Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Stabenow, for those wonderful words about a fantastic woman who always supported other women in their endeavors. You are right, her spirit will live on. I heard a little bit of Senator Lott's comments about Democrats playing politics with the bill before the Senate. No one should pay politics with a bill in the Senate, but no one should play with people's overtime. The reason it is so important to insist on a vote is I have millions of people in my State who will be adversely impacted because the administration wants to repeal the overtime laws. This group that is very concerned includes the first responders, my police, my fire, my emergency personnel. Say all you want; no one will play with their overtime. I will fight for their overtime pay. There is no point getting a bill through here--by the way, the bill is very important--if on the one hand you say we are helping with job creation and on the other hand you take away people's overtime. The debate will continue. Honoring Our Armed Forces I come to the Senate to show my colleagues a tribute to the men and women who are dying in Iraq every single day. I want to also thank the San Francisco Chronicle, Insight section, dated March 14, 2004. They turned their entire magazine into a tribute to the fallen in Iraq, page after page, so they will not be forgotten. This is well over 500 people. It is so touching because it has the feel and look of a yearbook, of a high school yearbook or a college yearbook. You recognize these beautiful faces belong to some of the best and the brightest, cut down so early in their lives. We tend not to pay enough attention around here so I will take some time. I took this very important magazine and turned it into charts, portraits of sacrifice. It says: This special section commemorates the 556 members of the U.S. Armed Forces, as of Thursday, who have lost their lives in Iraq. While views on the wisdom of the war vary, there's no doubt about the commitment and valor of these Americans. The portraits can also be viewed online. I have chart after chart of the fallen. This shows exactly how the war proceeded and how many war deaths, month by month. This shows the home States of those who have died. In Nebraska, six have died; in South Dakota, four; in California, 61. We are the No. 1 state, unfortunately, in losses of these beautiful people. The charts go on. This shows how they died. How many in helicopter crashes, vehicle accidents, illness, weapons discharges, drownings, hostile fire, combat, noncombat. Bombs are not the only risk of war. I know the Presiding Officer understands that very well. This chart shows an incredibly somber photograph of a burial and the folding of the American flag on the casket. This is an editorial of the paper. I will read a few things from it. The Iraq war won't quit. Since Baghdad's fall, there are no battle lines. Fighting takes on a new lethal form in ambushes, bombings or plane crashes. Injury and death come almost daily. On May 2, after a lightning-quick sweep through Iraq, President Bush declared that major combat was over. This country's vaunted armed forces had made short work of the Iraqi military. But the president's proclamation didn't stop the fatalities, which as of Thursday included 556 American troops. More than 415 of them lost their lives after Bush declared that the major fighting was finished. It goes on. Many parents of the fallen describe their children as enormously proud of military service and the chance to serve in Iraq. Among the thousands from Northern California who went to Iraq, consider the stories of several who died. And they go through them. Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa from San Jose joined the Marines after high school. Born in the Philippines, he became a proud Marine recruiter, snappy in dress blues, before taking on more active duty in Japan, the Persian Gulf, Cuba and Hawaii. He died in an ambush near Nasiriya in the early days of active fighting. It talks about Karina Lau, and Genaro Acosta, and Joseph Norquist, how he played football before earning a degree at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill. His parents said: Joe believed in the job he was doing in Iraq. The article continues: Iraqis families have suffered, too. Thousands of their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and acquaintances have died in the conflict. We should recognize their losses. Before the war is wrapped up and American troops depart, there will be more fatalities. Only then can the full human cost of the war be measured. But as the first anniversary of the war approaches, it is time to stop and think about those who have given their lives and why. And there are more charts. We have these soldiers' faces. Then there is this cartoon drawing of an American eagle--a big bird with a little baby bird on a branch and an olive branch. It says, ``Abstractions are just abstract until they have an ache in them.'' Then we have: ``The rifle and helmet of Marine Jason D. Mileo stand as a memorial after he was killed by friendly fire in Baghdad.'' This concludes this particular tribute. Since the day this tribute ran--which was on Sunday, March 14--the following have been killed: Fern L. Holland, 33, of Oklahoma, died on March 9; Robert J. Zangas, 44, of Prince William County, VA, died March 9; SGT Joe L. Dunigan Jr., 37, of Belton, TX, died March 11; SP Christopher K. Hill, 26, of Ventura, CA, died March 11; CPT John F. Kurth, 31, of Wisconsin, died March 13; SP Jason C. Ford, 21, of Bowie, MD, died March 13; SP Jocelyn L. Carrasquillo, 28, of Wrightsville Beach, NC, died March 13; SSG Clint D. Ferrin, 31, of Picayune, MS, died March 13; SGT Daniel J. Londono, 22, of Boston, MA, died March 13; PFC Joel K. Brattain, 21, of Santa Anna, CA, died March 13; 1LT Michael R. Adams, 24, of Seattle, WA, died March 16; SGT William J. Normandy, 42, of Augusta, GA, died March 15; MSG Thomas R. Thigpen Sr., 52, of Augusta, GA, died March 16; SGT Ivory L. Phipps, 44, of Chicago, IL, died March 17; SP Tracy L. Laramore, 30, of Okaloosa, FL, died March 17; PFC Brandon C. Smith, of Washington, AR, died March 18; PFC Ricky A. Morris Jr., 20, of Lubbock, TX, died March 18; PFC Ernest Harold Sutphin, 21, of Parkersburg, WV, died March 18; SSG Anthony S. Lagman, 26, of Yonkers, NY, died March 18; SGT Michael J. Esposito Jr., 22, of Brentwood, NY, died March 18; CPL Andrew D. Brownfield, 24, of Summit, OH, died March 18; SP Doron Chan, 20, of Highland, NY, died March 18; CPL David M. Vicente, 25, of Methuen, MA, died March 19; PFC Jason C. Ludlam, 22, of Arlington, TX, died March 19; 1LT Michael W. Vega, 41, of Lathrop, CA, died March 20; MAJ Mark D. Taylor, 41, of Stockton, CA, died March 20; SP Matthew J. Sandri, 24, of Shamokin, PA, died on March 20; PVT Dustin L. Kreider, 19, of Riverton, KS, died March 21; PFC Christopher E. Hudson, 21, of Carmel, IN, died March 21; and LCpl Andrew S. Dang, 20, of Foster City, CA, died March 22. That is the last I have. I hope it stops and I do not have to come back to this floor. I have done this from time to time. We pray so much the Iraq war will end and the people there will have freedom and democracy, that they will respect each other, and our troops can come home; and, in the meantime, that the burden can be shared by the world rather than falling on their shoulders. As I read this, and I read the ages, we saw ages from 19 to over 50 years old. Imagine what these people are leaving behind. I wish to say how my heart goes out to their families and how I will do everything I can to see this killing ends. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. He made my day. I am so privileged that he would say such words to me. On this issue, we will not back down. We will stand together with many of our colleagues. Interestingly, a majority of the Senate already voted with the Senator. All we are asking is give us a vote on behalf of the policemen, the policewomen, the first responders, the firefighters, the nurses, the paramedics. Let us make sure we do not take away their overtime pay because to do so would be an enormous hardship on them and on their families at a time when we should be elevating them in status and saying to them, thank you, not only in pictures that we love to show with our arms around them--and we all do that--but in deeds. We really mean what we say, and we say you will not lose your overtime pay. I hope we can get a vote on this important amendment and move on to the rest of the bill which is quite important. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I was hoping my friend would stay. I would like to ask a series of questions and give him some information. Does the Senator have the time to stay?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Even more to the point, collective bargaining agreements generally do not state that employees are hourly. So it is very easy for an employer to say: Show me in your contract where it says you are hourly, even if you formally are. So people are going to be stuck, and they are not going to get their overtime pay. At the end of the day we have to get back to this bottom line. The Secretary says: I can assure you, however, it is not our intention to deny overtime pay to police officers, fire fighters, paramedics. . .. I say to my friend, put it in writing. I think that is pretty obvious. They will not put it in writing. I am so happy that my friend brought this up. When I first approached Secretary Chao, we had a very friendly conversation. It was right out here. I said to her: My people are up in arms. Talk to me. What are you doing? Well, it is hardly going to affect anybody, she said. I said: Well, if it is going to affect hardly anybody, why bother? That doesn't make any sense. Then I said: My policemen, my firemen, my first responders are really over the top on this. And she said: They are not affected. That is why I wrote to her and said put it in writing. She said: It is not necessary, they are exempt because they are not white collar, and all the rest. Here we find out from the police officers themselves how silly the Department of Labor position is because of the fact that many of our criminal cases are solved now on computers in the office, doing investigatory work. I don't know exactly what is going on except an effort to undermine working conditions and pay for millions of people. I want to read one more letter and then I will leave the floor. This is from SGT Mark Nichols, President of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association in Orange County: Public safety in California is facing a major crisis as we try to get back on our feet fiscally. To eliminate the Federal non-exempt provision at this time when dollars are scarce would be akin to placing a huge bull's eye on the already beleaguered morale of our members. We are currently stretched further than is prudent. To give our employers the opportunity possibly of stretching us even further to save an extra buck or two could be devastating to a profession already facing recruitment and retention problems. We are a profession that works 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. I personally left a salaried position to join police work. Being compensated for extra work at the overtime rate was a big factor in my decision. We are continually required to extend our workday or return to work from off duty time. This is a difficult enough job, with its disruptions and hardships placed on our members and our families. To even allow for the possibility that police officers could lose their non-exempt status and overtime provisions is irresponsible. I thank my friend. I know he has to go to other Senate business. I will ask for a quorum call in a moment. But I will yield to him for one more comment. I just say thank you on behalf of my police officers, my nurses, my first responders. I can't thank you enough.

Mrs. BOXER. And she says, you have it anyway in your collective bargaining, which is not always the case. I think what the police officers have done, in dissecting this, is to be the truth tellers here. There is one more chart. Secretary Chao says in her letter: Third, many public safety employees, as well as nurses, are paid on an hourly basis. Hourly workers are not affected by Part 541 under either the current or proposed rules. This is what the California police officers say: Employers have made determinations on who is exempt based on the totality of the regulatory requirements. Some will view any modification as a basis to reconsider exempt status. Collective bargaining agreements generally do not state that employees are ``hourly'' employees. Employers would challenge that assertion. So that is another point. Then Secretary Chao says: Moreover, those public safety employees who are paid on a salary basis and may be earning less than $22,100 a year will immediately gain overtime protection under our proposed rule. They say: Fine. But this does not apply to and will not affect any California public safety officers. Thank God we pay them more than $22,100 to protect our lives and our children's lives. So that is a useless deal in this category of workers. Lastly, she writes: I can assure you, however, that it is not our intention to deny overtime pay to police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, or LPNs, or to change the current rules with respect to RNs. Here is what the police officers say: We in police work subscribe to a common rule: Say what you mean, mean what you say and memorialize it in print. If the intent is not to deny overtime, then put it in writing. By the way, that was in my first letter I sent to Secretary Chao. I said: You keep saying they are not affected. Why don't you change your rule and simply exempt first responders, and then at least my police and firefighters and nurses and paramedics will not be so upset.

Mrs. BOXER. That is right. You have the statutory protection, which they are now going to take away from these workers. They are taking it away and saying: Well, you can fix it with your collective bargaining.

Mrs. BOXER. Right. They say right here: If it was such a foregone conclusion that represented employees could negotiate and maintain overtime protections absent statutory and regulatory requirements, the law and regulations would never have been made applicable to any workers under a collective bargaining agreement.

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly the point.

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, it did not end there, I say to my friend from Iowa. I got a visit from police officers in my office here in Washington, and what is on their agenda, the first thing? Overtime. I said: Well, look, I am going to do everything I can to protect you. I raised this issue with Secretary Chao. She answered my letter. She says you have nothing to worry about. Will you please go over her answers, and can you please comment back to me as to what you think of her opinion on whether you will lose overtime? So I have blown up for you to see, I say to Senator Harkin and Senator Baucus, something you might be interested in. These quotes go side by side. Secretary Chao says in her letter to me: First, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and other first responders are not white collar employees. They do not perform office or non-manual work. So, therefore, she is essentially saying they will not fit into this revision of the rules because they are not white-collar employees. This is what she says about police officers. This is what my police officers write back: Many police officers do not drive black and white patrol vehicles and perform only enforcement/patrol duties. Police officers also serve in investigative and other capacities. As such they do not wear uniforms and a great deal of their work is performed in an office. So here she is saying they are not white-collar employees and they say many times their work is in the office. In cold case units-- You know what a cold case is: an old case. They call it a cold case. They just put it aside-- The vast preponderance of their duties entail reviewing files and records in the office. With the increased use of technology many officers are spending more and more of their time performing office, non- manual type work to facilitate the detection and basis for apprehension of criminal suspects. Without an explicit non-exempt status-- This is the key point-- Local agencies interpreting the regulation may well determine that those employees are white collar and perform office work--and then exclude them from overtime coverage. If this were to occur, many of the most talented officers would choose not to be promoted (to the detriment of the Department) due to monetary concerns. So with all due respect to Secretary Chao, who is, as I say, a friend, her comment that they are not white-collar employees is not at all clear. So that is one difference. Now let's go on to the other differences. This is why my police officers are absolutely in favor of what Senator Harkin wants to do, which is to reverse the move of the administration. Secretary Chao's letter says: Second, a large number of such employees--such as those represented by the International Union of Police Associations--are covered by collective bargaining agreements, which are not affected by the current or proposed regulations. We also believe it is unrealistic for unions to claim that overtime pay granted under a current collective bargaining agreement is likely to be revoked during a new negotiation. So that is her second point. First, they say they never do white- collar work. Wrong. Now she says their collective bargaining agreements could never be overturned. Let's see what the California police officers say: The clout of independent police associations varies widely. Some would be able to protect their contract-required overtime, others would not. Many overtime provisions in collective bargaining agreements refer to the regulations or statutory requirements. Those overtime provisions would end with statutory or regulatory changes and would not even extend to the next negotiations. To assume that it is ``unrealistic'' that contract provisions once granted would not be revoked is simply ignorant. Those are strong statements. Contract provisions are frequently revoked during the collective bargaining process. The regulatory or statutory requirements currently in place have held at bay any attack of the overtime agreement. Regulatory and statutory requirements have been a major contributing factor in the successful recovery of moneys owed and withheld by employers in violation of respective collective bargaining agreements.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Harkin, for his wonderful words. It means so much to me coming from him, someone who has been in this Senate for so many years, a voice of the working people. By the way, that is most of the people in this country who have to work for a living. In many families, as we know, two people are working, and in many families they work overtime to be able to pay the bills and college tuition and health care, and on and on. This issue is crucial. I also thank Senator Baucus for being so strong in his support of allowing a vote on this amendment. It is very important because, as my friend said today at lunch--I had the honor of listening to Senator Harkin speak as he made the point-- how can you do a jobs bill and not look at the issue of overtime, which if the administration has its way will be taken away from probably 8 million people? As my friend, Senator Harkin, relayed the history, it is a stunning situation that we find ourselves refighting the issue of overtime in the 21st century. I wish to share with my colleague something that is very interesting, a bit of correspondence that has gone back and forth. When I saw Secretary Chao--by the way, I find her to be a very nice person. I like her. We have a very nice personal relationship. This is not personal. I asked her about the regulation. I said: My people at home are very afraid of this regulation because they think they will be denied overtime. She said: Oh, it's hardly going to affect anybody. I said: All right. Instead of asking you about every category, let me tell you that my police men and women, my firefighters, and my paramedics--my first responders--are very concerned about losing their overtime. She said: Senator Boxer, not a chance. This is not even going to happen. So I wrote her a letter, and I said: Secretary Chao, you know I oppose this. I am very worried about it. Can you please explain to me why I should not be worried? So she writes back a letter. I wrote her on February 9, and on February 26 I was very pleased that she answered the letter, and she explains why, in her opinion, firefighters and first responders and policemen will not be impacted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter to Secretary Chao and her response.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I today honor of Dan Terry, who will be retiring this May after 31 years of service as president of the California Professional Firefighters, CPF, a statewide organization representing more than 30,000 career firefighters in over 150 affiliated local unions. America's firefighters are the heroes of our times. We know that they are always going to be there protecting us through any challenge. For more than three decades, as firefighters have protected us, Dan Terry has been protecting them. He has fought for safer working conditions and worked to increase firefighter education, training, and staffing. Thanks largely to his extraordinary efforts, California firefighters are now covered by statewide legislation that guarantees binding interest arbitration, enhanced retirement benefits, survivor benefits, and firefighter illness presumption laws. Dan Terry has also fought to protect firefighters' right to earn overtime pay as well as disability and workers' compensation benefits. A retired fire captain with more than 20 years of service on the front lines, Dan Terry was elected CPF president in May 1973. After 31 years in office, he remains passionate and dedicated to the cause of improving the lives of California firefighters and their families. Even after leaving the presidency of CPF, he will remain active in the organization and in the service of California families and the courageous firefighters who protect them every day. On behalf of the people of California, I express our profound gratitude and admiration to Dan Terry for his outstanding service to our State.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Excellent. So how much time will the Senator yield off the resolution?

Mrs. BOXER. I yield Senator Corzine 3 minutes and Senator Stabenow 4 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will only read the first paragraph, and then I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey, Senator Corzine. Here is what it says: Six months after promising to create an office to help the nation's struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on someone to head it, but the nomination was being reconsidered last night after Democrats revealed that this candidate had opened a factory in China. Now, I ask you, what signal are we sending to the workers of America, to the businesses of America, when the President's No. 1 choice for manufacturing czar has opened a business in China? So if you put together this fact with this fact, with the chart I showed you that illustrates the worst problem in job creation since Herbert Hoover, we have an explosive situation on our hands. The vote on this amendment should not be about parties; it should be about our people, whether they are in Alaska, Wyoming, New Jersey, Michigan, or California. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and ask, after yielding that time, how much time would be remaining on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my friend because he is exactly right. This outsourcing is a very tough issue. I say to my friend, before he goes to his committee hearing, I met a young man in California who had an excellent job as a computer program manager. He is a newlywed and very excited about his life. He finds out he is being fired, not because he is not a good employee--he is a great employee, terrific--but because his job is being outsourced to another country. And the person over there is going to get a quarter of what he makes. Now, here is the real kicker. He is told he has to train his replacement. I have to say, this is what is happening all over America. If we cannot take a stand in this budget which reflects all of our priorities as a nation, if we cannot take a stand for America's workers and America's small businesses, I do not know why we are here. What are we here for? I ask my friend again to look at this chart which shows that the smallest share of the population is at work since 1994. This is not a good chart when you translate it into real lives of real people--and we know the stories in our States: a mother wakes up worried because her company says it no longer will pay health care--that is why we give a health care tax credit in this amendment--a gentleman, as I described, is told by his boss: You are losing your job. It is being outsourced, and you have to train your replacement. This is what is happening in America. I know some colleagues are here who would like to be heard on this amendment, which I am very pleased about. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Washington Post article from today: ``Bush Choice for Manufacturing Post in Question.''

Mrs. BOXER. When my friend goes home to New Jersey and talks to people, does he find what I find; that people are anxious, they are insecure, they are concerned about retaining their job, retaining a good job, retaining health benefits? What I find is, even if people have good jobs, they are fearful of the cost of health insurance. As the Senator knows, in our Democratic jobs alternative, we give a tax credit to businesses that pay for all or part of health insurance. I wondered if my friend has that same sense when he goes to talk to his people at home?

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. This health care tax credit is very important as well. In my State, my small businesses that do the right thing by their employees are being hurt. We ought to recognize if you do the right thing, you ought to get rewarded for it. So that is why we do this. I say to my friend, he is right; this jobs amendment helps workers and helps businesses. It is a balanced approach. Here is how we encourage the creation of American jobs: We provide tax credits to companies that create new jobs. We provide tax credits to help small businesses pay for health insurance. We expand funding to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program, which really helps small businesses in an enormous way. What we do with these programs is we help them go from the research part of things to the marketing part of things. It has been a huge success. Unfortunately, the President has zeroed out the ATP. I cannot understand it. This is something our businesspeople really want. Also, as to basic scientific research, we see it in the budget, but it is mostly for defense weapons programs. We do not have it on the civilian side. Again, coming from a State--I am sure your State has them, as well-- with very entrepreneurial people, who really can take off from scientific research, it is very important. I say to my friend, we pay for this. We pay for this by ending--this is Senator Dorgan's idea--we end the tax break for companies that move offshore. Oh, yes, they are creating jobs, but they are creating jobs offshore. And we pay for it by saying to the millionaires--people who make over $1 million a year--we are saying to those folks: Instead of getting $127,000 a year back, can you take $85,000 a year back? That is still 7.5 times more than a worker at the minimum wage. So this is a golden moment for this Senate to come together across party lines on behalf of our small businesses, on behalf of our workers, and create jobs. I have already shown my colleague the historic proportions of this moment in history in which we find ourselves: the worst record since Herbert Hoover, the only Presidency since Herbert Hoover not to create jobs. This is an extraordinary moment. We need to take a moment to realize if a millionaire gets back $85,000 instead of $127,000, that is not a great sacrifice to make for putting people to work, for giving a lift to small business.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question before his time expires?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.