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

95–822 PDF 2015

THE IMPACT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13658 ON 

PUBLIC LAND GUIDES AND OUTFITTERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2015 

Serial No. 114–34 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

RYAN HAMBLETON, Senior Professional Staff Member 

WILLIAM MCGRATH, Staff Director, Subcommittee on the Interior 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Ken Buck, Colorado, Vice Chair 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan, Ranking 

Member 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 10, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Chris Stewart, a Representative in Congress From the State of 

Utah 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 3 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Mr. Michael Lazzeri, Assistant Administrator for Government Contracts, U.S. 

Dept. of Labor 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Mr. Mike Cottingham, Owner, Wilderness Ventures 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Mr. David L. Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

APPENDIX 

Executive Order 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, submitted by Rep. Lummis ....................................................................................... 52 

Responses to Questions for the record from Mr. Michael Lazzeri, DOL, submitted by Rep. Lummis ....................................................................................... 62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

THE IMPACT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13658 ON 

PUBLIC LAND GUIDES AND OUTFITTERS 

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia M. Lummis 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lummis, Buck, Palmer, Lawrence, and 

Plaskett. 

Also Present: Representative Meadows. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Good morning. The Subcommittee on the Interior 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

Today the Subcommittee on the Interior will examine the impact 

of Executive Order 13658 on Public Land Guides and Outfitters. 

The executive order mandates a $10.10 minimum hourly wage be 

paid by employers who contract with the Federal Government. The 

order was issued in February 2014, and the implementing rule was 

finalized by the Department of Labor in October 2014. 

I want to make it clear that we are not here today to debate the 

idea of raising the minimum wage in and of itself. That will be 

done by another committee at another time, but today we’re here 

to discuss the impact on—of how this order and its implementation 

will negatively impact seasonal rural businesses. 

The order will leave many locales in danger of losing small businesses that are providing outdoor and recreational services to the 

public. It’s particularly damaging to rural economies that rely on 

tourism revenue. Wyoming had more than 10 million visitors who 

contributed more than $3 billion to the economy in 2014, according 

to the Wyoming Office of Tourism, from skiing to river rafting trips 

to trips on horseback. Many of these visitors rely on private businesses that operate on Federal lands. 

The Federal Government has promoted tourism as a replacement 

for logging and mineral development projects that have been strangled by regulation, so it’s rather ironic that now the executive 

branch is working to regulate wilderness tourism out of business. 

These businesses provide young Americans an opportunity to obtain employment while also providing a valuable service to the visitors of these taxpayer-owned lands. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

The rule unnecessarily burdens seasonal operators and small 

businesses using permits to enhance the use of our outdoors. The 

Forest Service submitted comments upon the proposed rule, stating 

that these seasonal guides and outfitters operating under permit 

are not Federal contractors and, as a result, should be exempt. As 

a Federal agency very familiar with guides and outfitters using the 

land under its jurisdiction, the Forest Service recognizes the 

unique nature of these businesses. It’s unfortunate that the Department of Labor chose to disregard them. 

As Americans, we are fortunate to live in a Nation with diverse 

and beautiful landscapes. These landscapes provide families and 

individuals affordable quality recreation opportunities. Public land 

guides and outfitters deliver a service that allows for an indepth 

enjoyment of these activities. This executive order unnecessarily 

endangers the economic existence of this industry and diminishes 

the enjoyment of our public lands by Americans nationwide. 

Representative Chris Stewart of Utah has introduced H.R. 2215, 

the Outdoor Recreation Enhancement Act. This legislation seeks to 

maintain the current level of tourism on public lands. Today we 

will hear from Congressman Stewart about his legislation to address these concerns and protect rural jobs. We will then hear from 

representatives of the outfitter and guide community to discuss 

how their businesses operate and the effects this rule will have on 

them. 

We will also hear from a representative of the Department of 

Labor, Wage and Hour Division, regarding the implementation of 

the President’s executive order and the rule to enforce its provisions across the Federal Government. 

What we have here is something that, unfortunately, we see time 

and again, especially in the West. The Federal Government in 

Washington forcing a one-size-fits-all directive on the American 

people. I sincerely hope that the Department of Labor listens closely to the representatives that we have here and recognizes that this 

situation as presently drawn up is not workable. I sincerely hope 

that we can take a commonsense approach to this issue and do the 

right thing. 

With that, I’d like to thank our witnesses in advance for their 

testimony. I now recognize Ms. Lawrence, the ranking member of 

the Subcommittee on the Interior, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. Today we are focussing on the outfitter and outdoor guide 

business that holds permits to conduct business on Federal land. 

I understand from the testimony that these organizations are looking for an exemption to the Federal minimum wage rule so that 

workers will be paid less than the $10.10 required in the President’s executive order. 

I always support the rights of businesses to earn a profit in their 

chosen field. However, I do not support their right to earn extra 

profits at the expense of hard-working Americans. Just as business 

owners must provide for their families, so must the people who 

work for them. We must strike a balance between competing interests. I hope that today’s testimony can help us to do so with respect 

to the outdoor industry. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

I want to also note that decades of research have shown that 

raising the minimum wage raises economic growth, and raising the 

minimum wage is one of the most effective economic tools we have 

to ensure that the American working class retains its position as 

the most affluent in the world, a destination it’s recently lost. 

President Obama’s Executive Order 13658 established a minimum wage of $10.10 for businesses that contract with the Federal 

Government. The order was based on a well-supported finding that 

raising the pay of low-wage workers increases the quality of their 

work; more importantly, enables them to support themselves and 

their families. It should be noted that 29 States and the District 

of Columbia as well as 21 cities and counties have set their minimum wages above the $7.25. It is also important to note that data 

has shown that an individual that makes the current $7.25 minimum wage earns about $15,000 a year. Now, let’s assume that a 

husband and wife with two children both make the minimum wage 

and work full time. That’s a gross income of approximately 

$30,000. You break that down to monthly and weekly, having to 

feed, clothe, provide housing. I’m from Michigan. There is no public 

transportation, so cars, insurance, and gasoline. 

We are creating a society that I feel has effectively been addressed through the President’s executive order, and I do believe 

firmly that I have the responsibility in this Congress to ensure 

that, in America, that those who are working every day have what 

they call an opportunity and resources. If they work every day 

hard, and they do their jobs, that they can, at minimum, support 

their families and not be in poverty. 

Thank you so much, and I look forward to the testimony today. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the ranking member. 

We’re pleased that our fellow colleague from the full committee, 

Mr. Meadows, has joined us today. 

Without objection, Mr. Meadows is welcome to participate fully 

in today’s hearing. 

Welcome. 

Thank you. I’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any 

member who would like to submit a written statement. 

We’ll now recognize our distinguished witness on our first panel. 

I’m pleased to welcome our colleague, the Honorable Chris Stewart, 

Congressman from Utah’s Second District. 

Welcome, Congressman. We thank you for your appearance 

today, and we look forward to your testimony. We know you’re in 

a markup in another committee, so, without further ado, know that 

your entire written statement will be made part of the record. And 

the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRIS STEWART, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to be on 

the other side of the table here. It’s kind of lonely down here. 

Thank you for holding this hearing, Ranking Member Mrs. Lawrence as well, to give us this opportunity to look at how the President’s executive order on minimum wage is harming seasonal 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

recreation jobs and public lands and how I believe my bill, the Outdoor Recreation Enhancement Act, can address the problem. 

This may not be the most exciting issue, I recognize that, but it’s 

an important one. It impacts real people, and I appreciate the 

chance to be part of the discussion here today. And, again, I apologize in advance for the fact that I have to leave immediately after 

my testimony. 

Chairwoman, you and I both represent districts that are almost 

entirely controlled by the Federal Government. Federal ownership 

on our public lands has all kinds of frustrating outcomes for the 

residents of Western States, and I’m here to talk about one of those 

situations, where decisions made here in Washington, D.C., are 

hurting local businesses, local jobs, and access to public lands. 

In February of 2014, President Obama issued an executive order 

establishing a new minimum wage for Federal contractors which 

raises the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour for businesses operating under Federal contracts. 

First, I should note the minimum wage itself is a misguided economic policy that hurts the very people that we most want to help, 

those at the bottom of the economic scale. Study after study shows 

that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment among 

low-skilled workers. It accelerates the move from labor to capital 

and makes it harder—not easier but harder—for young people to 

get those entry-level jobs that develop the basic skills that helps 

workers advance and earn more. 

But, of course, we’re not here to talk about that. We want to talk 

about the impact the President’s actions are having on a specific 

industry. Because the executive order applies to businesses with a 

Federal contract, that includes guides and outfitters and other recreational businesses whose only connection to the Federal Government is a permit to operate on Federal lands. 

That permit is a pretty tenuous link, but it’s enough to bring 

these businesses under the President’s executive order. The Department of Labor’s subsequent interpretation of the order requires 

a number of new regulations that will add additional compliance 

cost to an industry that operates on very small margins. This increase will force many outfitting businesses to either close or to 

cease operations on public lands or to operate with fewer workers. 

Madam Chairwoman, as you know, my district is huge. It’s almost 40,000 square miles, and it comprises almost entirely of public land. We have four national parks and millions of acres of BLM 

and Forest Service land. Raising the cost of businesses to operate 

on these public lands will certainly have an impact on local jobs 

and the ability of guides and outfitters to provide the remarkable 

experience that attracts millions of visitors from around the world 

every year to our public lands. 

We have other witnesses here who I’m sure will elaborate on how 

some of these new costs will impact their businesses, but I’d like 

to briefly read from a letter sent to me by a tour operator located 

in my district that addresses his concerns. He says: ‘‘We very much 

want to maintain our commitment to the recreational experience in 

national parks and on public lands. However, the cost of compliance and the draconian overtime restrictions created by this rule 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

have significant impacts on our business. So this is very serious to 

us, and we may have to cease running trips in national parks.’’ 

This business owner is not alone. I’m sure that other witnesses 

today will testify of similar concerns. To address these problems, I 

again have proposed the Outdoor Recreation Enhancement Act just 

to simply clarify and expand an existing exemption to wage and 

hour laws for seasonal recreational establishments under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act. 

The bill will broaden this exemption, which currently exempts 

ski resorts to include businesses involving rafting, horseback 

riding, hiking, cycling, and other seasonal recreational business, 

and I think that’s key to point out: These are seasonal recreational 

businesses. 

It’s also important to emphasize that these—these businesses 

typically employ high school and college students who are looking 

for a position for a summer and want to spend time outdoors. Congress already recognized how these circumstances applied to similar industries almost 40 years ago when it exempted the ski business operating on public lands. 

My bill is a simple fix that will allow these businesses to continue to operate on Federal lands and allow all of us the opportunity to enjoy extraordinary experiences in our national parks and 

other public lands. And for those reasons, I’m grateful for this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. 

And, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back my time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 95822.001
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 95822.002
8 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Congressman Stewart, for being here 

today, and we so appreciate the work you’re doing on the Appropriations Committee. Your bill, I believe, is an important bill to address the very situation that is the subject of this hearing. 

With that, you are excused, and we will just pause while the next 

panel of witnesses joins us. Thank you. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Representative. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Gentlemen, please join us. And before I recognize 

you, could you—is it Lazzeri or Lazzeri? 

Mr. LAZZERI. It’s Lazzeri. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Lazzeri. Thank you so much. 

You ready? Okay. We will now recognize our second panel of witnesses. I am pleased to welcome Mr. Michael Lazzeri, Assistant Administrator for Government Contracts at the U.S. Department of 

Labor; Mr. Mike Cottingham, owner of Wilderness Ventures; and 

Mr. David Brown, executive director of the America Outdoors Association. 

Welcome, gentleman. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses 

will be sworn in before they testify, so please rise and raise your 

right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire statement, if it’s longer, will be made 

part of the record. 

I now would like to recognize our panel. Mr. Lazzeri, are you recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. Thank you for being here. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LAZZERI 

Mr. LAZZERI. Good morning, Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Lawrence, and members of the subcommittee, and I thank you 

for the invitation to testify today. I appreciate the opportunity to 

discuss the effect of the Executive Order 13658 on outfitters and 

guides operating on Federal lands. 

On February 12 of 2014, President Obama signed the executive 

order requiring certain parties that contract with the Federal Government to pay covered workers no less than $10.10 hourly wage. 

The order obligated the Department to issue regulations to implement its requirements. The Department, accordingly, proposed regulations implementing the executive order on June 17 of 2014 and 

published final regulations later that year on October 7. 

As Secretary Perez said upon issuance of the final rule: No one 

who works full time in America should have to raise their family 

in poverty, and if you serve meals to our troops for a living, then 

you shouldn’t have to go on food stamps to serve a meal to your 

family at home. 

By raising the minimum wage for workers on Federal contracts, 

we’re rewarding a hard day’s work with fair pay. This action will 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

also benefit taxpayers. Boosting wages lowers turnover and increases morale and will lead to higher productivity. 

The Department conducted a robust outreach effort during the 

drafting of the rule, including conducting a variety of listening sessions with private associations and other groups. The Department 

has continued to provide additional outreach since issuance of the 

final rule, producing a number of fact sheets, frequently asked 

questions, webinars, and other guidance to help contractors understand and implement the rules’ requirements. 

The Department has worked with contracting agencies to develop 

additional guidance concerning application of the executive order to 

particular agency agreements that apply to particular stakeholders. 

The order itself applies to four categories of contracts, including 

contracts in connection with Federal lands and related to providing 

services for the general public. Provided that such agreements 

qualify as new contracts, our final rule defined a new contract as 

one that results from a solicitation issued on or after January 1st 

of this year or that is awarded outside the solicitation process on 

or after January 1st of this year. 

So even if a contract satisfies these criteria, the order only covers 

individuals working on or in connection with the contract if those 

individuals’ wages are governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

the Service Contract Act, or the Fair Labor Standards Act. In their 

comments, the AOA and OARS companies sought clarification as to 

whether or not the order applies to special-use permits, commercial 

use authorizations, and outfitter and guide permits issued by the 

Departments of Interior and Agriculture. 

In its final rule, the Department defined contracts and contractlike instruments as agreements between two or more parties, creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at 

law, including but not limited to lease agreements, licenses, or permits. 

The permits addressed by AOA and OARS typically authorize the 

use of Federal land in exchange for the payment of fees to the Federal Government, creating obligations that enforceable or otherwise 

recognizable at law and, therefore, would constitute contracts 

under the purposes of the executive order. 

The Department considered the information provided by the AOA 

and OARS and determined that even if their contracts with the 

Federal Government were outside the scope of the Service Contract 

Act, those contracts were covered contracts because they authorize 

the use of Federal land and relate to offering services to the general public. 

In addition, wages of the workers on these contracts, even if not 

covered by the SCA, are likely covered by the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, and because the executive order applies only to new contracts, 

wage increases will not affect contractors that are midway through 

performance of the contract that was entered into before January 

1 of this year. We have found that assertions that a contractor will 

be adversely affected by the E.O. Often overlook not only the benefits of the E.O. But also the fact that the E.O. Only applies to new 

contracts with the Federal Government, enabling contractors to 

prepare for any potential economic impact of the E.O. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 

I would like to thank you again for inviting me to testify in the 

payment of the $10.10 minimum wage to outfitters and guides 

working on Federal lands. We invite the AOA and others to provide 

us, as well as our counterparts at Agriculture and Interior, with 

additional information they believe may assist those agencies in 

the development of additional guidance. We will do our part to provide them with our views. We welcome and look forward to continuing the dialogue. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lazzeri follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 95822.003
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 95822.004
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 95822.005
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 95822.006
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 95822.007
16 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 95822.008
17 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Lazzeri. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Cottingham for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE COTTINGHAM 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Thank you. How do I turn this on? Okay. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to offer my support for H.R. 2215 

and to explain why the Department of Labor rule, Executive Order 

13658, threatens the viability of my program and numerous similar 

travel camp programs and summer camps for youth operating on 

public lands. 

In 1973, my wife and I quit our teaching jobs in order to create 

an alternative educational experience for young people. The purpose of our program has been to assist young men and women in 

becoming responsible adults through team building, group living, 

and caring for one another in challenging outdoor activities. 

Since 1973, we have produced—provided life-altering experiences 

for over 24,000 young adults, including children of several Governors, Congressmen and women, and Senators. Our staff—our 

self-funded scholarship program enables at least 30 deserving 

young people, who couldn’t afford otherwise, to participate in these 

experiences each summer. 

Our programs operate in 17 federally designated wilderness 

areas in 12 national parks throughout the United States. These adventures range from 2 to 5 weeks in length and usually involve our 

subcontracting activities such as rock climbing and white water 

rafting. Executive Order 13658 would require our monitoring compliance of over 30 subcontractors we work with operating on Federal lands, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for 

us from both a personnel and a financial perspective. 

If they fail to meet the requirements of the Department of Labor 

rule and do not pay their staff the higher minimum wage for Federal contractors, then we would have to make up the difference. 

Each summer, we hire between 80 and 100 leaders who are current 

college students and graduate students. They work 6 weeks on average while they guide our groups on public lands. They also participate as clients with our students on a variety of subcontracted 

activities, such as climbing Washington’s Mount Rainier or Wyoming’s Grand Teton or rafting for 4 days on Idaho’s Salmon River 

or Utah’s Colorado River. As is the case with hundreds of summer 

camps and other similar travel camp programs for youth, we must 

price our programs competitively. 

The implementation of the Department of Labor rule would not 

only be impossible to calculate but would be impossible for anyone 

in the summer camp industry to afford, as it would increase our 

salaries dramatically. Implementation of Executive Order 13658 

would shut down many summer programs for youth unless they 

were eligible for an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

as it would be impossible to meet the payroll requirements of camp 

counselors who must be on call 24 hours a day for multiweek employment periods 

As a seasonal educational summer program for teens, we also 

view ourselves as a training program for young leaders. Nearly all 

of our staff members view their time with us as a break from the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

rigors of school or as a final opportunity to share their love for the 

outdoors with youth before they pursue life—full-time careers in 

law, business, medicine, the arts, et cetera. 

Leading a group of young adults for several weeks is a challenging and very fulfilling opportunity as it provides a platform 

for—which stresses responsibility, accountability, organization, and 

many other life skills required for success. I always tell my staff 

if you can successfully lead one of our programs, you are well prepared for future and larger challenges. 

I very much appreciate your attention to this issue and to the 

corrective action of H.R. 2215, which will be necessary to save 

many summer camps and travel camp programs similar to mine 

from going out of business. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Cottingham follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 95822.009
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 95822.010
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 95822.011
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 95822.012
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 95822.013
24 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Cottingham. 

And, Mr. Brown, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BROWN 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Representative Lawrence. I so much appreciate the opportunity 

to offer America Outdoors’ support for H.R. 2215, and I’m also testifying to explain why the Department of Labor rule implementing 

Executive Order 13658 threatens viability for many outfitters and 

guide companies operating on public lands. 

The implementation of this rule may force many of them out of 

business. While the minimum wage increase is an issue for some 

seasonal businesses which hire a large number of entry-level employees, a larger issue is compliance with the complex Department 

of Labor clause including in this rule, which will become part of 

every new permit. 

Permit holders are required to comply with the DOL clause or 

face potential disqualification and loss of the permit. As you will 

see from my testimony, compliance is very difficult for family-run 

seasonal businesses who do not have a team of labor lawyers on 

their staff. 

The Fair Labor Standards Act includes an exemption for employees hired by seasonal recreational establishments and a partial exemption for recreational establishments under permit by Federal 

land managing agency. Inconsistent interpretation of the recreational establishment provision under 13(a)(29) leaves many public land outfitters uncertain as to what overtime standard they are 

subject to. 

Some courts have ruled that recreational businesses do not qualify as an establishment under the FLSA if the recreation venue is 

more than 6 miles or, in one case, more than 9 miles from their 

headquarters. In these situations, some outfitters would qualify for 

the exemption, but others providing services in the same area 

might not. 

Outfitters with traveling camps may not qualify as a recreational 

establishment according to another court ruling. The DOL rule requires permit holders to enforce their contract clause, as my colleague mentioned, on their subcontractors to make up the difference between the executive order wage and the wage paid by the 

subcontractor. 

Some outfitters subcontract with other outfitters for services. 

Other subcontractors are not even operating on public lands. A 

guest ranch in Wyoming, for example, might be expected to require 

a laundry service to comply with the DOL rule and include the 

standard contract clause in their contract with the laundry service. 

Enforcing the DOL contract clause on a subcontractor will be impossible for seasonal recreational businesses. In analyzing the compliance quandary faced by many outfitters and guides, a law firm 

specializing in Fair Labor Standards Act compliance concluded, although most courts in the Department of Labor consider the same 

issues when determining whether a company is a seasonal recreational establishment, there is very little consensus regarding 

how to analyze these questions, much less the outcome of the review. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

If the courts, the Department of Labor, and various law firms 

cannot reach consensus on the interpretation of the FLSA in this 

area, how can a family-run business be expected to comply? Unfortunately, the quandary now puts their business at risk because it 

is part of permit compliance. 

The DOL rule also requires permit holders to enforce the contract clause under subcontractors, as I mentioned, and that is one 

of the other challenges that—with compliance that will be very difficult. Aside from the uncertainty and difficulty with compliance, 

the FSLA correctly interpreted the need for an exemption for seasonal recreational businesses. That exemption needs to be fully restored for these businesses to survive in the long term, and that 

is why we support H.R. 2215. 

Looking beyond the issues related to Executive Order 13658, the 

accumulation of regulations and their costs on these small outfitter 

and guide businesses are making their ability to provide services 

to the public increasingly tenuous. I respectfully request that you 

continue oversight and hope that members of the subcommittee 

will work together to encourage the executive branch to streamline 

and reduce the regulatory burdens which jeopardize employment in 

the high-quality recreational services the public currently enjoys on 

public lands. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 95822.014
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 95822.015
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 95822.016
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 95822.017
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 95822.018
31 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 95822.019
32 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, panel. 

The members of the committee will now ask questions, and the 

chair will begin. She will recognize herself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Lazzeri, in response to comments on the executive order implementing rule, Department of Labor said that any increase in 

costs to business would be offset by gains in output or quality of 

service, perhaps even increasing revenue. What study or information was used by DOL to reach this conclusion? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Thank you for your question, Madam Chairman. In 

studying the issue, the Department relied upon a number of empirical studies that focused on the impacts of productivity that increasing the minimum wage could have or increased wages. I’m 

prepared and very happy to provide a very complete answer in a 

question for the record following rather than citing individual studies, if that’s okay. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. We may follow up with you asking for copies of 

those empirical studies. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. In response to comments that raising the minimum wage of the seasonal employees would lead to staff reductions, Department of Labor said there were alternative ways for 

these businesses to operate without reducing staff. 

Mr. Lazzeri, what are these alternatives? 

Mr. LAZZERI. That’s a very good question, and thank you again. 

When we looked at the potential economic impacts, again, we studied increases in productivity that could result from an increase in 

the minimum wage and the potential that an increase in the quality of the services that are provided could in turn lead to an increase in the number of customers that would bring additional revenue to a particular employer. In the Department’s final rule, we 

did consider this information generally. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Has DOL performed an analysis of the outfitting 

and guide industry to identify better ways they can operate? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Thank you again for the question. I believe that, 

you know, the Department, when we considered the information 

that was presented to us, and as in any rule of general applicability, we look at the impacts of a particular rule pursuant to the 

Executive Order 12866. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So the answer is no? The answer is no, right? 

Mr. LAZZERI. We’re happy to take additional information to—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, wait a minute. The answer to the question. 

Mr. LAZZERI. The answer to the question specific to that industry, we did not look at the particular impacts of the rule on any 

particular industry. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Cottingham, the Department of Labor says this order is good 

for everyone because it will result in reduced absenteeism and 

turnover, improve employee morale, increase quality of services. 

Could you comment on that statement as it applies to your business? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Yes, ma’am. First of all, implementation of this 

would basically put me out of business. It’s—would—our average 

salaries are about $2,500 a summer, and it would turn the industry, at least for teenagers and summer camps for children, into 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

elitist opportunities only for people with a ton of money who could 

possibly afford it, and I see that as a real, real problem. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So you don’t believe it will make your business 

more successful? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Well, no. It could not make it more successful. 

I would not be able to have a clientele except for maybe 50 or 100 

people who could probably afford to pay what I would have to 

charge. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So you would have to reduce staff or just—— 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Totally reduce staff or go out of business in my 

particular case, yeah. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Brown, can you talk about the important impact the members of your association have on the economies of 

local communities? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, in one recent economic study on the Ocoee 

River, the recreation activity on that river created 622 full-time job 

equivalents, and $43 million in economic benefits within a 60-mile 

radius. That is a rural county, very poor, so many of the local residents sustain themselves, in part, by the jobs—seasonal jobs on 

that river. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Because they operate seasonally and the seasonal 

nature of these businesses makes it a different business model 

from the traditional model, should there be a different minimum 

wage requirement? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think that the basic Federal minimum wage 

requirement is, you know, obviously, the one that should exist for 

these businesses. Seasonal—or, you know, the exemption from the 

seasonal, there was—in 1939, Fair Labor Standards Act anticipated an exemption for seasonal recreational businesses, which 

was appropriate, I think, and that’s what we’re trying to restore. 

It’s an exemption that exists for organized camps, for ski areas, 

and for a number of other nonprofit conference centers and a number of other similar businesses. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. My time is expired. 

I now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for your information here today. 

My first question goes to Mr. Lazzeri, correct? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Lazzeri. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Can you explain why the outfitter and guide 

business was no longer exempted from the FLSA, Fair Labor 

Standard Act, starting in 1977? It is my understanding that the exemption was removed, and today, the discussion again centers 

around making those businesses exempt so that the Federal minimum wage would no longer apply. Can you tell me the history, 

why was it removed? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I’m happy to, Ranking Member Lawrence. Thank 

you for the question. We’ve looked at again the legislative history 

for the 1977 amendments and their specific mention of wilderness 

workers and why they were pulled out of the exemption, and it was 

based on just a simple premise that for work that’s performed on 

Federal land, should be covered by Federal laws and standards. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Can you tell me why the Department of Labor, 

why are the outfitter and guide businesses, which hold permits, are 

required to be covered by the executive order? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I’d be happy to. Thank you. When we looked at the 

requirements of the executive order and the categories of covered 

contracts in the executive order, there were four. There were contracts that were covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, by the Service 

Contract Act, concession contracts that have previously not been 

covered by the Service Contract Act, and then also a fourth category, which is the category which is relevant today. And it was 

agreements that were in connection with the use of Federal lands 

for the general public, and when we looked and in our notice of proposed rulemaking and also with the comments and considered the 

information that was provided to us, it seemed to be fairly clear 

that the executive order intended these particular agreements to be 

exempted—I’m sorry, these particular agreements to be covered by 

the executive order 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Cottingham, can you explain to me, you 

mentioned your industry and the services you provide, which are 

very impressive. Why should the people who work on Federal lands 

in the outfitter and guide industry make less money than other employees by Federal contractors on those very same lands, why? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. First of all, in my particular situation, my employees are on duty 24 hours a day. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Uh-huh. 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. So we are talking about a minimum wage plus 

overtime on a 96-hour week if my calculations are correct, and that 

type of level of wage is simply not possible in the summer camp 

industry. It’s just not possible to achieve, and—did I answer that 

question to your—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. I have a followup question. 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Yes, go ahead. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. In your timekeeping requirement for your employees, aren’t there guides that when they’re on several days, they 

have logs of sleep time and interruption, so if a person is out on 

one of these, there is actual—they are not on the clock for the 

whole 24 hours; aren’t there logs for sleep time and interruptions? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Yes. It’s my understanding, Congresswoman, 

that the—you know, you have to obviously get sleep when you can 

get sleep, but—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. But it’s not a 24-hour. If someone is out on a— 

they are not paid for every single hour that they are—— 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. No, no, they get paid on a salary basis. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Okay. I have another question. 

Mr. Brown, you stated something that it was kind of what I— 

a point I wanted to make. You said that you—it’s a rural area, and 

there is poverty, and the jobs that we’re talking about aren’t only 

young college students. They are not only the people who are entry 

level. The type of jobs that we’re talking about sometimes sustain, 

in those rural areas, employment and income on off-seasons for 

people in your area; is that correct? 

Mr. BROWN. I think, if I understand your question, yeah, 

they’re—these are—a lot of this income is supplemental. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes, that’s my point. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. BROWN. Yeah. And it’s certainly for the students and the 

entry-level employees, it’s—you’re helping them get through college 

or—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. But it’s also supplemental for those who live in 

that area. 

Mr. BROWN. Yeah, exactly. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. For working adults. 

Mr. BROWN. And most of those working adults are actually paid 

more than the minimum wage, so that’s just not an issue for the 

more experienced employees in the managerial positions. Usually, 

if they’ve got families, you know, they have enough experience that 

they’re making more than the minimum wage. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. But they hold these jobs we’re talking about, 

correct? 

Mr. BROWN. Some of the—well, they hold higher levels. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. They do hold these jobs we’re talking about, 

working—— 

Mr. BROWN. Working higher level jobs, yes 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. —adults. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. The entry-level jobs are usually held by students 

and young people. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. But they have the same job classification. 

Mr. BROWN. Different duties. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. But they are classified as outfitters, correct? 

Mr. BROWN. They are classified usually as guides or managers. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady. 

And the chair now have recognizes Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for 

your leadership on this particular issue. 

It is of critical importance to me in that outdoor outfitters are a 

vital part of western North Carolina. 

Mr. Brown, you mentioned the Ocoee. There’s the Ocoee. There’s 

the Nantahala. There’s the Chattooga. There’s a number of different outfitters in my area. Sadly, in those counties, very close to 

many of those outfitters, the unemployment rate is at 15 percent 

still today, and yet here we have, Mr. Lazzeri, a rule that threatens 

to put many of those businesses out of business, and so the augmenting—you know, it’s great to say that we have a minimum 

wage at $10.10 an hour, but when you don’t have a job, it doesn’t 

really matter. 

So Mr. Lazzeri, I’m going to go to you because I’m troubled by 

some of the logic. You opened up with a quote with Mr. Perez that 

says no full-time worker should have to work, and yet we’re not 

really talking about full-time workers here. We’re talking about 

part time and seasonal, so how would that apply to your opening 

quote from Mr. Perez? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Well, thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Or wouldn’t? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Well, thank you, Congressman. 

When the Department is considering the executive order and 

conducted its economic analysis, as I stated before, we looked very 

broadly at the impact of the executive order on all workers who 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

would be impacted and all employers who would be impacted. 

Therefore, we don’t look at the specific economic impact on one individual employer. We do recognize, however, in the executive 

order final rule, through our economic analysis, that any impact for 

the increase in cost can be offset by the increase in benefits to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Now, how is that? You keep saying that. How 

many seasonal businesses have you actually owned, Mr. Lazzeri? 

I’ve owned four of them, so you tell me how that’s going to happen 

because it sounds real good, but I am very troubled by you suggesting that it can be offset when—have you made payroll for seasonal businesses on a regular basis? 

Mr. LAZZERI. And, again, I appreciate your question, Congressman. My role today—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes or no. Have you owned seasonal businesses? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I have not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Thank you. 

So let me go further. How can you make that kind of assumption? Hold on. Let me clarify that because that’s too open-ended. 

Mr. Cottingham is sitting there right beside you. 

Mr. Cottingham, when we look at the business that you make, 

how much of your income that you get paid by the Federal Government to do? I mean, do they contract with you and pay you for 

these tours and guidance services? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. No, they do not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So they are not actually contracting with you and 

paying you with Federal dollars. What you are in fact doing is getting a special-use permit to actually come on Federal lands; is that 

correct? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. That is correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because we can understand if you were getting 

Federal tax dollars and we were paying you for that to set this new 

standard. 

Mr. Lazzeri, do you not see the difference between the two of 

those? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Congressman, what I—and I appreciate, again, the 

question. What I can say is that the executive order was very clear. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you see a difference? You’re answering—you’re 

giving great answers to questions that I’m not asking. So do you 

see a difference between someone who pays for a service and then, 

Mr. Cottingham, who is getting a special use permit, is there a difference? Yes or no. 

Mr. LAZZERI. Congressman, I, again, I appreciate the distinction 

that you’re making. However, we did consider all of the information 

that was provided to us when we considered the final rule in connection with our economic analysis. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, since you considered it, is there a difference, 

yes or no? 

Mr. LAZZERI. That would be reflected in our economic analysis. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you saw no difference. 

Mr. LAZZERI. It was very clear to the Department through the executive order that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Then let me go—since you’re not going 

to answer that question, let me give you a different question. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

How are you implementing this particular rule with regards to 

people who have a special-use permit here on the National Mall? 

Mr. LAZZERI. That’s a great question, Congressman. 

We are continuing to provide additional outreach and guidance 

to all contractors, including contractors—including businesses that 

are covered in—for special-use permits, commercial use authorizations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you have implemented it with regards to everybody who demonstrates here on the National Mall, their contractors, subcontractors, and everybody else have to meet this new 

standard. 

Mr. LAZZERI. In May of this year, we recently conducted a 

webinar for all contractors where we answered questions live from 

contractors, regardless of their background and interested stakeholders, and we’ll continue to do so. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s not the question I asked. I said, are you 

enforcing it, yes or no? 

Mr. LAZZERI. The Department is enforcing the executive order on 

covered contracts. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Here on the National Mall? Because I want you 

to submit that to the committee, and actually, I’m here today because of some of the people that are in my district because it’s personal to me; it’s going to put people out of business in western 

North Carolina. But I also have oversight over your particular 

agency and how it handles it, and so I would ask you give that to 

the committee on how you’re doing it here on the National Mall because, under your definition, there is no difference from Mr. 

Cottingham and anybody else that gets a special-use permit here 

on the National Mall. 

Mr. LAZZERI. We’d be happy to provide it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you—are you implementing that? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Specifically to the National Mall, I would have to 

do additional research and be able to provide you a response. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Madam Chair, you have been very generous with your time. 

I yield back 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

Mr. Lazzeri, what is the meaning of verbal agreements covered 

by the rule? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I’m sorry. Can you repeat the question, please, Congressman? 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. What is the meaning of a verbal agreement 

covered by the rule? 

Mr. LAZZERI. A verbal agreement, I’d have to—I’d have to be able 

to research that and get back to you. I don’t know that we distinguish verbal agreements from any other type of agreement. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, following on Mr. Meadows’ questions and how 

you have gone from giving permits to companies like Mr. 

Cottingham’s organization to operate on Federal land, you’ve now 

decided that that verbal agreement or that permit is now a contract, and so you’re going to impose this wage standard. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Mr. Cottingham and Mr. Brown, you can respond to this as well 

if you’d like. The Department of Labor has contended that the outfitters have failed to consider that their sales might increase due 

to better service being offered by employees with higher morale. 

Are your employees suffering a low morale? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I don’t think any of my employees are suffering low morale. If you can climb Mount Rainier in the summer, 

kayak in Glacier Bay National Park, it is an amazing opportunity. 

And they love working with kids. They love sharing their love for 

the out of doors. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. I think this rule actually has the reverse 

effect. It does not increase the income of entry-level employees because these businesses are actually competing with other businesses outside public lands and have to set their prices accordingly, 

and so what a lot of outfitters are doing is having to reduce hours 

to stay on budget, and so the effect on morale certainly is not what 

the Department of Labor would anticipate from that standpoint. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, these businesses are different anyway from 

traditional businesses in that they are seasonal and they’re subject 

to a different minimum wage requirement. Would that be an accurate statement? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. The guides and outfitters typically operate by paying the Federal Government for a permit to provide certain services to the consumers on Federal lands. How would you 

distinguish—and this is for you, Mr. Brown. How would you distinguish this permit arrangement from traditional contracts entered 

into between other entities? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, the permit is actually, it says in the permit 

that it’s not a contract. There are different—I think, if I’m answering your question, I understand it, there are Park Service contracts, and then there’s certainly contracts that permit holders will 

have with other entities. The permit is—the Forest Service says 

the permit is not a contract, and BLM will say the same thing. The 

only contract specifically in our industry are Park Service concessions contracts. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Lazzeri, having heard his response, why is it 

the Department of Labor now classifies these as contract-like instruments? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Thank you for the question, Congressman. When 

we looked at developing the notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

final rule, we referred back to the executive order definition. And 

the fourth category of covered contracts is agreements for the use 

of Federal land for the general public. And then, for us, when we 

looked at the information that was provided and even during the 

comment period and the information that was provided by the 

American Outdoors Association and OARS company, another contractor or employer, we—we didn’t see that there was—we at least 

saw that it was very clear that these types of agreements were contemplated as being covered by the executive order explicitly. 

Mr. PALMER. But you’ve never defined it like that before until 

now. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mr. LAZZERI. Well, the executive order in the third and fourth 

category of contracts covered a number of contracts that were previously not covered by the service—or by the Davis-Bacon Act or 

arguably by the Service Contract Act. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. I want to go back to a line of questions that 

Mr. Meadows was on, and he asked you if you had ever had a seasonal business. Have you ever worked for a business? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Have I worked for a business? 

Mr. PALMER. Have you ever owned a business? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I have not owned my own business. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. I doubt you’ll be able answer this, but I’ll 

throw it out just in case. Anyone involved in this process making 

this determination have—how many of those have ever owned a 

business? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I do not have that information, Congressman. 

Mr. PALMER. My guess is, Mr. Lazzeri, that most of you never— 

not only never owned a business, you probably haven’t worked for 

a business, which I think explains a lot of how we come up with 

some of these policies that impact groups like Mr. Cottingham’s 

and industries like Mr. Brown represents, and it—it is one of those 

areas that kind defies common sense. It’s rulemaking outside of an 

area of expertise that does not do any good. It doesn’t increase morale, and it doesn’t—it doesn’t help create an environment where 

these businesses can make a living and thrive and offer opportunities for a lot of young people like Mr. Brown is talking about. It 

just makes no sense. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. We’ll now go to a second 

round of questions, and the chairman recognizes herself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Lazzeri, would the rule apply to someone who gets a permit 

for filming on public lands? 

Mr. LAZZERI. For nonpublic lands? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Public lands. If someone is filming on public lands, 

would the rule apply? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I would have to get back to you on that. For the 

particular instance, a lot depends on the contract and particular 

services that are provided in the agreement 

Mrs. LUMMIS. It’s a permit. 

Mr. LAZZERI. Again, respectfully, Madam Chairman, I would 

have to consider that again. I don’t want to provide an answer for 

you that’s not complete or accurate. I’d rather be able to consider 

and provide you a more complete response. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, I would ask for that. Please submit in writing 

whether it applies. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. What other permits would fall under the rule requirement? 

Mr. LAZZERI. So there are special-use permits, commercial-use 

authorizations, so permits, for example, in the Forest Service for 

use of other lands, so there’s those types of permits; permits issued 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service. There’s a number of different permits or lease agreements. In addition, concessions contracts that 

were previously not covered under the Service Contract Act are 

now covered. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Does it apply to interns at the Wage and Hour Division? 

Mr. LAZZERI. That’s an excellent question. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Would you let me know? Would you answer that 

question in writing as well? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I will go back, and I will provide you a response. 

However, the key to coverage for the executive order is not just 

that it’s a covered contract under the executive order, but they 

would have to be covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act, so 

if they are not—if they’re an intern that’s not covered by the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, they’ll likely not be covered. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Cottingham, can you walk me through how 

this would apply to overnight stays? What kind of recordkeeping 

would be required if I were an employee of yours taking young people out on public lands for an overnight trip? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. It would require another full-time employee, at 

least one, in my office—at least one to monitor all of this. And it 

would keep—it would also require my leaders to keep logs in the 

back country, which is another hindrance to their primary charge, 

and that is the wellbeing and the care of the young adults that 

they’re working with. And I see that that would be—would be very 

burdensome. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Brown, do you represent other businesses that 

do overnight trips? 

Mr. BROWN. We—mostly outfitters and guides. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. So—— 

Mr. BROWN. We have guest ranches as well. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So these people are out on horseback sometimes? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, hunting trips, a variety of outdoor recreation 

experiences. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So are they going to have to take notebooks with 

them to keep track of—to log all this, like when they’re asleep, 

when they’re awake? 

Mr. BROWN. They would. And it’s even more complex than that 

because they have to keep track of the meals they eat and then 

take the value of those meals, add those to the base wage when 

overtime is calculated. If they operate under a covered—if they’re 

employed under a covered contract, activity is under a covered contract, and activities not under a covered contract, they have to keep 

records—precise records of the time spent on the activities under 

the covered contract and the activities that are not on the covered 

contract. 

For example, if you’re not working on a permitted activity, you’re 

working doing something at a guest ranch, you know, that’s not related to the permitted activity, you’re not covered by the rule, but 

in order to not have to pay, or you know, to—you have to have very 

precise records. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And so the employee has to understand when 

they’re working on a covered contract versus non? 

Mr. BROWN. That’s correct. If they’re keeping the log, and very 

often, as you know, when you’re working two or three different 

types, multitasking at any business, small business, you’re hopping 

from one task to the next, you might be packing lunches for a pack 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

trip out in the back country one minute and the next minute you 

might be tending to horses that are used just on a guest ranch. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I can’t imagine the complications associated with 

this rule for outfitters and guides. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Last question. Mr. Lazzeri, sort of on a different 

subject. I know the wage and hour division is currently working on 

updating the special procedures that govern the H–2A Visa Program. Sheep and cattle grazers help the Federal Government manage much of its Federal land. Many of my constituents utilize the 

program, the H–2A Visa Program, and, for example, Mountain 

Plains Agricultural Service in Casper, Wyoming works with them. 

Mountain Plains has repeatedly tried to meet with your division to 

discuss their concerns and provide input but has been denied. I 

know you’re dealing with a deadline imposed by a court case, but 

will you commit your organization to meet with them and other 

stakeholder groups? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I appreciate the question. My role, Madam Chairwoman, is to represent the wage and hour division particular to my 

specific branches in the government contracts arena. What I can do 

is I can take back the concerns that you have and be able to raise 

them with our leadership. I can commit to that. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. And I would ask you to identify a specific person that will respond in writing to my request. And thank 

you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mrs. Lawrence, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I just want to say I have to go to another committee meeting, but my goal on my bucket list is whitewater rafting. So I may see you gentlemen soon. 

Mr. MEADOWS. If the gentlewoman will yield for just a second, 

you have a standing invitation to come to western North Carolina 

at my expense. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Well, I get to determine what level of the whitewater rafting. That’s the only thing. 

Gentlemen, today I hear the concerns of the industry. Mr. 

Lazzeri, can you please tell me if with the executive order, is it immediate, is there a phase-in? What would be the impact or the 

timeframe on the impact that this executive order will have on this 

industry? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Well, the executive order, in the final rule, the Department defined new contracts as covered. The new contracts entered into after January 1 of this year. So if a permit holder had 

an existing permit in December of last year and they had a 2-year 

permit, as I believe that the AOA has specified are commonplace, 

then they would not be required to be in compliance with the executive order and pay the $10.10 until 2 years—until the expiration 

of their contract. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I have a question. There’s a lot of concern because the businesses are operating as you are now, but we’re saying things like it’s going to have—Mr. Brown, you stated it’s going 

to result in unemployment and reducing of pay. What is your data 

and where do you get that data from? Is it a concern? Has it been 

documented? Where does that—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

Mr. BROWN. Well, it’s actually—excuse me. Thank you, Congresswoman. It’s actually what my members who’ve had this—the contract clause on their permit have said. Some, as Mr. Lazzeri said, 

new permits have the contract clause on them, and we have some 

outfitters who’ve gotten contracts—new clause—new permits with 

the contract clause on it. In fact, they were told that December 1 

it was going to be on their permit which was issued shortly after 

the first of the year. They were totally unprepared for it because 

they’d already sold trips. And so their response was that they had 

to adjust their employment, reduce employment, cut hours. They 

went from 8-hour days to 7-hour days, for example, in order to accommodate the increase of pre-entry level employees primarily. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Two things that I heard. I firmly believe that 

raising the minimum wage has a positive impact on all of America, 

and I’m very strong on that. But I do also understand that in doing 

business that you need the opportunity to make those adjustments, 

and there is an immediate impact. 

Mr. Lazzeri, you have stated that there has been some training. 

I would like for the record, what are you doing to assist these companies in the transition? Some of the things that were stated by 

Mr. Cottingham and Mr. Brown in this industry you’re already 

doing because you already have individuals who are performing 

these tasks and you are keeping because you have a Federal contract now and you do have to separate the activities. So I don’t see 

that as being an additional burden. I see that as you doing business. 

The last question I have. How long, Mr. Cottingham, have you 

been in the business? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Congresswoman Lawrence, I have been in the 

business for—this will be the 43rd year. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Wow. So I would consider you a pro. What I 

want stated for the record, during that time, the fee that you 

charge for individuals participating in your services, they’ve been 

increased over the years. Correct? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Some years, yes. Not all. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. But over the, let’s say the last 10 years, you’ve 

increased the fees, I’m sure. 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Most certainly, as cost of living has increased. 

Yes. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. And the point I want to make is the cost 

of living has increased and you had to make business decisions, 

people who work every day are confronted with that same issue, 

and fundamentally that’s why I am a very strong component of increasing the minimum wage. And as businesses must do what they 

need to do to meet their bottom line because we need strong industry, across the country they’re making those decisions to raise the 

cost of their services. 

I drive an automobile. There’s never been the same price, but we 

also need to be focused on the cost. But I feel that the—we should 

support you in preparing you for that so you can make the right 

decisions. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

And the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Madam chair. 

Mr. Lazzeri, since we are talking about outfitters, it would be appropriate for me to say that I have a burr in my saddle with regards to this particular rule that you have put forth. And so in saying that, can you assure the committee that you are fairly and 

equally, with the emphasis on equally, applying this rule to all U.S. 

citizens who contract in one way or another under your definition, 

with the Federal Government, are all of them having to meet the 

same standards? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Thank you, Congressman. What I can say is that 

we are—we do our best, for all the laws we enforce, to ensure that 

we enforce them consistently and fairly for all employers, and on 

the behalf of all employees regardless of background. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So you’re doing your best. So how do you 

do that? Going back to be the National Mall, other than your 

Webinar training, how are you putting the same requirements on 

those permit holders as you would Mr. Brown’s members or Mr. 

Cottingham? How are you doing that? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Thank you, Congressman. We work very closely 

with contracting agencies to make sure that they have the right 

training so that way they’re inserting the contract clauses appropriately—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But it’s a different standard, Mr. Lazzeri. And 

let’s have an intellectual discussion here. There’s a difference between enforcement and training. So how are you enforcing that 

with regards to that? 

Mr. LAZZERI. And I appreciate the question, Congressman. We 

treat those equally. We provide an equal amount of outreach and 

enforcement, not just for this particular executive order, but for all 

the laws we enforce. And we’ll continue to do so and have made 

the offer to the AOA. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you mentioned that you listened to 

all kinds of stakeholders while you were doing this rule. The majority of the stakeholders that responded, were they in favor of this 

rule? 

Mr. LAZZERI. In the comment period, Congressman, to answer 

your question, I appreciate it again, we received 6,500 comments, 

not all unique. We received about 100 unique comments opposed to 

the rule. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so are you suggesting that there was 6,400 

unique responses in favor of the rule? 

Mr. LAZZERI. No. But I can get you more specific information as 

far as the breakout of the numbers. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you’re saying only 100 people complained in the comment period? 

Mr. LAZZERI. During the comment period, we received only 100 

comments—or I don’t want to say only. We received one—because 

every one is valuable—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many of those recommendations did you 

implement? Well because you keep coming back to talk about the 

executive order said this, the executive order said that, and it 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

sounds like you didn’t really pay attention to any of the stakeholder input as much as you did what the executive order said. 

Mr. LAZZERI. Well, Congressman, we did make changes to the 

final rule to exempt new contracts from the coverage of the rule. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But in this particular case, there’s a new contract—if I’m traveling on a Federal road and paying a toll, I enter 

into a new contract each and every time that I do that because I’m 

paying a fee to use a Federal asset. So is that a new contract? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Congressman, I would prefer not to respond to the 

particular circumstance without giving it more thought. But my 

understanding is that would probably not be covered by the executive order. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So what about if I lease a building from 

the Federal Government? Do I have to comply with those standards 

when you’re the lessor? 

Mr. LAZZERI. There are a number of requirements, Congressman, 

not just under the executive order but the Service Contract Act 

that would govern contracts governed by lease agreements as well. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So I would have to meet the new executive order 

if I’m a lessee? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Well, Congressman, you would likely have to comply with not just the executive order but also the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But that’s a different number. And so—when we 

really look at that. So let me go on a little bit further. 

Is there, in your opinion, any way that we can give a waiver to 

seasonal businesses and that you re-address this and work this 

without us doing a legislative fix? Are you willing to look at that? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Thank you, Congressman. We’re happy to take additional information. However, we did consider these types of 

agreements in conjunction with the scope of the executive order, 

and we determined that these agreements were clearly ones that 

were meant to be covered by the very terms of the executive order. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, again, it was more what the executive order 

said than what the stakeholders said. 

Mr. LAZZERI. We considered both. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So how many—how many times did you 

go out and visit seasonal businesses before you made your rule? 

You personally. How many times did you go? Since you’re one of 

the ones that are in charge, how many times did you travel to see 

the impact? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I can’t comment on that. I actually don’t have—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So did you go or not? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I can’t tell you for sure—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you don’t know whether you went to a seasonal business or not? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I can look back and I can respond, but I can respond in questions for the record if you prefer. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it wasn’t that long ago. So did you travel to 

go and visit personally or not? Come on, Mr. Lazzeri. 

Mr. LAZZERI. I do not want to provide you with an answer that’s 

inaccurate, Congressman. But I do appreciate the question, and I 

understand the importance of this issue to you. And I do want to 

provide you with a more complete response. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you may have. 

Mr. LAZZERI. I can’t say for sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chairwoman, I find it just amazing. I 

hope that his wife or—if you’re married—— 

Mr. LAZZERI. I am. 

Mr. MEADOWS. —that you can remember your anniversary better 

than you can potential trips. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCK. And I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from 

North Carolina. I’m enjoying this. So I don’t have any questions. 

So if you’d like to continue. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I have one other question, Mr. Lazzeri. If you say 

you’re willing to take additional input but yet it’s not going to affect the outcome, why take the additional input? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Well, I can talk about the testimony provided by 

the American Outdoors Association as an example. Providing additional compliance assistance can resolve some of the issues that 

have been raised that we believe may not be exactly accurate. For 

example, for meals and breaks, under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act the AOA has referred to that as a burden. But that burden, as 

it’s described, is currently required by the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, but only if you take a credit as an employer against the minimum wage. 

So you’re already reducing the hourly pay for that hour where a 

meal break is being provided. That is why these employers are provided—or asked to keep logs. And for the Department, we would 

be happy to provide additional compliance assistance, because we 

think that there are ways, just based on the testimony, that we can 

help clarify some of the misperceptions that we believe the industry 

has about the rule. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Madam Chairman, I want to close with 

one other request. Mr. Lazzeri, since you can’t seem to recall 

whether you’ve been there or not, are you willing to accompany me 

to some of the seasonal businesses in western North Carolina so 

that you can see firsthand what you’re talking about and the rules 

that you are and how they potentially impact people that are dealing with double digit unemployment in western North Carolina? 

Are you willing to go with me? I’ll be glad to pay. 

Mr. LAZZERI. I appreciate that, Congressman. I would have to 

consult with the Department as far as what I can do. However, I’m 

more than happy to consult with also additional employers. In addition, members for the AOA, we’re happy to respond to any questions that they have specifically to help them to be able to comply 

with the law. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I thank you, Madam Chairman, for your 

leadership on this issue. I yield back to the gentleman from Colorado. I appreciate you graciousness. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Cottingham, anything that you want to mention today that 

hasn’t come up? Anything that you think is important to put on the 

record? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Well, I’ve been in business for 43 years, and 

I don’t know how many employees I’ve had over all those years. A 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

lot. I’ve never met a mountain guide on Mount Rainier, Grand 

Teton, Mount Shasta, I’ve never met a river rafting guide on any 

of the rivers I’ve run who had low morale engaging in those kinds 

of activities. 

When I led for the first 9 years—I didn’t just start a company 

and hire a bunch of people. I actually led. I led for 9 straight years 

with my wife. And those were the finest, most rewarding summers 

I ever had in my life. And when I hire a young person today, as 

a leader, I am so thrilled that they have an opportunity to have 

the experience that I had. 

So I would just like to add that because I think it—you—the Department of Labor misses the whole point about the need for this 

exemption, because these jobs are for people who are not—in my 

particular case, I can tell you that they aren’t people who are trying to put bread on the table and feed their families. They are people who are doing this because they just love the opportunity to 

share their enthusiasm. It’s a pretty amazing group of people. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you. Mr. Brown, same question. 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think one of the concerns we have is the subcontractor requirement that—to require the Department of Labor 

contract clause to be put on any subcontract that a permittee has. 

We’re still unclear on who qualifies as a subcontractor. We asked 

the Department of Labor to clarify that, and they referred us to the 

Service Contract Act. Well, there aren’t many permittees who have 

the opportunity or inclination to read the Service Contract Act. So 

that would be one of the real concerns we have about implementation of the rule. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. 

And we have been joined by Ms. Plaskett from the Virgin Islands. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. Thank you so much for your time. I don’t 

have that many questions. I know there’s been quite a bit of discussion going back and forth on this, and that Ranking Member Lawrence did ask some questions previously. 

I just had just a couple that I wanted to speak on. Mr. Brown, 

I know that this was asked to Mr. Cottingham, but, Mr. Brown, 

your testimony about the guides in the back country for several 

days have to keep logs of sleep time and any interruptions. The 

value of meals they eat have to be calculated and added to hourly 

computation for overtime wages. Is that correct that keeping these 

records are not specified in the executive order? 

Mr. BROWN. No. Well, there’s a requirement, Congresswoman, to 

maintain records for examination. And so I would presume that 

those records are required, although they’re not referred to in the 

rule. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But it would be something that you would expect 

to be kept? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And how would that change the amount of wages 

that individuals are receiving if you were to calculate that as well? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, potentially if you certainly took the credit for 

sleep time, it would reduce the amount of pay. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right. Because you’re sleeping probably almost as 

much as you’re working. Right? 

Mr. BROWN. No. Probably not. Probably working more than 

sleeping. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Well, that’s how I work, but I don’t know 

how other people—but it would significantly make the amount of 

pay that individuals are receiving per hour of a significant change? 

Mr. BROWN. It would change the gross pay, yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And when we talk about the gross pay, Mr. 

Cottingham, in earlier testimony there was discussion about average salaries for the summer, $300 to $500 a summer. How many 

months is that? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Excuse me. I don’t quite understand $300 to 

$500. What are you referring to? Our average salary is approximately $2,500 for a 6- to 7-week employment period. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Okay. The employment period is how long? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Six to seven weeks. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. So for 6 or 7 weeks they’re making how 

much in gross pay? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Twenty-five hundred dollars, plus they are getting the bonuses of being able to climb major peaks, raft rivers 

and—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. So the $300 to $500 amount, what is that? Per 

week, then? Is that what this is? 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I didn’t say anything about $300 to $500. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Yeah. No. 

Ms. PLASKETT. All right. Thank you for that clarification. 

Mr. Brown, you can you describe any other specific burdens that 

the executive order will generate for businesses? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, the one issue that I described a little earlier 

was the requirement, for example, if you have an employee that 

works under a covered part—part-time under covered contracts and 

then part-time under activities that are not covered under the Department of Labor rule, then assuming that they are not paid the 

same scale for those other activities outside the covered contract, 

precise records have to be maintained so that you are able to show 

the Department of Labor how many hours are worked under the 

activities covered by the contract. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But that would just be good business practice 

anyway. Would it not? 

Mr. BROWN. It would not be required without this Department 

of Labor rule. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And, Mr. Lazzeri—is that the correct—— 

Mr. LAZZERI. Yes. It is. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. I’m very particular about the pronunciation 

of my name. So I try to get people’s correct. 

How do you respond to business concerns about the increased 

labor cost affecting profitability? And then how has the Department 

responded to that if there are those business concerns? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Thank you for the question. We—as described in 

the executive order, we did a careful economic analysis, and it was 

our determination based on that analysis that any additional costs 

that would be borne by employers could be offset by additional proVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:51 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\95822.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

ductivity increases, reduced turnover, less absenteeism, lower supervisory costs, for example, and the Department continues to provide additional outreach and guidance and are willing to do so for 

the AOA and its members, to Mr. Cottingham, and to others who 

have additional questions about how to comply with the law and 

how to comply in an easier manner, so to speak. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for the 

time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. I want to go back to that previous question. Thank 

you, Madam Chairman. 

You were saying that it would increase productivity and efficiency, but earlier in the rule it says increased costs can be offset 

in contract negotiations entered into by the businesses and its suppliers and consumers. This would imply that those people who did 

your little analysis might have anticipated that there’d be a cost 

increase. 

And you said this would—it also said this would either mean the 

payments it makes to the Forest Service and other land managements agencies or to customers who are Americans, usually a taxpayer, on land. Will the Department of Labor ensure that other 

Federal land management entities such as the Forest Service, for 

instance, will charge guides and outfitters less for public land permits to make up for the increased labor costs caused by the executive order? Any plans for that? 

Mr. LAZZERI. We’ve been working with other Federal partners 

like the United States Forest Service to be able to answer questions from the regulated community and from their specific stakeholders. We recognize in the rule that, you know, it is a rule of general applicability and that we do not have all of the experience that 

some of the contracting agencies like Bureau of Land Management, 

for example, would have with individual stakeholders, and we’re 

happy to work with them to be able to help them answer additional 

questions. 

As far as influence over the cost of the permit, I would have to 

defer to the contracting agency. 

Mr. PALMER. Before you started—before you put forth this rule, 

did you sit down with anyone from the Forest Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, any of these other agencies that deal directly 

with these businesses to discuss with them how this might impact 

these businesses? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Following the issuance of the executive order and 

the development of the notice of proposed rulemaking and the final 

rule and throughout our rulemaking, we do consult with additional—with other contracting agencies and receive comments 

through interagency comments that we receive, and we respond to 

those accordingly. 

Mr. PALMER. So are you saying that you did sit down with the 

Forest Service and discuss how this would impact these businesses? 

Mr. LAZZERI. Congressman, we did receive their input. 

Mr. PALMER. And would you be willing to share that with the 

committee? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

Mr. LAZZERI. I would have to discuss that with the Department 

and—however, if you request any additional information, we will 

respond accordingly. 

Mr. PALMER. Madam Chairman, I would like to request that any 

documented discussions that they had with the Forest Service be 

provided to the committee. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Brown, about a year ago on behalf of the American Outdoor Association you wrote a letter to Director Ziegler, I 

think it was in July of last year, and asking what is the meaning 

of verbal agreements covered by the rule. Did you get a response? 

Mr. BROWN. No. I did not. There were references in the final 

rule, which was 300 pages, but I would not be able to tell you the 

answer. Not sure there is one. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Lazzeri, and, Madam Chairman, I would like 

for Director Ziegler to provide a response to Mr. Brown’s letter to 

Mr. Brown and to the committee, if I may ask for that. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. The Forest Service doesn’t view permits as contracts or contract-like instruments. Can you give me some explanation as to why the Department of Labor has decided to equate 

permits to contracts? 

Mr. LAZZERI. I appreciate the question, Congressman. When we 

considered the executive order and we looked at the definitions— 

the four categories of covered contracts, they were explicitly mentioned in the executive order. 

And when we considered the information provided by stakeholders, including the American Outdoors Association and others, 

Forest Service and others, it was clear to us when we looked at the 

executive order definition that the executive order very explicitly 

intended to cover just these particular types of agreements. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. 

Mr. LAZZERI. Under the fourth category of covered contract. 

Mr. PALMER. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman, and I thank all members 

of the committee and the panel, thank the staff. 

Particularly want to thank our witnesses today. We appreciate 

your being here. Appreciate your testimony. Mr. Lazzeri, you’ve 

been asked for—to follow up in writing on several matters today 

at the hearing, and we will look forward to your responses and the 

Department’s responses to our requests. Thank you all for being 

here. 

If there’s no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(51) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 95822.020
53 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 95822.021
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 95822.022
55 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 95822.023
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 95822.024
57 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 95822.025
58 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 95822.026
59 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 95822.027
60 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 95822.028
61 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 95822.029
62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 95822.030
63 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 95822.031
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 95822.032
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 95822.033
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 95822.034
67 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 95822.035