John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.]

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have had no shortage of reminders in the last couple of years that we continue to live in a dangerous world. Vladimir Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine, increased Chinese belligerence, and Hamas's October 7 attack, enabled by Iran, are all powerful reminders of the fact that there will always be malign actors in this world who must be confronted. These events are also a powerful reminder of something else, and that is the need for American leadership on the global stage. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if the United States and other free countries don't lead, other countries will fill the void--countries like Iran, Russia, and China. I don't need to tell anyone that all three of these countries have been flexing their power in recent years and seeking to expand their footprint. Iran, as Hamas's recent attack so pointedly reminded us, is supporting terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East: Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia militias that are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. And the list goes on. Nor is Iran confining its sphere of activities to the Middle Eastern countries. Iran has provided Russia with weapons to use in its war on Ukraine, and it is helping Russia to build its own drone-manufacturing facility to dramatically increase Russia's drone supply. Russia, of course, is currently providing the world with a clear illustration of its imperial aspirations in its war of aggression in Ukraine. And Putin has made it clear that his ambitions don't end there. He is also occupying territory in Georgia and seemingly working on asserting Russian influence in Moldova and the Balkans. And as for China, whether it is increasingly aggressive threats against Taiwan, efforts to expand its military and economic hold over the Indo-Pacific, menacing U.S. military aircraft, or sending a spy balloon across the United States in an attempt to gather information on sensitive military sites, China has made it very clear that it is set on expanding its power--and woe to anyone who gets in its way. And it is backing up its determination with an aggressive military buildup that has seen the Chinese military outpace the U.S. military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles. So it is abundantly clear that bad actors are flexing their power. And, as I said, our response to that must be a renewed commitment to American leadership internationally. Now, American leadership doesn't mean attempting to fix every country's problems or to get militarily involved in every conflict around the globe. We neither can nor should attempt to become the world's policeman. But that doesn't mean that we should retreat from the global stage or confine our focus to one or two areas. There is a lot that we can do while not attempting to play global policeman or to solve every conflict. In the first place, we can and should project the kind of strength that makes bad actors unwilling to tangle with us--or with our allies. That means first, and foremost, having a strong military prepared to meet and defeat any threat, backed up by resilient supply chains. But it also means things like a strong economy and developing our energy resources so that we don't have to depend on hostile countries or hostile areas of the world for oil. Military and economic strength is a powerful deterrent. But it is not enough. We also have to engage on the global stage. We need to build and maintain relationships with allies, support free nations, and stand against hostile actions by hostile countries. The stronger the bonds of free nations and the more united our response to belligerent countries, the less scope these countries will have for their aggression. The world stage is going to be dominated by someone. And when free countries abdicate a leadership role, malign actors are likely to end up controlling the playing field. Some might suggest that the United States should only engage globally when events directly and immediately affect us. But, unfortunately, that thinking often involves underestimating just how much we are affected by world events, even those that are not a direct and immediate attack on U.S. interests. Some, for example, would question our continued support for Ukraine. Well, I question what will happen if we don't support Ukraine. Withdrawing American support for Ukraine could very well end up with a victorious and newly emboldened Putin on the doorstep of four former Soviet satellite states--now NATO members whom we are bound by treaty to protect. If Putin wins in Ukraine, it is not hard to imagine him viewing incursions into one or more of these former Soviet states as a good idea. And given our treaty obligations--and the imperative to prevent a Soviet Union 2.0--it is not hard to imagine American troops being drawn into the resulting conflict. Supporting Ukrainians' efforts to defend themselves against Putin's war of aggression is a way of preventing a conflict that would require a far greater commitment from the United States--not to mention warding off a likely catastrophic economic fallout in Europe from a wider war, which would take a heavy toll on American businesses and consumers. Furthermore, there is little question that a Russian victory in Ukraine would embolden not just Putin but other malign actors--notably China. If Russia is successful at taking over part or all of Ukraine, why shouldn't China think it can successfully take over Taiwan? We should be supporting Ukraine--not just because peoples fighting for freedom against tyranny are worthy of support, but because supporting Ukraine, like supporting Taiwan and Israel and other free countries, is in our national interest. We should support Ukraine with an endgame in mind. Saying we will back Ukraine ``for as long as it takes,'' as the President likes to say, is noble. But not being intentional about the resources we send risks prolonging this war without advancing toward that end state. We can't expect Ukraine to tread water indefinitely. And I am hopeful that the arrival of M1 Abrams tanks, longer-reaching ATACMS missiles, and soon--soon--F-16s, while too late to meaningfully contribute to Ukraine's summer counteroffensive, will enable Ukraine to make new battlefield gains. The Senate will soon take up a supplemental spending bill to address defense issues. And any such bill should promote security abroad by providing support for our allies--specifically, right now, Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. And after three successive years of recordbreaking illegal immigration at our southern border, we should make sure that any supplemental also focuses on building up our security here at home by tightening security at our borders, in addition to addressing military priorities like ramping up munitions production. Senators Graham, Lankford, and Cotton have produced a substantive plan to help secure the border and stem the historic level of illegal migration under this President's watch. And we should take up their proposal to address this essential aspect of our national security. We can't solve every problem or bring peace to every conflict around the world. But the United States can be a powerful force for good, if we are willing to lead. And we should use our strength and influence to contain evil actors and advance peace and freedom around the globe. Failing to do so may have consequences for our national security now and long into the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Florida ((Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea'', and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.