The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STRONG OPPOSITION TO WALBERG BILL” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1436 on Nov. 14, 2016.
The Department provides billions in unemployment insurance, which peaked around 2011 though spending had declined before the pandemic. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, claimed the Department funds "ineffective and duplicative services" and overregulates the workplace.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STRONG OPPOSITION TO WALBERG BILL
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Monday, November 14, 2016
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Walberg bill. We must allow the Department of Labor to implement and enforce the Overtime Rule, giving employees a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
The American people have waited long enough. In 1975, approximately 62 percent of salaried workers were covered by overtime protections--
but according to the White House, that is just 7 percent today.
This bill would deny the 4.2 million American workers affected by this rule $600 million dollars. For working families making under the overtime rule's threshold, six months of lost overtime pay means less food on the table, less gas in the car, less money in the college fund.
We cannot play politics with the incomes of hardworking Americans. The biggest issue facing our country today is that families are not making enough to live on.
The overtime rule is a step to lessen the burden on hardworking but struggling families--it is commonsense and overdue.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, workers who will benefit the most from the new rule include women, African Americans, Latinos, and workers under 35.
The Department of Labor spent more than a year meeting with 200 stakeholders to collect input for the new rule--and collected more than 270,000 public comments, which they took seriously to make significant changes to the rule, making it work for businesses and working families.
I would also add that in 2004, the last time we raised the overtime rule threshold, the Bush Administration used a 120-day implementation period. We are providing even more time, for a rule that is much less complex.
This delay is unnecessary and harmful--and we cannot let it pass. This proposal throws up another unnecessary and shameful hurdle in the way of the overtime rule. We have an obligation to do right by our working families.
____________________
