaking, and 

redefining the joint employer rule could add to these significant totals. 

In conclusion, the general consensus is regulation does have an 

effect on employment, at least at the industry level. More research 

is needed in this field, and agencies, OIRA, and independent parties should work to perform more rigorous analysis on the intersection of regulation and employment. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Batkins follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 97778.001
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 97778.002
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 97778.003
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 97778.004
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 97778.005
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 97778.006
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 97778.007
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 97778.008
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 97778.009
22 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Now, I recognize Mr. Beebe, 

and thank you for being here, taking time away from your business 

to join us and give us your experience. 

TESTIMONY OF RALPH BEEBE, PRESIDENT, HIGHLAND ENGINEERING, INC., HOWELL, MI, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS 

Mr. BEEBE. My pleasure. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, 

Ranking Member Pocan, and members of the Committee. I am 

pleased to be here on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business. I am one of the owners of Highland Engineering, 

and have been a member of NFIB since 1993. I also currently serve 

on the NFIB Michigan Leadership Council. 

Thank you for holding today’s hearing on how the administration’s regulatory onslaught is affecting workers and job creators. 

The current regulatory framework negatively impacts small and 

closely held businesses in several important ways, so I appreciate 

the invitation to be here today to discuss these important issues. 

The NFIB is the nation’s leading small business advocacy organization. As part of representing small business owners, NFIB frequently conducts surveys of both the NFIB membership and the 

small business population as a whole. 

Government regulation consistently ranks as one of the greatest 

concerns. In fact, since January 2009, government requirements 

and red tape have been a top three problem for small business 

owners on NFIB’s monthly small business surveys. 

In the administration’s fall 2015 regulatory agenda released on 

November 18, there are 3,297 federal regulations in the pipeline 

waiting to be proposed, finalized, or implemented. About 10 new 

regulations are finalized every day, according to data on Regulations.gov, adding to the volumes of rules with which small business 

owners must comply. This constant onslaught of government regulation makes it incredibly difficult for me to operate my day-to-day 

business. 

I would like to spend the rest of my time telling you about my 

personal experience dealing with government regulations. Highland 

Engineering was founded in 1986 and we moved to Howell in 1987. 

We specialize primarily in troop support equipment for the U.S. 

Department of Defense, as well as some other agencies. With 45 

full-time employees, we are a contractor for all branches of the 

DOD, FEMA, and foreign militaries. 

In addition to our government work, we also serve commercial 

customers in the automation and water treatment areas. 

Through our company’s nearly 30 year history, I have seen the 

impact of the direct costs of excessive regulations, particularly in 

the past four years. For example, the number of clauses in our contracts have increased nearly 50 percent since 2011. Additionally, 

reporting requirements have increased to the point that they have 

become overbearing. 

Keeping up with these ever changing regulations is such a task 

that I have had to hire a professional compliance officer, who also 

happens to be my wife, Sally, to work 10 to 20 hours per week solely to make sure we are abiding by complex, uncertain, and ever 

changing regulations. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

Each time a new regulation comes out, she has to research it, decide if it pertains to us, and if it does pertain to us, figure out what 

we need to do about it. 

The pace of changes in regulations is astounding. In October of 

2011, the Federal Acquisition Regulation or FAR, was on Revision 

44. By October 2015, it is now on Revision 84. With this current 

pace of excessive regulation by the administration, more and more 

small businesses will either have to divert their monies to hiring 

compliance personnel, as we did, or will simply decide the burden 

is too great and get away from the over regulation by dissolving 

their businesses. 

Further, the companies still doing business with the government 

are passing on these increased costs to the taxpayers instead of 

being able to use this money to invest in the company’s development or to hire new employees. We have had to focus on understanding and complying with new regulations. 

Further, in my experience with the Department of Labor, I have 

found the agency to be more interested in trying to find what we 

did wrong instead of providing assistance and education in understanding new rules. 

My company set up an employee stock ownership plan as a way 

to take care of our employees and provide for their retirements. We 

hired lawyers to make sure we understood the process and that we 

did it right. After the plan was filed with DOL, DOL determined 

that they needed to audit us. After 17 months of what we thought 

was nothing more than a phishing expedition, they determined that 

we did everything 100 percent correct. Those 17 months cost us a 

lot of time and money. 

Highland Engineering’s business is primarily with government 

agencies, and we have seen firsthand the detrimental effects of 

ever changing and excessive regulations, especially as a small business with limited resources, resources that we could be using to 

more fully support our core mission, which is supporting the 

warfighters. 

The current state of government regulation has become a confusing and unpredictable challenge for the vast majority of small 

business owners. Government regulations should not hinder the 

ability of small business owners to create or expand their business. 

The current pace of new regulations combined with the existing 

regulatory burden can dictate the business decisions an owner 

must make, whether it means using a compliance officer, attempting to expand its business, or hiring new employees. 

As Congress examines the current regulatory burden faced by 

small business owners, I would encourage you to keep the following 

goals in mind: number one, agencies should take into account a 

proposed regulation’s indirect economic impact on small business. 

Two, agencies should increase compliance assistance so small businesses acting in good faith can continue to operate without fear of 

undue penalties, and three, DOL and all agencies should be required to conduct SBIR panels when considering any new regulation. 

Working toward these goals would create a more stable progrowth environment for small businesses. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

Thanks again for having me today, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Beebe follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 97778.010
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 97778.011
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 97778.012
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 97778.013
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 97778.014
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 97778.015
31 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Ms. Owens, we welcome you, 

thank you for being here. We now recognize you for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTINE OWENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. OWENS. Thank you very much, Chairman Walberg, Mr. 

Pocan, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of my organization, the National 

Employment Law Project, which engages in a number of activities 

designed to promote the interests and rights of low wage and unemployed workers. 

The Obama administration has proposed or taken several executive regulatory and other agency actions essential to workers’ ability to earn decent wages, meet responsibilities on the job and at 

home, and work in safe, healthy, and non-discriminatory workplaces. These actions have been thoughtful, informed, fair and balanced, and consistent with legal authority and legal responsibilities 

to further underlying workforce policy goals. 

Far from causing harm, they make it more likely that we will rebuild the economy on a foundation of good jobs and safe and 

healthy workplaces. 

Regulatory and related action by the Obama administration is 

extremely important. Wages for most workers have fallen over 

most of the last four decades, even as worker productivity grew, 

and the average age and education of the workforce rose. The 

Great Recession exacerbated these trends, particularly for low 

wage workers. 

During the period of limited congressional action on workforce 

policy, administration action is a vital response to the wage crisis. 

It also better aligns workforce policy with today’s economy and its 

evolving business and employment practices and family needs. 

Several actions update old standards that because they have not 

been adjusted regularly neither meet the needs of today’s workers 

nor serve employers effectively. 

Contrary to arguments that workforce regulations are burdensome and costly job killers, analyses of regulations over a multiyear period find their benefits vastly exceed costs, while cost estimates typically fail to consider mitigating savings, and actual costs 

often turn out to be significantly lower than estimated. 

Less than three-tenths of 1 percent of employers initiating mass 

layoffs in 2012 said government regulation was their layoff reason, 

affecting only five of every 2,000 laid-off employees. 

A 2014 analysis of 10 proposed or final public health and safety 

rules, including OSHA’s proposed silica rule, concluded they would 

save 10,000 lives, prevent 300,000 cases of occupational illness or 

injury, and yield a net overall benefit of as much as $122 billion. 

Frankly, 69 months of record uninterrupted job growth along with 

cutting the unemployment rate in half is wholly inconsistent with 

the notion that a regulatory onslaught has damaged the economy 

or cost us jobs. 

In the face of extreme inequality, stagnant and declining wages, 

and inadequate labor markets, the Obama administration has 

acted judiciously and lawfully to help ensure that Americans who 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

work for a living will make a decent living from work in safe, 

healthy, and non-discriminatory workplaces. 

I will now briefly describe a couple of these initiatives. The Labor 

Department moved to revitalize the Fair Labor Standards Act and 

strengthen the middle class this July, when after a period of substantial outreach and sustained deliberation it proposed a rule updating the so-called ‘‘white collar exemption’’ to the overtime pay 

requirement. Recognizing that the existing poverty level threshold of $23,660 

is far too low, the Department proposed to lift it to a far more realistic level of $50,440. This change will benefit as many as 11 million workers and restore overtime protections to 44 percent of the 

white collar workforce. This is still below the historic standard, but 

definitely an improvement. 

The Department also acted importantly and appropriately in 

2013 when 16 years after first listing revision of the silica standard 

on its regulatory agenda, OSHA proposed a new protective regulation. 

Disease and deaths from silica exposure are preventable, yet 

more workers died from silicosis and silica related diseases in 2013 

than from explosions or from being caught in or crushed by collapsing materials, running equipment, or machinery. 

These as well as other regulations and actions we discussed in 

our written testimony, including extension of minimum wage and 

overtime protections to the home care workforce, are important actions within the constitutional and statutory authorities of the 

President, the Labor Department, and the EEOC, in response to 

some of today’s workforce challenges and crises. 

By improving wages and working conditions for tens of millions 

of workers, the administration’s actions will strengthen American 

working families and help achieve a healthier and more robust 

economy in which all who contribute to its success have a shot at 

sharing fairly in its prosperity. 

Thank you. I would welcome any questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Owens follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 97778.016
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 97778.017
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 97778.018
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 97778.019
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 97778.020
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 97778.021
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 97778.022
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 97778.023
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 97778.024
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 97778.025
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 97778.026
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 97778.027
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 97778.028
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 97778.029
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 97778.030
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 97778.031
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 97778.032
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 97778.033
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 97778.034
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 97778.035
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 97778.036
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 97778.037
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 97778.038
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 97778.039
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 97778.040
58 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Mr. Hammock, welcome, and 

we recognize you now for your five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF BRADFORD HAMMOCK, SHAREHOLDER AND 

CO–LEADER OF THE WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

PRACTICE GROUP, JACKSON LEWIS P.C., RESTON, VA 

Mr. HAMMOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pocan, 

members of the subcommittee. Good morning. I am Brad Hammock. I manage the Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group 

at the law firm of Jackson Lewis. 

Before joining Jackson Lewis, I spent 10 years at the Department of Labor working on various matters on behalf of OSHA. I 

worked specifically on OSHA’s regulatory program, including serving as counsel for safety standards for the last few years of my tenure there. I am very familiar with OSHA’s regulatory program having been and worked there and lived there. 

Since leaving the Department, I have had the privilege of working with countless employers in a variety of industries in a compliance assistance capacity, as well as helping them navigate OSHA 

enforcement actions. 

I am pleased to offer my perspective on regulatory burdens on 

employers from my experience of working for OSHA as well as representing employers across the country. 

Many employers I work with are feeling the full weight of OSHA 

and fear several new regulatory initiatives set to become final rules 

in 2016. In addition, now more than ever employers are facing compliance challenges resulting from the ambiguous OSHA guidance in 

such areas as ergonomics, workplace violence, and process safety 

management. 

The combination of new regulatory requirements and aggressive 

enforcement places significant pressure on employers. That is why 

it is critical that agencies be mindful of the cumulative impact of 

regulations on employers and be judicious with promulgating new 

rules. 

From a regulatory perspective, OSHA is extremely active. One of 

the regulatory actions that my clients raise with me with great 

concern is OSHA’s proposed electronic recordkeeping rule. As proposed, this rule would amend the agency’s recordkeeping regulations to add new electronic reporting obligations. 

OSHA would require employers with over 250 employees per establishment to submit their OSHA 300 Logs to the agency on a 

quarterly basis, and OSHA would in turn post those OSHA 300 

Logs on its website to make the information publicly available. 

There are several problems with this rule, starting with the fact 

that OSHA has not justified any safety and health benefits from 

the proposal. OSHA seems to believe that benefits will flow once 

injury and illness information is made public, and customers, employees, and others can make determinations about how safe a particular worksite is. This in turn would lead employers to make improvements in workplace safety. 

This is wrong at several levels. OSHA should know that the occurrence of an injury in and of itself is not a complete or fair indication of an employer’s safety and health program and its effectiveness. To suggest that individuals, whether it be researchers, workCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

ers, other employers, customers, or unions should make conclusions 

about the safety and health of a workplace based on just the public 

report of an OSHA 300 Log, a lagging as opposed to a leading indicator, is misguided. 

As you can imagine, employers are very concerned with this proposal, that may unfairly tarnish a worksite as unsafe, having a 

negative impact on the employer of the site, regardless of the true 

effectiveness of the employer’s safety and health program. 

Another significant regulatory initiative that will have major impacts on many employers is OSHA’s proposed rule regulating crystalline silica. OSHA has been working on a respirable crystalline 

silica rule for decades. 

To be clear, crystalline silica at certain exposure levels has been 

shown to cause silicosis, a potentially fatal lung disease. Over the 

course of the last several decades, however, the incidences of silicosis have been steadily and rapidly declining, according to the 

Centers for Disease Control. 

It is with this backdrop that OSHA’s proposal was issued. For 

many employers, particularly small employers, the rule will be 

highly burdensome. Take the construction industry, for example. 

Not only is OSHA proposing to significantly reduce the permissible 

exposure limit for silica in construction, it is proposing other extensive requirements, including prohibitions in certain instances on 

work practices such as the use of compressed air, dry sweeping, 

and dry brushing. 

Some stakeholders have estimated that the cost of the rule for 

construction alone will be approximately $4.9 billion a year. 

There are other rules as well in the most recent regulatory agenda, over 30 regulatory initiatives are proposed by OSHA. This comprises almost 45 percent of the regulatory burden of the Department of Labor. 

Aside from the new regulatory requirements discussed, in the 

last several years many employers have been challenged by OSHA 

enforcement initiatives in areas where the agency has provided little compliance clarity. 

I just want to highlight one here today, ergonomics. Over the last 

few years, OSHA has been active in attempting to utilize the general duty clause to cite employers for failing to take certain actions 

to protect employees from musculoskeletal disorders. 

The problem with this for many employers is that OSHA has 

provided little guidance on what its expectations are for compliance 

with respect to ergonomics. Thus, many employers are following 

OSHA’s own ergonomics guidelines for a particular industry, but 

they still get cited because OSHA wants them to actually do more 

undefined with respect to ergonomics. 

In conclusion, I want to leave one final thought with the Committee. All these burdens placed on employers may actually take 

resources away from workplace safety and health. While compliance is important to employers, so is the day to day job of working 

to prevent injuries. 

When OSHA proposes a rule or embarks on an enforcement initiative, it must truly analyze how necessary the rule is, the benefits of the rule, and the adverse consequences of it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

[The statement of Mr. Hammock follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 97778.041
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 97778.042
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 97778.043
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 97778.044
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 97778.045
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 97778.046
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 97778.047
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 97778.048
69 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Appreciate the testimony of the 

witnesses. Now, we turn to the panel for questions. I recognize the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thank you 

to the witnesses for being here, lending your experience and expertise to a very important issue. 

Mr. Batkins, I work hard every day to try to boost earnings of 

low income workers as co-chair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus. I believe that is the best way, most effective way to 

truly do that, through the provisions of opportunities for job training to get the skills/competencies. 

This Committee, this whole Committee, Education and the Workforce Committee, has done an outstanding job with legislation. We 

have one that has crossed the finish line a year ago or so, the 

Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, which is about job training. 

I think within the days to come, the ESSA, which really clears for 

the secondary levels a pathway for career and technical education 

training to have a better role within our schools. 

The administration, on the other hand, has kind of a different 

opinion. As you know, in March 2014, the President issued an Executive Order directing Secretary of Labor Perez to update the socalled ‘‘white collar regulations’’ that establish overtime requirements for executive, administrative, and professional employees. 

This proposed rule seeks to extend overtime pay in a broad fashion, and according to the administration, will boost the wages of 

millions of workers that are exempt from current regulations. 

The Department of Labor estimates that average annualized di- rect employer costs will total up to $253 million per year, depending on the updating methodology. 

Is this an effective tool to boost the earnings of low income workers? In other words, will this regulation have its intended effect? 

Mr. BATKINS. Well, again, the effect of regulation on employment 

is complicated, but one thing it will definitely do, and this is something Mr. Beebe mentioned, is it will impose millions of dollars in 

costs, and hundreds of thousands of paperwork hours. 

Now, someone, whether it is someone’s wife or compliance officer, 

has to eventually comply with those regulatory compliance. Those 

hours mean something. They translate into compliance officer’s 

time from profit making tasks devoted instead to regulatory compliance. 

The overtime rule in conjunction with some other Department of 

Labor rules, I think if you add up the regulatory agenda, would be 

something close to $7 billion in aggregate costs. 

It is difficult to say that kind of imposition will not have at least 

some effect on employment. It might take the form of lower labor 

force participation rates or it may take the form of lower wages. 

I certainly think you will see some impact. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Beebe, I spent a lot of time visiting small businesses, the backbone of our economy, and talking 

with them. I have had numerous instances where I have gone and 

visited them at their request because of regulation concerns they 

have had, specifically where they have had an anonymous complaint placed by OSHA. They come in, they clear the complaint, but 

once they are in the door, they just nitpick and tear things apart. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

That was not the disturbing part for me. It was the intimidation 

that OSHA did. These are businesses—one specific example, the 

employer said okay, what suggestion do you have, how do I correct 

this, so I can appeal it, and was told by OSHA, or the OSHA individual, well, you do not want to do that because if you do, the consequences could be greater. 

It really was intimidation or fear of retribution. 

A recent survey from the National Association of Manufacturers 

notes, ‘‘small manufacturers pay more than three times as much as 

the average U.S. business.’’ Can you explain how small business 

employment is negatively affected by regulation, and how do regulations impact larger companies differently? 

Mr. BEEBE. Well, I think it all comes down to when you talk 

about impacts, it is the percentage. If I only have 40 people and 

I have to hire a compliance officer, that is obviously a large percentage of my wages versus a company that has 5,000 employees 

and two compliance officers. 

I think the burden on small businesses by definition is much 

more impactful than on the large businesses. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

just say in those situations where I found that, I found it helpful 

to call the local OSHA office and ask for a face to face meeting with 

somebody from that department to explain their actions. That has 

been somewhat effective, providing some good oversight, but it is 

unfortunate those actions are necessary where these businesses, 

small businesses in particular, feel intimidated and fear retribution. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s 

time has expired. I recognize the Ranking Member instead, I guess 

I would say, at this point in time, Mr. Pocan. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know everyone says it 

is a new day here in Congress. Sometimes I feel like it is Groundhog Day. I feel like every month we have one of these hearings or 

sometimes two of these hearings. I was in line at the White House 

for a holiday party behind someone from the Department of Labor, 

I am like hey, I have not seen you in about a month. 

It is good to be back because I think it allows us to offer maybe 

some of the facts that are out there. I think, Ms. Owens, you mentioned specifically, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a 

study on the percent of layoffs from regulation is something like 0.1 

to 0.4 percent over about a seven year period. It is extremely low. 

Yet, the percentage of jobs lost due to lack of demand is really the 

significant barrier. 

I am a small business person for 28 years. I know this from practical experience as well. That is the reality. That is the facts that 

are out there. 

I know we talk about the costs that are involved. Again, as much 

as I think sometimes we inflate the costs, when I read some of 

these reports about what something is going to cost. When you actually look back at it, according to the Office of Management and 

Budget, they said in fiscal year 2014, for example, executive agency 

major rules delivered the benefits of $22.8 billion annually while 

the costs were 3 to $4 billion annually. The benefit is definitely exceeding any costs. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

In fact, I would argue it is kind of like that credit card commercial, the cost of this, the cost of this, the cost of coming home to 

your child at the end of the day without an injury, priceless. 

Again, your statistics showed that is what happens with these 

regulations. Since this is the Education and Workforce Protections 

Committee as opposed to Chamber protections, let me ask you a 

question, Ms. Owens, specifically regarding something I just did. 

I recently followed a worker who works as a caregiver. They have 

been doing this for 23 years, and are making now $11.50 a hour, 

after 23 years of working as a caregiver. We helped physically 

move the body of someone, we did cooking and cleaning, we did all 

this stuff, non-stop busy, taking care of the pills very precisely, cutting what the person has to have. 

Look at the work involved, and all too often we find these folks 

are not getting the proper pay, the proper overtime, especially 

when they do overnight shifts, et cetera. 

Can you just talk a little bit about that, just one rule, for example, since I just did that Thanksgiving week, it is fresh in my mind. 

This is someone who is fighting for $15 minimum wage in an 

union. Can you just talk about that? 

Ms. OWENS. Sure. I have had a similar experience, although I 

seem too old for this to be true, the reality is I am one of the sandwich generation, and I had a child I was raising. At the same time, 

my mother had advanced dementia. We had home care workers. 

She always wanted to be in the home, and we wanted her to be, 

so we had home care workers. 

We paid good wages, and we reported their earnings and complied with the law. I would never have done anything differently 

for my mother. I have to say caring for my mother was much harder than caring for my daughter, because my daughter grew up, and 

my mother just got worse. 

The reality is this is a vital job. None of us, I dare say, could do 

it very well. It requires patience. It requires compassion. It requires a certain level of skill. It requires a certain level of strength. 

It is a job that has changed dramatically since the 1970s when the 

Labor Department first exempted the job from minimum wage and 

overtime protections. 

It now is a profession. It is one of the fastest growing jobs in our 

economy, and one of the two jobs that will add the most net jobs 

over the next 10 jobs. 

Here is an irony. If these people, most of whom are women and 

women of color and many are immigrant women, if these women 

were working in nursing homes or public institutions, they would 

get minimum wage and overtime pay. Because they have worked 

in the home, which actually is better care and less costly care, and 

what all of us want for our loved ones, they have not been entitled 

to minimum wage and overtime pay. That is just wrong. 

The Labor Department’s extension of these protections, which 

the D.C. Circuit has upheld, is not only fully consistent with the 

Department’s statutory authority, it is good public policy that we 

all ought to applaud. 

Mr. POCAN. It is interesting. One of the things a person mentioned is, you know, people who make $174,000 a year trying to tell 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

them they are making too much at $11.50 an hour after 23 years 

of being in that profession. 

I think the only thing I would say in closing, Mr. Chairman, is 

I know as a small business owner I often get private sector businesses I deal with that make me jump through hoops to do various 

things, and if I want to do business with that company, I do that. 

To say that somehow if you have the privilege of being able to 

do business with the Federal Government but you do not want to 

follow any of the regulations, I did the exact thing with private sector businesses, it is part of what is called doing business, and if 

people do not like that, there are other businesses out there, but 

I love the business that I have been in for 28 years, and that is 

something I try to comply with. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize now the 

gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start off 

with a broad question to Mr. Batkins. Do you believe there is a 

connection between the $100 billion in additional annual regulatory 

costs imposed by this administration and the stagnation facing this 

nation’s wages? 

Mr. BATKINS. There certainly is a connection. Again, I think 

when you look at sort of the aggregates, regulations are often hidden. They are not on our tax bill like FICA, we do not see that in 

terms of sales tax. 

There is a lot of evidence looking at the impact of regulation on 

employment. There was a study done looking at the Clean Air Act. It found sort of marginal impacts on employment, but close to $9 

billion in foregone wage earnings as a result of the regulations. A 

lot of that was through a lower labor force participation rate and 

lower wages down the line. I do not think you can see $100 billion and say that will not have 

an impact somewhere down the line. I think a lot of this sort of 

operates under a false premise. We say well, the unemployment 

rate is low, regulations cannot possibly be having an effect. 

No one has ever said that a single regulation would cause the 

unemployment rate to go up to 10 percent. These are mostly industry specific examples. If you look at certain heavily regulated industries, there certainly are impacts on employment and wages. 

To discount it and say the unemployment rate is low is sort of 

disingenuous. 

Ms. STEFANIK. My follow up question is last month I chaired a 

hearing hosted by the Republican Policy Committee on Millennials 

in the Workforce. I am chairing the Millennial Task Force. 

One of the themes is the importance of this empowerment economy, so companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, that provide greater 

flexibility. 

When I visit college campuses in my district, one of the professions that I hear most often from students is they want to be entrepreneurs, but witness after witness at these millennial hearings 

raised the challenges of regulatory overreach as to starting their 

business or growing their careers. 

Can you identify certain pending DOL regulations that you believe pose the greatest threat to this empowerment economy? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

Mr. BATKINS. Some of the regulations that I have mentioned just 

from DOL specifically, the joint employer rule is one, the overtime 

rule, fiduciary rule. Those are sort of the big DOL regulations coming down the road. 

I think when you look at regulatory costs generally, especially 

with small start up’s, these costs fall disproportionately on small 

firms. 

If you are just one or two people starting up a business and you 

have sort of these fixed regulatory costs, as they tend to be, you 

have to spread those regulatory costs over a much smaller pool of 

assets, and in some cases, just your own money, and you do not 

have a team of compliance officers or a team of lawyers that larger 

competitors might have. 

If you are just starting out in this new economy and you sort of 

have a fixed base of regulatory costs, it is going to be tremendously 

difficult without a lot of capital to get things moving. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you. Mr. Beebe, I grew up in my family’s 

small business, which is a plywood wholesale company. We have 

less than 20 employees. One of our greatest challenges is dealing 

with regulations. 

Since you are a small business owner yourself, I wanted to ask 

you if there are specific instances where regulations have either 

forced you to delay important projects or have not allowed you to 

hire additional employees. 

Mr. BEEBE. A number of times. The regulatory burden, it has directly affected our supplier base. That is one key issue to us. For 

most of our regulations, we are required as a federal contractor to 

slow those down. 

A business like yours, plywood supplier, all of a sudden is faced 

with all these DOL regulations, and lots of times they will say I 

am not going to supply you with plywood, it is not worth it. That 

is a direct and obvious thing. 

The wages for my wife. I would much rather hire a welder. That 

is just the costs we have to face. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. Now, I recognize the 

gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

the witnesses, and like Mr. Pocan, I think sometimes as somebody 

who opened my first business—I am going to date myself—in the 

1970s, and I did it with my wife, Mr. Beebe. Although we are still 

very good friends and we are former’s, I am not sure I would ever 

suggest that I would prefer a welder or another cook as opposed 

to having her on the payroll, but there were moments. 

I wanted to direct a question to you because you brought something up which I often think as a former small business person is 

an appropriate approach. You mentioned a small business acting in 

good faith should have some consideration for that. 

The opposite of that always bothered me as well, where I knew 

I was competing against companies that were not complying with 

OSHA requirements or were not paying their employees what they 

were supposed to pay or wage theft. 

I wonder if you have some comment on that. I understand we all 

want the right kind of regulatory oversight to allow you to thrive, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

but on the other hand, in the absence of it in my estimation, being 

effective, you get frustrated when you do comply that you are competing against companies that flout those rules mostly because, in 

my experience, there were not enough resources for government 

agencies actually to enforce the regulations, or your competitor just 

did not have a very ethical business model. 

Mr. BEEBE. I guess I cannot speak for my competitors. I can 

speak for the business— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I asked you speaking for yourself. 

Mr. BEEBE. I personally feel that most small business owners are 

very ethical and try their best to do it. I guess I do not agree that 

I have competition from others that are not following the rules. 

That is not an issue. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Maybe it was more frequent in the restaurant 

business. I do not disagree with you. Most of them are, but the 

problem is the ones that do not comply—I am showing my age— 

seem to be growing. Their inability for whatever reason always 

bothered me. 

Ms. Owens, in an environment, and we have talked a little bit 

about this, where 66 percent of the American workforce lives paycheck to paycheck, and while I think it is important we talk about 

unemployment rates, to have the ability to actually live a life 

where you can afford to pay your housing costs and actually have 

disposable income. 

In that context, two questions. I wonder if you will just respond 

in terms of regulatory, and also in the same spirit as I mentioned 

to Mr. Beebe, the cost/benefit of the lack of regulations, do we analyze that when we do have sort of a drive to the bottom in some 

instances. 

Those two things, sort of the macro, in this environment, of all 

things, you would think you would be working to make sure that 

workers are protected and their wages are actually increased given 

that they—of all the benefits in the last 30 years, in the economy, 

including recovery, most of that has gone to people who are heavily 

invested as opposed to people who are living on wages. 

Ms. OWENS. I think that is absolutely right. I guess I would like 

to start by also picking up on Ms. Stefanik’s question. The reality 

is wages have been declining for the last 40 years. There was some 

exacerbation of that during the recession and recovery particularly 

for workers at the bottom, but that was not because of regulation, 

it was because it was the worse economy we have had since the 

1930s. 

Even employers that were doing well were taking advantage of 

that economy to bargain hard for concessions from their employees 

in unionized places. We had many more college students who could 

only get jobs that were low wage jobs. 

There really was a race to the bottom in terms of driving down 

wages. Certainly, our experience is that in the low wage sector, the 

phenomenon you referenced is very real, that companies and contractors put wages in competition, and the way they compete for 

contracts is by driving down the wages of their workers. 

These are not workers who have much bargaining power, they 

are not usually Union members. The only protection they have is 

from law or regulation. That is precisely why in this environment 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

it is so important that the administration has acted appropriately 

with respect to regulation because frankly, nothing else was cutting 

it for workers, and they needed administrative action to raise their 

wages, to be able to step out of the working class into the middle 

class, and for middle class families to feel secure that through their 

work, they would have economic security and economic opportunity. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I appreciate it. We have an environment where 

American workers are more productive than ever, particularly because of the entrance of women in the workforce, like Mr. Beebe’s 

wife, but at the same time they have not shared in the wealth created by that productivity. 

Ms. OWENS. That is absolutely right. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize myself 

now for my five minutes of questioning. 

Mr. Beebe, the President’s ‘‘Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces’’ Executive Order 13673 creates a new costly paperwork burden on the 

existing federal procurement system by placing extensive new reporting requirements on Federal contractors. 

More appropriately, this Executive Order is referred to as ‘‘blacklisting,’’ an administrative compliance nightmare that this will potentially put in place. It will place thousands of federal contracts 

in jeopardy, drastically reduce the number of small businesses competing for federal contracts, like yours, and make procurement of 

goods and services more expensive for the government and the taxpayer. 

In her statement, Ms. Owens stated that the Executive Order 

would only apply to, and I quote, ‘‘to a scant 5 percent of federal 

contracts,’’ and ‘‘The semi-annual compliance process will be quite 

simple.’’ 

Can you explain from your experience and your perspective the 

flaw behind that logic? 

Mr. BEEBE. Yes. Currently, under our defense contracts, we are 

required to certify that we are not suspended or debarred or have 

tax liens. There is a current shopping list of about eight or 10 

items we have to certify that we are not on to even be eligible to 

bid for jobs. 

The way I understand it, the blacklist drastically expands that, 

and again, more than doubles the number of things that are looked 

at. 

Chairman WALBERG. I would assume it would be very burdensome and cumbersome in the process, especially if you are working 

with any subcontractors as well? 

Mr. BEEBE. Very much so. 

Chairman WALBERG. Would you agree that this regulation protects all American workers? 

Mr. BEEBE. No, I would not agree with that. I believe that it 

would just do nothing more than expand the reporting requirements and actually hurt in the end because like you were pointing 

out, a number of businesses would just not be eligible all of a sudden. 

Chairman WALBERG. Who are trying to be honest and upstanding. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

76 

Mr. BEEBE. Yes. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Mr. Hammock, OSHA’s economic estimate for a silica standard is dramatically different, to 

say the least, than the estimates of almost every industry providing 

economic data to the regulations docket. 

Is there any way in your mind to explain how the agency arrived 

at such different cost estimates? 

Mr. HAMMOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to say specifically why the estimates are so different except I think on a 

number of different levels, OSHA has not considered all the different inputs that go into what a business has to do to comply with 

a rule. 

OSHA in good faith, and I know the people do their best, try to 

quantify how much a regulation is going to cost, but in the end, 

they have to make certain assumptions. Ultimately, I think they do 

not quite understand how a business, a small business, large business, actually internalizes it and has to comply with a particular 

regulation. 

As a result, when you look at all the different assumptions that 

OSHA makes in coming up with an economic analysis, each of 

those assumptions are on the conservative side, and when they actually get implemented, you do find that the costs are significantly 

higher when you consult with people like Mr. Beebe who have to 

ultimately implement a particular regulation. 

Chairman WALBERG. I appreciate that. Mr. Batkins, in my 47 

seconds remaining here, some statements have been made specifically in reference to the regulations dealing with home care workers. Talk to us about the impact of these regulations. 

Michigan has requirements that labor is attempting to put in. 

We are losing home care workers because of it. Talk to us why. 

Mr. BATKINS. Well, the Department of Labor—actually, this is 

one of the few instances where they did forecast potential job losses 

as a result of the regulation, and it is one of the few regulations 

we have come across, and we have come across thousands since 

2006, where they admitted there would be a dead weight loss as 

a result of the regulation, and over the course of roughly 10 years 

could dis-employ 1,000 workers annually. 

There are very few regulations that admit that impact. It would 

be interesting to go back five to 10 years from now and actually 

see the retrospective impact of the rule, but up front, if you are 

projecting 1,000 workers annually being dis-employed, that is sort 

of the other side of the coin when we compare it to higher wages. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. I know that was our impact 

with care for my mother, similar, Ms. Owens. It is a challenge. I 

applaud you for doing what you did. It is the right thing to do, but 

a difficult process. To find the caregivers that were consistent, because of what Michigan has in place with the overtime rules, made 

it difficult for mom to have someone she recognized to some degree 

every day. 

I now recognize for five minutes of questioning, Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate getting 

waived in today, and it is good to be back on the subcommittee. 

Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

77 

Mr. Batkins, you sort of raised this sort of morbidity issue of the 

effect of unemployment caused by regulations that result in people’s early life passing away. It is an interesting concept. 

Normally, in this Committee, we have talked about morbidity in 

terms of the lack of regulation. Again, as someone who is in year 

nine - Upper Branch, where 29 coal miners lost their lives. We obviously just had a jury verdict in West Virginia holding the employer responsible. There is no question in my mind that the failure of Congress to update MSHA’s regulations could have prevented that horrendous tragedy. 

Deepwater Horizon, where 11 workers lost their lives because of 

just incredibly shoddy oversight and regulation of the deep water 

drilling. 

I represent New London, Connecticut, home of the Coast Guard 

Academy, seeing the assets of the Coast Guard having to get pulled 

out of Homeland Security and repositioned down at the Gulf of 

Mexico to deal with the mess that was created there by poor regulation. 

In Middletown, Connecticut, we had a power plant explosion 

where again the failure to update our regulations in terms of cleaning the piping at the plant there, which even private sector folks 

like Siemens had already said was woefully out of date. We had 

seven workers who lost their lives, one of them was a very good 

friend of mine. I still talk to his widow on a frequent basis. 

There is no question that we live in a democracy and it is important to raise any issue here, but frankly there needs to be a balance. 

If we are going to talk about morbidity and the effect of regulations, we have to recognize that workplace fatalities is a reality of 

life, and we are not doing a very good job right now in terms of 

bolstering really common sense updates that even in the private 

sector we have been warned is going to cause problems. 

Ms. Owens, I do not know if you want to comment on that. 

Ms. OWENS. I would. Thank you very much. You know, it is pretty stunning that still today 13 American workers are killed on the 

job every single day. That is amazing. I thought the jury verdict 

in the Massey case was great, but the maximum penalty he will 

get is one year in prison, if he gets that. 

There is no way to replace the lives lost through dirty, dangerous, unsafe working conditions. My written testimony cites a 

study that was done by researchers at Berkeley and Harvard that 

actually looked at what the injury rate was and what employer 

costs were following OSHA inspections that found that employers 

were following standards, and that study found that injury rates 

were lower, employer costs were lower when employers were following standards. 

There is no question that there is a beneficial impact in terms 

of lives saved. The silica rule is estimated, if it is finalized in its 

proposed form, to save 700 lives a year. We cannot put a price tag 

on that. That is of incomparable value, and that is why we need 

to update these regulations. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Mr. Beebe, again, I represent Eastern Connecticut, which is the home of Electric Boat. We build the 

Virginia-class submarines there and deal with thousands of supCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

pliers all across the country. Thank you for the work you do to protect the warfighters who are out there. 

Again, when we talk about that critical work, protecting lives is 

also part of it. A supplier who sent elbow piping to the Virginiaclass program did bad welds, so right now the Navy is in the process of pulling out piping, which delays deployment of attack subs 

that we need, particularly in South China Sea right now. 

We are talking about vessels that operate in an environment that 

does not sustain human life. There is no margin for error for sailors out there in terms of doing that. 

Frankly, it is important for our military branches to really screen 

and watch what is coming into the depots, what is coming into the 

shipyards, what is coming into the airfields, because as I said, 

there is no margin for error. 

Cyber is the other burgeoning area for small suppliers. It is a 

very difficult problem, I think you would acknowledge that, because 

we have the bad guys out there that are not just looking at the 

prime contractors, they are going down deeper into the supply 

chain to try to penetrate our national defense by trying to probe 

weaknesses with the small guys, who again are doing everything 

right. 

We need new regulations, frankly, in terms of creating hardening 

defenses for our national defense on all these platforms that we depend on for our national defense. 

I think people really have to get balanced here in terms of the 

discussion, both in terms of workplace fatalities but also the fact 

that there is a real public interest in terms of making sure the 

stuff that the government is buying from people is actually of high 

quality. 

With that, I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. I now recognize 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to join the 

subcommittee this morning as we review the Department of Labor’s regulatory agenda to promote shared prosperity and help hard 

working Americans. 

It is past time for the Department to update the Fair Labor 

Standards Act’s exemption for overtime pay. When enacted, the intent of the white collar exemption was to exempt those with sufficient power in the labor market who are able to advocate for better 

wages and hours for themselves. That is clearly not the case today. 

In 1975, more than 60 percent of salaried workers were eligible 

for overtime. Now, only 8 percent of workers are eligible. The $23,000 threshold is outdated and below the poverty level for 

a family of four. Americans are working longer hours and are more 

productive, yet their wages are largely flat. Updating the overtime 

exemption will help millions of workers make ends meet and give 

an added boost to our economy. 

My first question is for Ms. Owens. Ms. Owens, there has been 

a lot of discussion about the proposed overtime regulation’s impact 

on job creation. I have been able to come and hear some of that 

from your fellow panelists. 

The Department has updated the salary level seven times since 

the Fair Labor Standards Act became law in 1938. Can you talk 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

79 

generally about how industry has complied with these adjustments? Is there a history of significant job loss attendant to these 

regulations? 

You mentioned a National Retail Federation report—I will stop 

there. Go ahead. 

Ms. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Takano. I have been doing work in 

this field for 30 some odd years, and the reality is every single time 

a piece of legislation is introduced or a regulation is proposed, the 

response from industry is that it is going to kill jobs, it is going to 

lead to exorbitant costs, it is going to depress wages. That was the 

response in 1964 when—I was not around then—when the Civil 

Rights Act employment protections were extended to women and 

people of color. The 1963 Equal Pay Act. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. 

The reality is these doomsday prophecies just have not come 

true. It is true that when other things are going on in the economy 

that are depressing consumption, that has an impact on jobs, and 

that is what happened during the great recession and the slow recovery. 

The reality is we have not seen significant job loss associated 

with updating basic standards like the overtime standards. I am 

glad you pointed out how infrequently that has happened over the 

past 70 some odd years. It is one of the reasons that overtime protections used to cover more than 60 percent of the white collar 

workforce, and today, only cover 8 percent. That just makes no 

sense at all. 

Mr. TAKANO. You mentioned a National Retail Federation report 

about job creation in your written testimony. Can you just elaborate on that a little? 

Ms. OWENS. Sure. They did a report that was certainly not supportive of the overtime regulations, but I do not remember the specific data right now, they analyzed what they thought some of the 

impacts would be. Some of the impacts—they said it is not true 

that everyone will get higher wages because the overtime threshold 

is increased. 

That means a lot of people who are being forced to work overtime 

hours for less than $24,000 a year will no longer be required to 

work unpaid overtime. They will have more time with their families, more time to take a second job if that is what they want, more 

time to go back to school, whatever. 

It is not the case that everybody affected will necessarily get a 

pay increase, but fewer people will be working longer hours for no 

pay at all, and one of the things the National Retail Federation estimated is that something north of 100,000 jobs are likely to be created because employers will find that it is more cost effective to 

hire some additional workers than to pay overtime to existing 

workers. That is also okay. 

That is the purpose of the overtime law, one of the fundamental 

purposes, to spread work around. If it works that way, that is what 

it is supposed to do. 

Mr. TAKANO. It is really a matter of fairness to the worker who 

is earning a low income who may be classified to the advantage of 

the employer as a manager, a manager who is earning a relatively 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

80 

low salary, and because of that classification, they are having to 

work extra hours. 

They now have more time with their family, but that employer 

has to make a decision, a fair decision, the right decision, to hire 

a second person, give the original employee time with their family, 

and in fact, the regulation can have the effect of creating jobs. 

Ms. OWENS. Exactly. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. His time has expired. I want to thank the panel for your testimony as well as your 

responses to our Committee and the questions we have asked. I 

now recognize the Ranking Member for his closing statement. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. I think our conversation today has been interesting. That 

said, I think we have had a very Washington conversation aimed 

at a very Washington audience. 

For the vast majority of our constituents who may be watching, 

this hearing has reinforced some of their bad feelings perhaps 

about Congress, and no one here today has told our constituents 

what this hearing is likely really about. 

The congressional leadership strategy is simple, although it is 

not necessarily obvious if you are not paying close attention, shut 

down the appropriations process, bog down Congress, and stuff an 

end of the year package with gifts for special interests. That is 

probably more of what the hearing is about today. 

Referring to rules and regulations as an ‘‘onslaught,’’ as many of 

our witnesses and colleagues on the other side of the aisle did 

today, is part and parcel of the rhetoric that the other side deems 

as necessary to accomplish the broader goal of filling the omnibus 

appropriations bill with Christmas gifts from big businesses’ wish 

lists. 

They say they are worried that this onslaught will hamper job 

growth and lead to mass unemployment. We have already seen 

today less than three-tenths of 1 percent of workers who lost their 

jobs in mass layoffs during the early years of the Obama administration was due to government regulations or intervention. This 

rate is unchanged from the Bush administration, according to data 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

All these rules and regulations referenced today have one thing 

in common, they help hard working middle class Americans by ensuring workers are afforded the dignity under the law that they 

unquestionably deserve. 

There is no doubt that ensuring worker safety, paying a living 

wage, strengthening the average American’s voice in the workplace, 

and ensuring the Federal Government contracts with responsible 

players come at a cost. We can debate that cost. I tend to think the 

other side exaggerates it and I think the data backs me up. I also 

tend to think that maintaining safe workplaces and protecting 

workers’ voices are worth that cost. 

Earlier I referenced big businesses’ wish list. We talked about 

the things on their list today. Middle class Americans are not sitting around saying you know, the income threshold for overtime as 

proposed by the Obama administration is far too high. 

They are not doing so because middle class families are focused 

on finding affordable day care for their children and finding good, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

safe public schools for those who are over that age. They are focused on other things that are important to them. 

One thing they are not doing is saying that Americans do not deserve a raise, as some are saying on the other side of the aisle, as 

they criticize the proposed overtime rule and attempt to block it in 

the omnibus. 

The raise came as a result of the Department of Labor updating 

a regulation that in the past has been routinely updated by both 

Democratic and Republican administrations instead of an act of 

Congress. 

I want to reiterate that I have owned my own small business for 

28 years. I understand the challenges small business owners face. 

I say this because it is often interpreted that the Chamber of Commerce and other groups speak for all businesses. This could not be 

further from the truth. Most of the things on their wish lists do not 

affect the majority of small businesses that operate in this country. 

As is often the case, we have been given a false choice. If you 

are for an onslaught of regulations, or what I would call strong 

workers’ rights and sensible workers’ protections, then you are 

against economic growth. If you are for economic growth, then you 

cannot be for increasing worker protections under the law. 

Nowhere do we mention ‘‘shared growth.’’ Nowhere do we mention how workers are the only ones who have not been paid for increased productivity over the last 30 years. 

When we hold a hearing to debate big businesses’ Christmas list 

for the omnibus, we need to make sure that we are being very clear 

exactly what this Christmas wish list is. 

Before I came to Congress, people around here used to refer to 

special interest projects requested by lawmakers as ‘‘earmarks.’’ 

These limitations or riders big business has requested of the 114th 

Congress are ‘‘earmarks.’’ 

As we sit here and debate the Chamber’s wish list, let’s call it 

what it is, a list of earmarks, and let’s talk about who gets what. 

In the old days, an earmark might be used to pay for a handicap 

access ramp at a local library in a member’s district. Today’s earmarks go to constituencies with far more resources than your local 

library. 

As we continue to debate big businesses’ list, I ask all Members 

of Congress to have their constituents check it twice. Surely, we 

can come together to advance policies that can benefit the American people in the manner other than asking middle class Americans to stand outside in the rain and wait for their fair share to 

trickle down as they have been doing far too long. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. My perspective is a 

little bit different. This hearing was meant to benefit both sides or 

all sides of the equation. 

There is no one on either side that want to see employees hurt 

or wages held down. We want to see expanded living wages. We 

want people in jobs that are their sweet spots. We want them to 

go in each day excited about their work or the opportunity to expand their work future. 

Just like some of those we had in front of us testifying in recent 

hearings, who started out on a grill, and ended up running the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

company, multiple companies. The resume was built. The time was 

there. Sure, there were decisions that were made that had sacrifices for future award, opportunities for building resumes. It was 

based up on the fact of reality that choices were made, and with 

the responsibility also came the benefit. 

We certainly understand that 1938 law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, is not fit for the present. We need to see some change to 

expand the opportunity for flexibility in the workplace. 

However, the Department of Labor and what they have proposed 

does not expand flexibility. It tightens the thumb screws down and 

takes away that flexibility for people to determine how they work. 

We have heard in recent testimony from Uber that the choices 

that people are making now are not necessarily for remuneration 

but for the flexibility to have the opportunity for what makes them 

tick and the opportunity to have a time frame in place that better 

fits their needs. 

Look at actual case experiences relative to regulations. You see 

the costs that CBO puts out, the cost of loss of jobs coming from 

the regulatory climate, from ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, 

which has proven not to be affordable, and not truly the care for 

more uninsured. That is regulation that is hurting. 

If we saw the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division 

looking at an expansion of wages for minimum wage that hit the 

targets that we have looked at in the past, that we have seen going 

up over $50,000, coming in under that, taking the exemption away 

of overtime, New York and San Francisco do not even fit in that 

area. 

If we had realistic regulation building that took that in place, 

that would be one thing. We do not see that. 

When I go back to the simple issue of human care, home care for 

people who need it, and I see the outcome of what is taking place 

in Michigan, home care providers, companion care providers, that 

provide great service to my mother and others like that over the 

years, in their waning years, now being frustrated as a result of 

those companies having an inability to care for those needs because 

it costs too much, so they have to make decisions on not providing 

that care for ones that need it until someone literally dies off and 

they can move someone in that place. 

That is not what we are as a country. That is what we are not 

as a government. I respectfully disagree with the approach, and I 

think that is why these hearings are here in place, to see that we 

have a tension, and we can get over it. 

We have to understand it is not us against them, them against 

us, but rather us working together to find regulations that are 

needed, yes, but done in a realistic way that promote opportunity, 

meet needs, and make a better society. 

We will keep doing it, and I guess the debate will go on, and we 

will do that with a smile on our face, but hopefully an intention 

to come to a conclusion that benefits us all. 

With no other testimony or information to come before the Committee, the Committee is adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Chairman Walberg follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 97778.049
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 97778.050
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 97778.051
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 97778.052
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 97778.053
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 97778.054
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 97778.055
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 97778.056
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 97778.057
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 97778.058
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 97778.059
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 97778.060
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 97778.061
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 97778.062
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 97778.063
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 97778.064
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 97778.065
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 97778.066
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 97778.067
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 97778.068
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 97778.069
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 97778.070
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 97778.071
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 97778.072
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 97778.073
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 97778.074
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 97778.075
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 97778.076
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 97778.077
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 97778.078
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 97778.079
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 97778.080
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 97778.081
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 97778.082
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 97778.083
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 97778.084
119 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 97778.085
120 

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER