Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as I have said before, when it comes to the actions of government, it is often legislation that grabs the biggest headlines. But it is equally important to focus on what a Presidential administration is doing with its regulatory power--something I was reminded of again last week when I signed on to a letter headed by Senator Cassidy on the Biden administration's proposed new overtime rule. Because in the modern regulatory state, Presidents have a tremendous amount of power to affect our economy and Federal policy through regulation.

Today, I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about some labor regulations coming out of the Biden administration that are likely to prove detrimental to workers, business owners, and our economy.

Let me start, as I mentioned, with the Biden administration's proposed new overtime rule. This proposal would impose a 55-percent increase in the exemption threshold for providing overtime pay for covered employees.

Currently, employers are required to pay covered employees making less than $35,568 per year overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week. Under the Biden administration's proposed new rule, employers would be required to pay overtime to covered employees making less than $55,068. As I said, a massive 55-percent increase in the exemption threshold.

So what would be the effects of this proposed rule? It would likely result in some combination of higher prices, fewer job opportunities, and lower base pay for employees because employers--and I am thinking particularly of small businesses that are always going to be hit hardest by regulations like this--are going to be forced to look for ways to offset what could be a substantial increase in costs.

Indeed, many small businesses will have to find some way of offsetting this cost increase if they want to stay profitable. So businesses large and small are likely to compensate either by increasing prices on their goods or services, reducing the number of positions that they have available, or lowering the base pay to create room to pay overtime wages. Needless to say, none of these are attractive options for workers, consumers, or businesses.

Consumers are currently stretched to their limit with price hikes in the Biden economy, and lower base pay or fewer available positions are not attractive options for American workers.

By the way, you don't have to take my word for it on that lower base pay. The head of President Biden's own Council of Economic Advisers has previously noted:

The costs of increase [overtime] coverage would ultimately

be borne by workers as employers set base wages taking

expected overtime pay into account.

It would be nice if this were the only bad labor rule coming out of the Biden administration, but it is not. Among

other bad regulations, there is also the independent contractor rule, which the Biden Labor Department is likely to finalize soon. It is referred to as the ``independent contractor rule,'' but in many ways, that is a misnomer because this rule is likely to substantially reduce the number of independent contractors.

How? By replacing the previous administration's independent contractor rule, which would have provided clear guidelines for determining whether a worker classifies as an independent contractor, with a vague, sweeping new rule that could end up with many workers being reclassified as employees.

Independent contractors, who range from computer programmers to freelance editors to Uber and Lyft drivers, generally value independent contracting thanks to things like the flexibility and opportunity that this path provides.

Indeed, a 2017 survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that fewer than 1 in 10 independent contractors would prefer traditional employee status. But thanks to the Biden administration, many of them may be forced into employee status.

The rule will threaten workers in the gig economy, which is made up of platforms like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and TaskRabbit, that allow workers to pursue full-time work with a platform or simply augment their income from a regular 9-to-5 position.

The bad ideas don't end with the independent contractor rule. There is also the joint employer rule the National Labor Relations Board recently finalized--yet another move from the Biden administration to use the power of the Federal Government to advantage unions.

The joint employer rule substantially changes the standard of what constitutes a joint employer, which comes into play in a major way with franchising. To put this in practical terms, this rule means that companies could end up being considered joint employers of employees at franchised locations of their business, which could force both the company and the local franchise owners to negotiate with unions, or make both the company and local franchise owners liable for unfair labor practices that potentially only one party is responsible for.

The result is likely to be that companies cut back on franchising or increase oversight or control of their franchisees, which would disrupt one of the most accessible paths to business ownership for Americans looking to run their own businesses.

In comments after the new joint employer rule was proposed, the International Franchise Association noted:

The proposed rule will needlessly upend the franchise

business model and close the door to opportunity for hundreds

of thousands of Americans, especially women, people of color,

veterans, and first-time business owners.

But, apparently, that doesn't matter to the Biden administration, as long as union bosses are benefiting.

On the economic front, President Biden is perhaps most famous for helping to kick off the worst inflation crisis in 40 years with the so- called American Rescue Plan. But as these rules and regulations demonstrate, the President is continuing to build on that negative economic legacy with regulations that will diminish economic opportunities for workers and entrepreneurs and likely continue to drive up prices for consumers.

In other words, business as usual in the Biden administration: The President imposes his Big Government policies, and the American people end up paying the price.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, engraved on a wall at the Korean Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC, are these words: ``Freedom is not free.''

``Freedom is not free.''

It is a stark reminder that our freedom has come at a cost; that it has been bought and paid for in blood, in dark days and terrifying nights of battle, in fear and loneliness, in Christmases and holidays and birthdays spent far from home, in visible wounds and in invisible wounds.

And on Veterans Day, above all, we remember this. We remember that we live in peace and freedom because men and women have answered our country's call, have stepped up and said, ``I will serve,'' and have paid a price for that service.

One of my greatest honors as a U.S. Senator is having the opportunity to interact with military veterans. And in addition to meeting veterans around South Dakota, I have had the immense privilege of visiting with veterans who come to Washington, DC, on Honor Flights.

For anyone not familiar with the organization, Honor Flight is a nonprofit that exists to bring military veterans to Washington, DC, to visit the memorials that have been created in their honor.

At its inception, it focused on bringing World War II veterans to DC, but now, with members of the ``greatest generation'' few and far between, Honor Flights have been filling up with veterans of Korea and Vietnam as well as critically ill veterans from all eras.

I have been lucky enough to participate in three Honor Flight visits so far this year, organized by Midwest Honor Flight, which is our local Honor Flight hub in South Dakota. And the chance to interact with these heroes who have sacrificed to defend and preserve American freedoms is not something I take for granted. Seeing the look in their eyes as they visit the memorials--knowing that for some it will be the last opportunity they have to visit--is a profound privilege and a reminder of all these men and women have given for our country.

It is also deeply moving to hear from the family members who accompany these veterans, a number of whom have told me how cathartic these visits have been for their loved ones--sometimes marking the first time they really talked about their wartime experience.

On multiple occasions when I have been down at the memorials visiting with Honor Flight veterans, I have seen students with school groups come up to these veterans and thank them. It is really an amazing thing to witness. And it has made me reflect on just how important it is that children have these opportunities to see and thank our veterans and to understand what they have given us.

Ronald Reagan once said that freedom is always only one generation removed from extinction. It can't be passed on in the bloodstream. It has to be fought for and defended and handed down for our children to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children's children what it was once like to live in the United States of America where men are free.

Freedom is, indeed, a fragile thing. It is easy to take it for granted when you have it. But it is not a guarantee, and it must, indeed, be fought for and defended constantly by each generation.

Seeing those schoolchildren interact with veterans who have helped secure our freedom reminded me of the importance of handing down an understanding of that freedom to our children, of teaching them just what our military men and women have fought and died for, and of reminding them that it will be their responsibility to preserve it.

Seeing those schoolchildren and veterans interact also reminded me that we should hold up our veterans to young people, not just as examples to revere but as examples to imitate. We should make sure that young people know that serving their country in the U.S. military is one of the noblest paths that they could take and that while military life is a life of sacrifice, it is also a life of meaning and purpose, one that offers pride and brotherhood and the lasting knowledge that your labor has made a difference.

On Veterans Day and every day, I am grateful to those who have answered our Nation's call and taken up arms in defense of liberty. May God bless all the men and women who serve or have served in the U.S. military and may He help us to live lives worthy of their sacrifice.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The yeas andnays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 300 Ex.]

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).