Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from California that this, right here, is very instructive: 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. I ask the Senator, am I correct that what she is actually saying is, however, now overtime pay will be a negotiable item?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his continued strong support of our working families, especially on the issues of the minimum wage and overtime. I was listening to the Senator talk about the issue dealing with training in the armed services. I ask the Senator, is it not true that since 1938, when we have gone through World War II, the Korean War, the cold war, the Vietnam War, Gulf War, everything else, during that time our young men and women who served in the military who got training and then later got out were still eligible for overtime pay regardless of the kind of training they got?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague for pointing this out. I think this does clarify it. Because who better to respond than the people being affected, the police officers?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for the eloquence of his statement and I thank Senator Dorgan for his unwavering support through all the years I have been privileged to know him and be his friend, his unwavering support for the common man and woman in this country, for working families, for our farmers and ranchers out in the West and the Midwest. Senator Dorgan is always eloquent in his remarks. As you listen to Senator Dorgan speak, you can hear the voice of that average man and that average woman out there who are not big time lobbyists down here on K Street; as Senator Dorgan said, they don't have the shiny shoes and suspenders and whatever else. They are out there working every day, feeding and clothing their families. They have a decent life. They give their kids a good education. They do what they can to make sure their kids have a little bit better life than they have had. It is called the American dream. And no one has been a stronger supporter of ensuring that American dream for our working families than the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. I thank him for all that support through all the years and for carrying on the fight for overtime and making sure our workers are paid the overtime that is due them when they work over 40 hours a week. Earlier today I pointed out the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Thomas from California, according to the Congressional Quarterly, told a business group yesterday he thinks this foreign tax bill we have before us is doomed. Those were his words. He pointed the finger at the business community, according to today's issue of the national journal Congress Daily. Mr. Thomas, in other words, was blaming K Street lobbyists for this bill's likely demise in the House. It seems to me what we have is a bill that is already being slow- walked by some of the majority leadership in the Senate because the leaders on the other side don't want to vote on overtime. I hope we don't hear anything from the other side saying somehow we are to blame for slowing down this bill. We had a unanimous consent agreement. My amendment was in line to be offered. I offered the amendment in good faith. I was even asking if we could have a time agreement. Imagine that. I offered the amendment. I offered a time agreement. I couldn't even be given a time agreement by the other side. Then the Republican side goes ahead and files this motion to recommit with an amendment on it and then they filed cloture and all this gobbledygook parliamentary stuff. What it means is we will not vote today. We will have a cloture vote tomorrow. They will not get cloture. Then I hear rumors the leadership on the Republican side will then pull the bill and somehow blame Democrats, blame Democrats, us, our side, for not getting this bill through. I will tell you, talk about chutzpah. That is like the person who went before the judge for having killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. The other side is responsible for killing this bill. Have no doubt. Make no bones about it. They are responsible because they don't want to vote on overtime. They don't want to vote. They get kind of wobbly in the knees. Their ankles get weak. They break out in a cold sweat when they think they might have to vote on whether to uphold the administration's proposed rules that will take overtime pay away from hard-working American families. They have to vote against the administration. Sometimes we are called upon to represent our constituents. As hard as that may be to believe by some, sometimes we are called upon to represent our constituents, not the administration but to represent our people. The administration may want to take away overtime pay. That may be their position. But at least we ought to have the right to vote on whether we ought to uphold that decision. I know it may come as a shock to many Americans, but sometimes we are not allowed to vote in the Senate. We are not allowed to vote on an amendment. I have my amendment pending. They won't let us vote on it because they filed this cloture motion, this parliamentary device. As the Senator from North Dakota said, I don't care how many times we have to be here. We will be back, we will be back, we will be back to vote on whether we are going to take overtime pay away from American workers. If we don't vote on it tomorrow, we will vote on it some other time, or my friends on the other side will continue to pull bill after bill after bill because they don't want to vote on it. Maybe they think they can just go ahead and issue the final regulations. Then it will be sort of a fait accompli. Evidently, we will not do anything. I am sorry, Mr. President. If that is the case, we will be back with an amendment to say they will not go into effect until we have had open and public hearings on these regulations. We will have a vote on it. My friends on the other side of the aisle are just putting off the inevitable. Maybe for one reason or another they don't want this bill to go through anyway. That is kind of an odd position, as I said to the Senator from North Dakota. As the chairman of the committee said this morning, under the international agreements we have on trade, the World Trade Organization rules that our pretax policy is an illegal export subsidy, and consequently the WTO has authorized Europe to go up to $4 billion a year against certain U.S. exports. The sanctions began on March 1. They started at 5 percent. Then they go up 1 percent a month, all the way up to 17 percent over the course of a year. I don't want to pay those tariffs. I don't want to pay those penalties. I would like to get this bill through. The other side, though, simply because they do not want a vote on overtime, is saying they are going to go ahead and pay these tariffs. It seems to me what they are saying is they would rather pay tariffs to Europe than overtime to workers. That is exactly what is happening. Pay the tariffs to Europe but don't pay overtime to our workers. A lot has been said about the American worker and working families. I wonder how many people know that right now American workers work longer per year than anyone else in the industrialized world. This chart shows it. For the years 2002 and 2003, American workers are working in the United States almost 2,000 hours a year--more than Australia, Japan, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, or Germany. Not only are we working longer hours per year, we are now being told if we work overtime we will not get paid for it. Do you know what is going to happen if these rules go into effect? This bar will go way up because then employers will work their employees longer because they don't have to pay them overtime. We already work longer. What is the history of this bill? This kind of gets to the crux again of what is happening here with the proposed rules on overtime. I said last summer when I offered this amendment and it was adopted by the Senate, the biggest impact of taking away overtime pay protection would be on women. People wondered why I said that. Why would women be impacted most? For two reasons: One, because the annual hours worked by middle-income wives with children in 1979 were 895 hours a year. By the year 2000, that had gone to 1,308 hours a year. Women with children are working more--not quite double but almost--than what they were a mere 21 years ago. Most of these jobs are in certain types of clerical positions in which women have been engaged. Some of them are in positions which are going to be reclassified under the proposed rules as ``professions.'' These are the kinds of jobs that are mostly held by working women, and mostly by working mothers. The biggest impact will be on working women. The initial wave of impact will be on working women. I have a statement from Susan Moore of Chicago. She said: I am currently entitled to time and a half under Federal law. I know for a fact that is the reason I am not required to work long hours like the project managers who are not entitled to overtime pay. My supervisor has to think hard about whether to assign overtime to me because he has to pay for my time. That means more time for my family and that time is important to me. If the law changes and I lose my right to overtime pay, I will be faced with the impossible choice of losing time with my family or losing my job. This is a statement from Sheila Perez of Bremerton, WA. She said: I began my career as a supply clerk earning $3.10 an hour in 1976. I entered an upward mobility program and received training to become an engineer technician with a career ladder that gave me a yearly boost in income. It seemed, though, that even with a decent raise every year, I really relied on overtime income to help make ends meet. I am a working single parent. There are many more single parents today with the same problem. How does one pay for the car that broke down or the braces for the children's teeth? Overtime income has been the lifesaver to many of us. When I as a working mother leave my 8-hour day job and go home, my second shift begins. There is dinner to cook, dishes to wash, laundry and all the other housework that must be done which adds another 3 to 4 hours to your workday. When one has to put in extra hours at work, it takes away from the time needed to take care of our personal needs. Listen to Sheila Perez who is from Bremerton, WA, a single parent. She says: It only seems fair that one should be compensated for that extra effort of working overtime. Overtime is a sacrifice of one's time, energy, physical and mental well-being. Compensation should be commensurate in the form of premium pay as it is a premium of one's personal time, energy and expertise that is being used. If I might interpret what Sheila Perez is saying, she says: I am a single parent. I work hard. I rely on overtime. When I get home from work, I have another job taking care of my kids, doing all of my laundry. My time with my kids at home on the weekends is my premium time. If I am being asked to give up my premium time to work on the job, I ought to be given premium pay. I can't say it any better than Sheila Perez. Again, it is another example why this is going to hit working women the hardest. I am just notified that CongressDaily, as of 3 p.m., which was only about 40 minutes ago, had this statement. CongressDaily comes out during the day, and at 3 p.m. said: A senior GOP leadership aide reiterated today that GOP leaders will refuse a floor vote on the amendment from Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to strike a labor provision involving overtime pay for white-collar workers. I don't know if that is true. It is being reported in CongressDaily at 3 p.m. that they will refuse a floor vote on my amendment; refuse it. Why is it they get so wobbly in the knees, with weak ankles, and break out in a cold sweat? Maybe they are just afraid of George Bush. Maybe they are afraid of the administration downtown. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, don't be afraid of them; be afraid of the people you represent. They are the ones who pay your salary. They are the ones who vote to send you here. They are the ones whose overtime is being assaulted, not the President and the people down at the White House. Last summer in August, Peter Hart Research Associates, a well-known national pollster, did a poll. This was the question: There is now a proposal to change the Federal law that determines which employees have the legal right to overtime pay. This proposal would eliminate the right to overtime pay for 7 million employees who now have that right. Do you favor or oppose this proposal? In favor, 14 percent; oppose,74 percent. That is not even close. I can understand why the other side would not want to vote on this. Maybe they feel dutybound, politically bound, party bound to support their President. Therefore, they would not want to vote because they know 74 percent of the American people are opposed to this proposal to take away their overtime pay, the right to overtime pay. This is an issue that strikes, as so many before me have said, at the heart of fairness and equity to American workers. What could be more fair than if you have to work over 40 hours a week, you have to be paid time-and-a-half overtime? That is the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938. What is a little known fact is that a debate raged in this country for a long period of time--I would say almost 40 years from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, at least until 1938--on restricting the number of hours that an American worker had to work without getting some kind of extra pay. Remember, in those days we even had child labor; we got rid of that. The American workers were working 50, 60, 70 hours a week with no protection by labor unions, no rights whatever. Finally, slowly but surely, organized labor grew, more and more rights were attained by our workers, and then the debate ensued about how many hours a week should a worker work without being paid overtime. A little known fact: In 1937, this Senate, in this very Chamber in which we find ourselves today, right here in this Chamber, the Senate, in 1937, voted to establish a 30-hour workweek. Imagine, right here in the Senate where we are standing, the Senate, in 1937, voted for a 30- hour workweek. The debate ensued, and finally, by 1938 they compromised. The compromise was a 40-hour week with time-and-a-half overtime. Think about that: the Senate, in 1937, actually voted to establish a 30-hour workweek. Today, we cannot even get a vote in the Senate on whether we will pay people overtime to work over 40 hours a week. We cannot get a vote on it. That says something about the difference of the Senate in 1937 from the Senate in 2004. I wonder how many votes the Senate would get today if someone offered a vote to establish a 30-hour workweek. Do you think it would get 10 votes? In 1937 they got a majority of the votes, right here in the Senate. Yet now they are working longer and longer hours every year. More and more people are being made to work over 40 hours a week and not being paid for it. The reason I hear so much is we need to reclassify workers. The reclassification they are talking about basically would hit women the hardest, would reclassify them as being professional and therefore exempt from overtime. Again, they have done this without having one public hearing. I think they thought they could get by with it; just issue these rules and that would be the end of it. The American people have spoken loudly and strongly, saying they are not going to sit down and let their rights to overtime pay be taken away. Congress Daily, today at 3 p.m. says, quoting a senior GOP leadership aide, GOP leaders will refuse a floor vote on my amendment. As I said a week or so ago--and I see my colleague from California-- and I am not in the habit of quoting the present Governor of California, the movie actor, but I will quote him in saying ``I'll be back.'' We'll be back. This is not going to go away. If the other side thinks by doing these parliamentary tricks that somehow we will give up, they are wrong.

Mr. HARKIN. We will not give up because we are fighting for the rights of American workers to have justice and fairness in their working conditions. As Sheila Perez said, from Bremerton, WA, if she is forced to give up her premium time, her time with her family, she ought to get premium pay. We will continue to fight for this.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that under a previous order the Senate is going to recess at 12:30 p.m.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are in a situation where it looks as though the majority on the other side simply does not want to vote on my overtime amendment. They are going to do everything they can to try to prevent it. Again, there is talk about delay and who is delaying this bill. Look, I offered my amendment the other day and we could have had a vote by now. I was willing to enter into a time agreement. They would not do it. I offered the amendment under a unanimous consent agreement reached with the other side to bring it up. Now, the parliamentary games being played are not on this side; they are on the other side. One really has to ask, Does the other side really want to get this bill through? Again, I have no doubt that the chairman, my friend and colleague from Iowa, wants to get it through. He is chairman. Having been in that position before on another committee, I know you want to get your bill through. I have no doubt that the Senator from Iowa would like to get the bill through. It looks as though the leadership on that side-- either the leadership or the administration; I don't know who is calling the shots--is simply saying they don't want to have a vote on overtime. It is really unfortunate that they have now filed cloture on this bill. My friend and colleague from Iowa, and others on the other side, have referred to this as a jobs bill. They keep talking about it is a jobs bill. Well, all I can say in response to that is I believe the ranking member of our committee, Senator Baucus from Montana, would like to get the bill through, we would like to get completion of this bill and get it through, but that does not mean we should not be allowed to offer some reasonable number of amendments to try to improve it as we see fit. They may win, they may lose, but at least we ought to be allowed the right to offer and debate some amendments within reasonable timeframes. One of the most important job-related amendments is the amendment on overtime. How could we possibly tell the American people with a straight face that we are passing a ``jobs bill'' on the Senate floor but we are not addressing the issue of overtime pay and the administration's proposed regulations that would have the effect of taking overtime pay protection away from millions of American workers? This is an issue that goes right to the heart, the gut, of our American workforce: The right to be paid time and a half when one works over 40 hours a week. It has been in the law since 1938. Yet, as I said yesterday and I will continue to point out, last year the administration came out with a proposed set of regulations to change the underlying overtime law. They did it without having one public hearing. Imagine that, changing something so fundamental to the American work ethic as the right to overtime pay without having a public hearing. They put out the proposed regulations and the American public responded with thousands--I have heard maybe 60,000 to 70,000 comments. Then last summer, after a number of us had gotten wind of what they were trying to do and we started reading the proposed regulations, we offered an amendment on the Senate floor that would have basically denied that part of the overtime regulation that would take away this overtime right. That amendment I offered last summer passed the Senate. It was bipartisan. I have heard a lot of references to the fact that this bill is a bipartisan bill. Well, the amendment I am offering is a bipartisan amendment because it was voted on last summer by both Republicans and Democrats and passed in the Senate, 54 to 46. Around here, that is pretty bipartisan. Basically, what that amendment said is, no, we are not going to agree with the administration's proposed changes on overtime rules. If the administration wants to make fundamental changes in overtime rules, they ought to do it in the time-honored manner: work with Congress, have public hearings around the country, and then let Congress and the administration get together to revise, if revision is needed, overtime laws. But that is not the way the administration did it. Again, if I hear correctly people on the other side say we are slowing down or stopping this bill, I am sorry; it does not ring true. This bill could have been brought up last fall, and it was not. We just spent a whole week in the Senate debating a gun bill that failed with over 90 votes against it. What was that all about? Why did we spend over a week doing that when we could have been doing this bill, if this bill is so important? One has to raise some questions about what is going on because when one reads some of the publications around here--this was in Congressional Quarterly Today about this bill. According to the Congressional Quarterly, the chairman of the House committee, Congressman Thomas: . . . told the Tax Executive Institute, a group of corporate tax officials, on Monday that lobbyists seeking specific changes in international tax rules had effectively stymied his bill, according to the Associated Press. So it is not us who are stymying this bill. Again, there are some corporate lobbyists downtown who are. Again, from CQ Today: Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, R- California, told a group of business tax officials on Monday that the current House version of the bill (H.R. 2896) was probably doomed. So it is not us who are slowing this bill down, not at all. This Senator would like to see this bill get through. I think there are some good things in this bill. That does not mean we should not be allowed to offer our amendments and have an up-or-down vote on those amendments. A jobs bill? Well, fine, call it a jobs bill, but do not tell me this is a jobs bill and then say we cannot have a vote on our overtime amendment. That is about jobs. We know it is about jobs because we know, common sense dictates, if an employer can work a person longer than 40 hours a week and not have to pay overtime, why, it would be much better to work the person longer, pay them less, and then not hire any new workers. At a time when we have 9 million Americans out of work, we have a jobless recovery in this country, why would we now be wanting to give employers another incentive not to hire new workers? We had an agreement to consider my amendment. It was the fourth amendment in the series we agreed to prior to last week's recess, but no sooner was I able to offer my amendment last evening than the majority leadership decided to move to recommit the whole bill and to file cloture on that motion. I am not sure how that meets our previous agreement to take up my amendment, but that is where we are now. A motion to recommit the bill is pending. I would like to talk about overtime. I would like to have an amendment about overtime and have a vote on it. As my parliamentary inquiries earlier this morning showed, we can go through this whole charade, motion to recommit, file a cloture, we can vote on that, and we can still come back with this amendment. I suppose then they will file cloture on the bill. That is why it was wrong on the majority side to file cloture on this motion to recommit and why I hope we will oppose that cloture motion and deny cloture until we can get a right to offer our amendments and have a vote on our amendments. We are not asking for unlimited debate. I would agree with the manager of the bill right now to a time limit on my amendment with an up-or-down vote. So it is not about us stalling this bill. Forget about that. Get that out of your head. That is not what is happening. What is happening is the majority side simply does not want to vote on overtime. Why? Because I think they are afraid, and the vote will be even stronger this time than it was last summer because more and more American workers, more and more people have found out what this administration downtown is trying to do to their overtime pay. I will be on the floor waiting for every opportunity to offer this amendment and to get a vote on it. If the other side believes that somehow by going through this charade and slowing this bill down and somehow blaming us for it when we are not doing this is somehow going to get rid of this overtime amendment, well, I am sorry to disappoint them. We are going to continue to debate and have a vote on this overtime amendment. It is that crucial, that important, to the American worker that this Senate express itself once again and say no to the administration, that we are not going to let them trample on the rights of American workers and take away their right to overtime pay if they work over 40 hours a week. I see my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer because that was my understanding: that upon the disposition of the pending amendment, and any amendments thereto--any second degrees--then Senator Daschle would be recognized, or his designee, in which case he is designating me to offer the overtime amendment. Now, I was here the other day, and I was going to offer the overtime amendment as a second degree to the underlying amendment, but then Senator Grassley got recognized, as is his right as the chairman of the committee, to offer a second degree, and that now is what is pending before the Senate. I take the floor this afternoon to once again state how urgently necessary it is that we proceed to consideration of my amendment regarding the administration's proposed changes of the rules on overtime. To recapture what has transpired, about a year ago, the Department of Labor issued proposed regulations that would fundamentally change how employers pay overtime to people who work over 40 hours a week. These proposed regulations came forth without having one public hearing, perhaps the most substantial change in our overtime laws since 1938 when they were adopted under the Fair Labor Standards Act. You would think if any administration wanted to really change how overtime is paid, they would have gone around the country and had public hearings. This is normally what you do. No. These were issued without one public hearing. Now that the proposed regulations have been out there, the Department of Labor has heard from America. I understand tens of thousands, maybe as high as 70 or 80,000, comments have come in on these proposed regulations. Still the administration has not seen fit to have public hearings about it. I think they thought they could do it quietly. This is a fundamental alteration, the biggest alteration since 1938 when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed. Last year I offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have denied the right of the administration to issue the proposed regulations and would have forced the administration to work with Congress, to have hearings and come up with a reasonable approach to changing overtime rules. That amendment was adopted by the Senate on a bipartisan vote. The House of Representatives soon after had a vote on what they call instructing their conferees, which is basically a vote to say we agree with the Senate and this is what we want in the final bill. That passed the House of Representatives. So they went into conference between the House and the Senate with my amendment intact. Somehow it never made it to the final bill. The administration came into the conference and said it had to be taken out. It was thrown out. And, of course, the Omnibus appropriations bill we vote on, as you know, cannot be amended. So, therefore, we were faced with an up-or-down vote on the bill without this amendment. We had to vote to keep the Government operating, to pay our troops in Iraq, and everything else. I said at the time this is too important a matter just to forget about and move on. So when the Senate came back into session in January of this year, I immediately took to the floor and said: At the first opportunity, I will offer this amendment again. The American people now have heard about it, and they know about it. They are beginning to understand what it means to them and their jobs to have these changes go into effect. I believe the votes are here, once again, to say to the administration: No, don't take away the right of people to get time- and-a-half pay when they work over 40 hours a week. By some estimates, up to 8 million American workers would have their right to overtime pay taken away. So I have said I would offer this amendment on this bill. They call this a jobs bill. Well, this amendment is about jobs. It is about not only protecting jobs and overtime pay, but it is about creating jobs. I believe it is necessary to proceed to consideration of this amendment so that the administration, once again, will understand that prior to any final regulations being issued, they need to go back to the drawing board, hear from the public, work with Congress, as other Congresses have done. Since 1938, we have amended the Fair Labor Standards Act maybe a dozen times, but it has always been done in conjunction with Congress, Congress and the administration working together to come up with reasonable amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. There is nothing wrong with that. Times change. Conditions change. This should be done periodically. But this administration did not do that. They just drafted these under the cover of darkness, issued them and said: We are going to take away the right of about 8 million Americans to overtime pay. So it is appropriate that we debate and vote on my amendment on the FSC JOBS bill because my amendment is about one thing--jobs. These new overtime rules will eliminate time-and-a-half overtime pay for up to 8 million American workers. But, again, it is not just about eliminating overtime pay. These proposed rules will retard the creation of new jobs. This is just basic logic. If employers can more easily deny overtime pay, they will push their current employees to work longer hours without compensation. With 9 million Americans currently out of work, why would you give an employer yet another disincentive to hire new workers. Yet that is exactly why the administration is pushing these new overtime rules. This is why these proposed new rules have the support of some major business groups in America but not all. I always like to point out that I represent a lot of businesses in my State of Iowa--good, healthy, productive businesses. Not one business in my State of Iowa has come to me saying we need to change the overtime rules, not one. I am wondering, where is this coming from? The National Association of Manufacturers says, well, they will reduce labor costs. It will reduce the need to hire new workers. It will have a direct destructive impact on jobs in the United States. So let's be clear. My amendment on overtime is about creating jobs, overcoming the stagnant job market. And, yes, it is about making sure we protect the time-honored right to overtime pay when you work over 40 hours a week. There was an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal which I think summed it up. It says: Shortchanged. Many firms refuse to pay for overtime. Employees complain. Others claim workers are exempt under the law or raise output targets, but the rules are confusing. Here is the quote: . . . While employees like overtime pay, a lot of employers don't. That is no surprise. Violations are so common that the Employer Policy Foundation, an employer supported think tank in Washington, estimates that workers would get an additional $19 billion a year if the rules were observed. That estimate is considered conservative by many researchers. In plain English, the Employer Policy Foundation, an employer- supported think tank in Washington, is basically saying American workers are being cheated out of $19 billion a year because they are working overtime and they are not getting paid for it right now. Well, guess what happened, Madam President. A couple of these companies got caught. They got taken to court. They appealed and the appeals court found for the employees. One famous case on the west coast is where employees were clocking out of work after working an 8- hour day, and they were being forced to come right back in the door and work longer hours. Well, they got caught. More and more employers were getting caught. So now what they want to do is change the rules. They want to work you longer. They want to work you more than 40 hours a week, but they don't want to pay you overtime. That is what the Wall Street Journal said. So rather than being confronted with the fact that they might be taken to court, they change the rules. Now there won't be any court case. That is what the administration's proposal on overtime is all about. It is about taking away the rights of people. You know, I had a quote that I will bring up in further debate on this amendment. One worker--a woman, if I am not mistaken--said something I thought was very poignant. She said: My time with my kids and my family in the evenings and on the weekends is premium time to me. If I am being asked to give up my premium time with my kids and my family, then I think I ought to get premium pay. That is what overtime is about. They are asking you to give up your premium time with your family, your children, to work overtime. You ought to get premium pay, which is what time and a half is all about. Again, the Bush administration thought they could put these new rules into effect quietly, with no hearings, before anybody knew what was going on. They were wrong. They got caught. The fact is, public outrage over the proposed new overtime rules has gotten stronger and stronger as Americans learn more about the details. They want these proposed rules to be stopped. I understand if the other side, the Republican side, can drag this out and prevent a vote, well, then maybe in the next month or so they can issue these final rules taking away overtime pay, and then it will be very hard to undo that later on. They know that. That is why they don't want a vote on this amendment. That is why the other side is doing everything they can to keep me from getting a vote. Madam President, we are not going to be quiet about it. This is the editorial from the New York Times: ``The Quiet Shift In Overtime.'' It says: The Bush administration is engineering bread and butter changes in the Federal regulation of overtime pay. . . . The proposed Labor Department regulations have stirred justifiable concerns. They are being presented by the Labor Department as overdue improvements. But as they are doing it, as they said, they are doing it quietly, behind the scenes. More problematical is the possibility that more workers-- millions, according to pro-labor analysts--could be forced into unpaid overtime under the regulations, which do not affect blue collar workers. By some estimates, veterans, police detectives, or senior nurses might lose overtime compensation that now accounts for as much as 25 percent of their salaries. They thought they could do it quietly, but the more we learned about it, we found that the American people were not going to sit by and let premium time with their families be taken away, being forced to work longer hours for regular pay. With so many people unemployed, you would think you would want to create jobs. These proposed rules on overtime will be a disincentive to creating any new jobs. Madam President, I hope we can get to my amendment. I will have more to say about it. I have more data and details I wish to bring out. For example, one thing I brought out before, since 1938, there has been a classification of learned professions, such as lawyers, doctors, architects, things like that--the learned professions, which were exempt from overtime. In all of the regulations since that time, there has never been any inclusion in the learned professions of what an individual learned while serving in the U.S. military. It wasn't until going through these proposed regulations with a fine-tooth comb that we discovered there were inserted into these proposed regulations four or five words about what these learned professions--as it goes through them all--learned while in the military, military training. That had never been in the regulations before--never. Why were those in there? Here it is right on this chart. These are the changes, the new part of the regulations that had never been there before: However, the word customarily means that the exemption is also available to employees in such professions and substantially the same knowledge level as the degreed employees, but who attain such knowledge through a combination of work experience, training in the Armed Forces, attending a technical school, attending a community college, or other intellectual instruction. What is different? ``Training in the Armed Forces'' has never been in these rules before. So when we see all these ads saying ``join the Army and be all you can be,'' they talk about all the nice technical training you can get while you are in the military. What they are not telling you now is, if you do that, after you get out of the military, you will be exempt from overtime pay because of what you learned while you were in the military. So we could have a situation where we have two individuals: one goes to the military and gets training and the other doesn't. They come out and they could have substantially the same kind of jobs. One could have had on-the-job training and one learned in the military. Both are basically equal. The person who served in the military gets cheated out of overtime, but the person who wasn't in the military would be able to get overtime. What kind of sense does that make? But it is in there. ``Training in the Armed Forces'' has never been in the rules since 1938. We fought World War II, the Korean war, the cold war, Vietnam war, and every other war and we have never said to the men and women in uniform when they learn something in the military, we are going to take away their right to overtime. Why are we doing that now? Why are we doing that? Again, these are some of the hidden little things in this proposed regulation that need to be brought out, with scrutiny in the sunshine. Let people know about it. Again, I hope we can get to my amendment. It has the overwhelming support of the American public. As more and more of them know about this, they don't want their right to be taken away. I have talked with workers who received no overtime last year, no overtime pay. They were expressing to me how much they were opposed to this proposed change in the rules. I said: If you are not working overtime, why are you opposed? They said: It is a right we have. We may not have gotten overtime, but if I do work it, I want my right protected. That just about sums it up. It is a right that should not be taken away. Again, it is urgent that we proceed to the overtime amendment. Let's go to my amendment. Let's have a good debate. I am willing to have a time agreement, if the other side would like to have a time agreement. Let's have the debate. I want to hear from the other side why we should let these proposed regulations go into effect. Let's have the debate so the American people can understand what is at stake, and let's have an up-or-down vote on my amendment. Let's have an up-or-down vote on whether the Senate would agree with the administration that these proposed rules, these changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act, should go into effect or whether the administration should go back to the drawing board, work with Congress, do it in an open, aboveboard manner. There are some changes that do need to be made in the Fair Labor Standards Act. There is one part of the proposed rules of which I am supportive, and that is raising the base from about $8,000 a year to $22,000 a year. That should have been done a long time ago. My amendment does not affect that. My amendment leaves that in place. But in giving with one hand--that is, raising the base up to $22,000 a year--the administration is taking away the right to overtime pay from about 8 million Americans with the other hand. That is a bad deal. I hope we can get to my amendment. I hope we can have a good debate and an up-or-down vote on it. I am prepared to do so whenever the leadership dispenses with these pending amendments. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa, the Senator from Montana, and also Senator Reid, our assistant leader on this side, for working out this agreement. As I have said all along, all we want is debate and a vote on the overtime issue. This is an important issue that has come to a head right now because the administration shortly will be issuing final regulations on this issue without really having duly consulted with Congress. These regulations could take away the right to overtime pay for over 8 million American workers. So I hope we can have a good debate on this, probably tomorrow--not tonight but tomorrow. Certainly I have discussed this with the Senator from Montana. We would be willing to enter into a time agreement. I have heard some talk around that the other side, the Republican side, will now file a cloture motion. Obviously, if that cloture motion wins, then my amendment fails because it is ``nongermane.'' Now, we just saw--and I did not object to the amendments just being adopted which have to do with some extenders. There were some other things added. Those are also nongermane to the bill. So the other side cannot make the argument that they are not going to allow nongermane amendments to this bill. We just adopted a whole bunch of nongermane amendments to this bill. So that is fine. We do that all the time around here. I hope we can have a good debate on this overtime issue and have an up-or-down vote. I can assure the other side that if their goal is to cut off this amendment by filing a cloture motion, we will do all we can on this side to deny cloture on this bill until we have a vote on the overtime amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and look forward to the debate tomorrow on overtime.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2881 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I know we are a little stalled on the floor right now. There is an underlying amendment to the bill, and then there is a second degree that is now trying to be worked out having to do with tax extenders. I understand there may even be yet another second degree into this package. I know the leadership has said there will be no votes today. I understand that. But I ask the Presiding Officer, is there now pending a unanimous consent agreement that after the disposition of the pending amendment, and any amendments thereto, that Senator Daschle or his designee would then be recognized to offer an amendment?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Sinsky of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's and tomorrow's debate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely right. We know with this amendment there will be a dramatic reduction. It is estimated youth smoking would go down by at least 18 percent with this amendment. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support and for pointing that out. I reserve whatever time we may have remaining.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself a couple minutes. A lot of people might say: My gosh, Senator Harkin and Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin, a dollar a pack is a lot of Federal tax on a pack of cigarettes. But this chart shows the history of the Federal excise tax on cigarettes going back to 1950. Shown on this side of the chart would be for 1950. At that time, the Federal excise tax was 49 percent of the average wholesale price for a pack of cigarettes--49 percent. Today, it is 14 percent. So those who say that a dollar a pack on that is too much, I point out it only brings it up to 30 percent of the average wholesale price of a pack of cigarettes. That would be 30 percent; and that would be less than what it has been many times in the past. So it is not out of line with what we have had as a Federal excise tax on cigarettes, as I said, going clear back to 1950. Then all the way up until about 1983 it was more than 30 percent of the average wholesale price. So this is not out of line. But what we get for this, as has been pointed out, is we get $30 billion over 5 years to invest in health research, wellness, prevention programs, anti-obesity programs, smoking cessation programs, and keeping our people more healthy. Plus, we also get out of this amendment about $9 billion in deficit reduction. So this amendment does two things: It raises the Federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents to $1, which would bring it up to about 30 percent of the wholesale price, and it takes that money and puts it in the health function so we can invest in the health of our people in this country. That is all this amendment does. It does nothing else.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time does this side have left?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time does this side have?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment does what 400 public health organizations around the country say is vitally needed. It increases function 550 health spending by 12 percent. That is $6 billion in the next fiscal year and $30 billion over 5 years. It also provides for $9 billion in deficit reduction over the same 5 years. The amendment pays for this needed investment with a revenue measure that delivers more public health benefits. We raise the current Federal tax on cigarettes by 61 cents a pack, from 39 cents to $1 a pack. This would provide $30 billion for public health over 5 years, and $9 billion of deficit reduction. I showed this chart earlier. If you think $1 a pack is a lot of money, I point out in much of the history of the Federal excise tax on cigarettes we were as high as 49 percent of the average wholesale price on a pack of cigarettes. We are now down to 14 percent. This amendment would only raise it to 30 percent of the average wholesale price. I ask unanimous consent a letter supporting this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Budget Committee reported out a budget resolution that provided $232 million for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to enable the extension of several expiring provisions of child nutrition law. This was the amount that Agriculture Committee Chairman Cochran and I noted in our letter to the Budget Committee would, at a minimum, be necessary to ensure that children who qualify for benefits under current law would not lose them. However, more is clearly needed. Given the nutritional risks to American children today and the numerous unmet needs that exist in Federal child nutrition programs, I commend Senators Dole and Leahy for their bipartisan effort to provide additional funding for federal child nutrition programs. If these additional funds remain in the conference report, they will help the Senate Agriculture Committee to take important steps in pending child nutrition legislation. The need for additional funds is significant, including, for instance, the expansion the Summer Food Service Program and the fruit and vegetable pilot projects, lowering area eligibility for the Child and Adult Care Food Program, helping children who still face financial barriers to participate in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, and improving the entire nutritional environment in American schools. If additional funds are provided in the conference report, it is, however, critical to understand that, by relying on function 920 to offset this amendment, a number of critical issues remain. The use of function 920 fails to specify the source of the new funds, meaning that they could accrue either by increasing the national debt or as a result of unspecified program cuts. Of course, the question of the actual cuts that may be specified is an important one. I am particularly concerned that any cuts that fall within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Agriculture could pit one set of interests against another in a way that could reopen the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act passed just 2 years ago. Neither the members of the committee nor the interested stakeholders in the agriculture and nutrition communities would be well served by such an unfortunate situation. I, and I believe my colleagues on the committee, would be very hesitant to pit the needs of rural America against the similarly important needs of needy children and working families.