Jumpstart Our Business Strength (Jobs) Act

JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I wish to respond this afternoon to some of the statements that have been said, and also to rise in opposition to the Harkin amendment.

First, I wish to join in what the Senator from Alabama was saying about the outstanding leadership of our Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. If there has ever been an American success story, she is it. She is a minority woman who has been in several very critical leadership positions, has always done a wonderful job, and she is showing real courage as Secretary of Labor. Anybody who would suggest she would be advocating positions or rules that would be antiwomen, I don't think there is any possibility that would be something she would do. I have a knowledge of her and a faith in the leadership she is providing.

She is trying to change rules that have not been touched in 50 years. Whatever they were 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, one would think they probably need some reconsideration and updating. That is what she is trying to do.

As far as being concerned about the low income and entry level of working Americans, I feel a real concern for that. My dad was a shipyard worker, a pipefitter, a union member. My mother taught school. She subsequently kept books because she could not make enough money teaching school. My son employs a lot of entry level, low-income, unwed mothers, and he worries about his need for insurance coverage.

I do not step aside for anybody as far as coming from a low-income, middle-income background. I want to make sure we do right by the low-income people and the entry level people.

In that connection, in talking about the economy and what is happening, I remind all Americans and my colleagues the economy is not perfect. The economy would never be as good as we would like for it to be. We would like it to be growing at 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 percent GDP and hope we can make that happen. I believe we in America can always make the pie bigger. We do not have to make the slices smaller. We can challenge every American to think about what the opportunities are that are being offered and try to take a part of the American dream. And we are moving in that direction. Productivity is up.

The point was made maybe it is going to the bottom line, the profit. I figured out if Litton Industries did not have a profit, my dad probably would not have had a job doing pipefitting in that shipyard.

Jobless claims are down, housing starts are at an all-time high, and the American dream of owning your own home is doing fantastically. I met last week with homebuilders from my home State. They are doing great. They are providing good quality, affordable housing like never before, probably because interest rates are low, historically low, and have been so. The markets are up.

When I hear, woe is me, the economy is not good-it is not perfect, but there are a lot of indicators going in the right direction.

Then when I hear our workers in America work more than people in France, are we now trying to imitate France? Pretty soon they will be down to working maybe 25 hours a week, and they have huge economic problems because they have not been able to bring themselves to address the difficulties they are getting into with all their pensions and all the stuff they are committed to they are not going to be able to pay for.

I do not want to follow France's example, for Heaven's sake. So what do we have in this particular instance? Again, we are trying to update the rules on overtime. It looks to me as though for low-income workers, they are going to be the beneficiaries. The Department estimates that few, if any, workers between $23,660 and $100,000 would lose their overtime. As a matter of fact, 1.3 million salaried workers who earn less than $23,660 would get the overtime, and they would not need to go to court or to try to deal with the difficulties of the vague language. They are going to clarify when these workers would be eligible for overtime.

Certainly, people who are making $23,000 or $24,000 ought to get overtime when they work extra hours. I think we ought to be commending the Secretary of Labor. She listened to us. She heard our complaints. Where there were weaknesses that were pointed out, they went back and tried to address those. These are not the same rules we were debating a year ago. They went back and raised the level that would be applied. The salaried level was $65,000. In the final version of rules, it is up to $100,000.

There are new provisions in the rules that specify certain classes of employees also, such as police officers and firefighters, as automatically eligible for overtime pay. Do we not want to make that clear? Do we not want to specify that firefighters and police officers would be entitled to get overtime pay?

It also declares that licensed practical nurses and certain veterans would be eligible for overtime pay. So there is a clarification with regard to the nurses. When one looks at what has happened, what they are trying to accomplish is to bring the rules up to date with the realities of employment today, and this is the first time we have done it in 50 years. As a matter of fact, low-income workers have certainty that they are going to get overtime. Specific groups such as firefighters, policemen, veterans, and licensed practical nurses will be guaranteed that they will get this overtime pay.

Now there are certain categories of people I am sure are defined in these rules who are executive or administrative in position. They may make over $100,000, $120,000, or $130,000 a year. They may have to work overtime. How many people in our offices work overtime? How many overtime hours do we work, 50, 60, 70, 80? We understand when we run for the Senate that we are not going to get overtime pay. I am not advocating that. That is my point. I do not expect it, and I work 70, 80 hours a week because of the opportunities, the way of honor and because of the understanding of what we would be paid.

I think these rules are the right thing to do. There is clarity about the fact that more people would be covered. I do not know how many people might actually have some risk of not getting overtime, but it would be in the higher brackets. The number is probably 107,000 workers earning more than this $100,000 might lose their overtime pay.

This effort has shifted the emphasis to the low-income people who have not been certain that they could get overtime. We should be commending the Secretary of Labor, not trying to pass the Harkin amendment that would block these changes.

I fear once again what we have is people wanting more. They are not satisfied that this is good enough. Good, maybe, yes, that maybe it is fine if it applies to first responders, nurses, blue collar workers, cooks, paralegals, public service inspectors, union contracts, and veterans. That is all good, but we want more. We are going to defeat the good in pursuit of the perfect.

It will not happen.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this Harkin amendment. Let us put these rules in place. It will not be the last pass at this. We are going to find that there are some weaknesses, or we should have maybe considered another group. The rules will be changed again.

I had to take a little time to talk about the facts with regard to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, to talk about the economy and talk about how these rules have been modified. They have moved in the right direction, and we should allow them to go into place and continue to work to make sure they are applied properly.

I yield the floor.