DeLauro Calls On House Republicans to Stop Blocking Worker Safeguards

WASHINGTON, DC—Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) made thefollowing opening statement at today's Labor-Health and HumanServices-Education Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on federal regulationsand employment. DeLauro is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. The followingremarks are as prepared for delivery:

The Majority has called this hearing to discuss federalregulations involving workers and employment, and their effects on the economy.It is important to remember that the regulations being considered today involvelongstanding, fundamental rights and principles, some of which have beenestablished in U.S. law for more than 70 years, For example:

• The principle that we do not use child labor in this country, except with appropriate limits and safeguards;
• The principle of the 40-hour work week, with premium pay for overtime above that norm;
• The right of workers to organize and join unions, without fear of being fired or retaliated against;
• The right to equal pay for equal work, regardless of race or gender;
• And the right to a workplace free of major preventable hazards to life and health.

Rules like these do more than just protect workers. Theyalso create a level playing field for businesses who want to treat theiremployees fairly and decently. Without government establishing andenforcing basic standards, employers would find themselves at a competitivedisadvantage relative to those who seek to profit by endangering and cheatingworkers. We would have a race to the bottom.

From some, we hear complaints about the costs of regulation.But what costs are they referring to? The cost of maintaining a safeworkplace, so that workers are not disabled or killed by their jobs? Thecost of payroll taxes that support basic protections like unemploymentinsurance and workers compensation? The cost of paying the same wages to womenand minorities that are paid to white men?

I would not call those "costs of regulation" but rather partof doing business in a country that cares about its people.

There seems to be a notion among many in the Majority thatthe Labor Department damages the economy by enforcing labor standards requiredby law. That is simply not plausible.

For one, according to an Economic Policy Institute analysisof government data, the share of corporate profits in our gross domesticproduct increased to 25.6 percent in 2012, the highest in any year since1950-1951. Meanwhile wages have fallen to a record low of 43.5% ofGDP. In fact, average real weekly earnings have increased by just 2% overthe past ten years.

Meanwhile, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,103,318 layoffs in the fourth quarter of 2012 were attributed to poor businessdemand, while only 965 were attributed to government regulation.

And according to a survey of small business owners conductedlast year by the American Sustainable Business Alliance, Main Street Allianceand the Small Business Majority, the most important problem for businessesright now is weak customer demand. Only 14 percent mentioned governmentregulations.

Yet, over the last two years, the House Majority has made ita priority to bring bills to the floor seeking to overturn regulations or blockthem before they are even finalized. These include bills to prevent theEPA from moving forward with regulations that have been mandated by the courtsor rules we will hear about today like those governing NLRB elections oraddressing legally-required disclosure of arrangements between employers andlabor-management consultants.

This week, we are continuing down the same path consideringa bill on the floor to stop the NLRB from enforcing labor law.

If anything, current rules and enforcement may not be strong enough. For example, Labor's Wageand Hour Division does the best job they can, but they have less than 1,800staff to cover the whole country, and there are reports of widespreadviolations of the Fair Labor Standards Act – violations that tend to cheat themost vulnerable workers.

I was glad to see the administration take action to battlepay discrimination by rescinding the voluntary guidelines and compensationstandards that hamstrung the Department of Labor's attempts to ensure equal payin the Bush years. But we are still waiting for a coal dust standard to befinalized, and for a new standard addressing the serious health hazards ofsilica to even be formally proposed. We are also still waiting for finalaction on modernization of fair labor standards rules for home health workers.

There are many more examples I could cite, but the beliefthat this administration has unleashed an unprecedented wave of new regulationsis simply not substantiated by the facts.

In any case, I expect an interesting discussion today, and Ilook forward to our witnesses' testimony.