[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   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.

                          ____________________