IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 68 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the overtime rule published in the 

Federal Register by the Secretary of Labor on May 23, 2016, would 

provide millions of workers with greater economic security and was a 

legally valid exercise of the authority of the Secretary under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2017 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. POCAN, Ms. NORTON, 

Mr. CONYERS, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. LEE, Mr. DESAULNIER, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. NORCROSS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. COURTNEY, Ms. 

DELAURO, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SWALWELL of California, 

Mr. PALLONE, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

CROWLEY, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. JEFFRIES, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. 

PASCRELL, Mr. POLIS, Mr. HECK, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. 

GUTIE ́RREZ, and Ms. ADAMS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the overtime rule 

published in the Federal Register by the Secretary of 

Labor on May 23, 2016, would provide millions of workers with greater economic security and was a legally 

valid exercise of the authority of the Secretary under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. 

Whereas the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

201 et seq.) established overtime compensation requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:59 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC68.IH HC68

SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 68 IH 

ments for certain employees when they work more than 

40 hours in a given workweek; 

Whereas under section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)), Congress delegated 

to the Secretary of Labor the authority to define and delimit the terms relating to the exemption for bona fide 

executive, administrative, and professional employees 

(commonly known as the ‘‘white collar exemption’’); 

Whereas for more than 75 years, the Secretary of Labor has 

exercised its delegated authority to issue regulations that 

define and delimit the terms relating to the white collar 

exemption by applying a duties test and applying a minimum compensation level or salary threshold; 

Whereas the Secretary of Labor began utilizing a salary 

threshold in the initial regulations defining and delimiting the terms relating to the white collar exemption, 

which were first issued in 1938; 

Whereas Congress has long approved the use of a salary 

threshold by the Secretary of Labor, as demonstrated by 

the fact that Congress has amended the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 at least 10 times since 1938 and 

has not precluded the Secretary from using a salary 

threshold; 

Whereas the salary threshold became woefully out of date and 

ineffective as a result of not being sufficiently updated to 

keep pace with a changing economy, as evidenced by the 

fact that more than half of all full-time salaried workers 

were covered by the salary threshold in 1975 and only 8 

percent of these workers were covered by the salary 

threshold in 2015; 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 68 IH 

Whereas the salary threshold of $455 per week, or $23,660 

per year, that was in effect on May 22, 2016, was below 

the poverty line for a family of 4; 

Whereas the Secretary of Labor updated the salary threshold 

on May 23, 2016, through a final rule entitled ‘‘Defining 

and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 32391) by increasing the salary 

threshold to the 40th percentile of earnings of full-time 

salaried employees in the lowest-wage Census Region, resulting in a salary threshold of $913 per week or $47,476 

per year; 

Whereas the final rule would benefit more than 13,000,000 

employees by providing overtime compensation protections to 4,200,000 new employees and strengthening 

overtime compensation protections for 8,900,000 additional employees; 

Whereas the Secretary of Labor went through a thorough 

process in crafting the final rule, seeking public input 

and conducting extensive economic analysis, including— 

(1) spending more than a year meeting with more 

than 200 interested parties to obtain input before issuing 

the proposed rule in 2015; 

(2) considering more than 270,000 comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the 

proposed rule; and 

(3) making significant changes in response to public 

input before issuing the final rule; 

Whereas the public comments submitted to the Secretary of 

Labor regarding the proposed rule were overwhelmingly 

positive and supportive of the rule; 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HCON 68 IH 

Whereas the increase in the salary threshold, included in the 

final rule, to the 40th percentile of earnings of full-time 

salaried employees in the lowest-wage Census Region, resulting in a threshold of $913 per week or $47,476 per 

year, was a strong yet measured increase by almost any 

measure, including as compared to— 

(1) the higher salary threshold of $970 per week or 

$50,440 per year, initially put forward by the Secretary 

of Labor in the proposed rule; 

(2) the salary threshold of $984 per week or 

$51,168 per year, which would be necessary to fully account for the erosion to the value of the salary threshold 

since 1975 due to inflation; 

(3) the salary threshold of $1,122 per week or 

$58,344 per year, which would be necessary to cover the 

same share of all salaried workers as were covered in 

1975 after accounting for changes in the economy; and 

(4) the salary threshold of $1,327 per week or 

$69,004 per year, which would be necessary to cover the 

same percentage of all salaried workers as were covered 

in 1975; 

Whereas the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Texas erroneously called the authority of the 

Secretary of Labor under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

of 1938 into question when it issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Labor from enforcing the final overtime rule; and 

Whereas millions of workers eagerly await a fair day’s pay 

for a hard day’s work: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the final 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
5 

•HCON 68 IH 

1 rule issued on May 23, 2016, by the Secretary of Labor 

2 entitled ‘‘Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Ex3 ecutive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and 

4 Computer Employees’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 32391)— 

5 (1) would provide more than 13,000,000 work6 ers with greater economic security; 

7 (2) was created through the legally valid exer8 cise of the congressionally delegated authority of the 

9 Secretary of Labor under the Fair Labor Standards 

10 Act of 1938; and 

11 (3) should be defended and enforced with due 

12 haste. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS