Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will call for consideration of the resolution at a later time. We will do that, under prior agreement, at a time, as I understand it, that will be later in the afternoon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on another subject, I want to address the Senate for just a few moments on one of the important aspects of the President's budget. The President's budget should be looked at, not only for what it contains, but also for what is not included in the budget.

Mr. KENNEDY. I know we just heard my good friend from Texas talk about the Border Patrol and the commission that has been established.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is on this bill. I am conscious of that. I will not take a great deal of time, but I am not familiar with restrictions. I inquired of the Chair to be able to work out a suitable time to be able to speak. I don't intend to take much time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I will make it to be. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. That will be fine. I ask to be notified when I have 30 seconds left. The Budget Madam President, the President's budget that was submitted today, which is really the declaration by the administration with regards to defense and national security, but also is extraordinarily important in terms of health policy and education. There is probably not a more important document that is submitted by any President than the budget item indicating a nation's priorities. So that is why I wanted to be able to just take a few moments on one particular aspect of it, and that is the state of our economy and how this budget addresses the state of that economy or how it failed to do so. I just wanted to share with the Senate the strong sense that we are in a jobless recovery. This economy may be fine for Wall Street, but it is bad for Main Street. I have certainly seen that in the last weeks or months that I have had a chance to get around this country. I saw it up in the State of New Hampshire, where every new job is paying 35 percent less than the jobs that had disappeared. I saw that down in New Mexico, where you still have 78,000 workers who are waiting for an increase in the minimum wage and the new jobs are paying 23 percent less. It is the same in Arizona, in Michigan, in South Carolina, and across the country. South Carolina has lost tens of thousands of jobs. So I was interested about what is in this budget, or what would fail to be in this budget, with regard to American workers. One of the principal concerns that I find from families while traveling across this country is the failure of the Senate to respond to the problems of those who are unemployed with the extension of the unemployment insurance. There are 90,000 workers a week who are losing their unemployment compensation. There is virtually nothing in this legislation that deals with that. The unemployment compensation fund has nearly $20 billion. The proposal that has been offered by Senator Cantwell and others would provide for some 13 weeks of unemployment compensation. It has been rejected by the other side more than 12 different times. Look at this chart. It shows the average number of out-of-work Americans who are running out of unemployment benefits and not finding jobs. The average monthly rate from 1973 to 2003 was 150,000. The estimate for January 2004 is 375,000. And there is not one word in here to recommend that we have a temporary extension of unemployment compensation. These are all hard-working Americans. They are not eligible for the unemployment compensation fund unless they have paid into it. They have paid into it. And we are finding objection from the other side to providing some relief for these workers. I can't believe that. Second, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times editorial from Friday that makes this very point I have just made. I will quote part of it. The pernicious joblessness bedeviling the nation is spawning a new category of Americans dubbed ``exhaustees''; the hundreds of thousands of hard-core unemployed who have run through State and Federal unemployment aid. According to the latest estimates, close to 2 million Americans, futilely hunting for work while scrambling for economic sustenance, will join the ranks of exhaustees in the next six months. They represent a record flood of unemployed individuals with expired benefits--the highest in 30 years--who are plainly desperate for help. The emergency program cries out for immediate renewal. I ask unanimous consent that full editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend. I will take time at another time to go through the various provisions of the budget dealing with education and health. I think it is important that the American people understand exactly what those provisions do and don't do for the American people. I thank the floor manager.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I also want to mention one other item that is included by reference. That is the item of the President talking about his overtime provisions. Again, he has indicated his support on the overtime provisions that will effectively eliminate overtime coverage for 8 million Americans-- primarily firefighters, policemen, and nurses, who are the backbone for homeland security. I have said here a number of times that I was not only strongly objecting to the administration's proposal but I particularly object to the inclusion in the administration's proposal that talked about training in the Armed Forces which can make a worker overtime ineligible. That, I thought, was the cruelest part of the proposal. We have American service men and women who are in Iraq, in combat, or in the National Guard and Reserve. Many of them will be coming right back and will return to the civilian job market. Yet if they are going to have the training in the Armed Forces, they could be ineligible for overtime. I have said that before on the floor of the Senate. My good friend Secretary Chao--and I see the former Secretary of Labor presiding over the Senate--wrote a letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert. She pointed out we shouldn't worry about the fact of the military. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, let me quote a couple of parts of it. This is the letter to the Speaker by Secretary Chao stating ``that military personnel and veterans are not affected by these proposed rules by virtue of their military duties or training.'' That is what she says. However: Proposed section 541.301(d) states that ``training in the armed forces'' can make a worker an overtime ineligible. This is new language. It is not in the current regulations. The only purpose is to take away overtime for veterans. Either it is in there or it is not in there. It happens to be in the regulation. She states: First, Part 541 ``white collar exemptions'' do not apply to the military. They cover only the civilian workforce. No one is claiming that the rule affects the military force. The issue is the veterans who leave the military to work in the civilian workforce would lose overtime protections because they have had training in the Armed Forces. Then it goes on: Second, nothing in the current or proposed regulation makes any mention of veterans status. No. But the proposed regulation, for the first time, addresses ``training in the armed forces.'' Veterans who work in the civilian workforce who typically have received such training. It isn't the people who are in the military. We agree with that. It is after they get out that they are going to be subject to this. If they don't want it in, they ought to have another rule that eliminates that. I want to bring to the Senate's attention the understanding of the National Association of Manufacturers. Bush overtime proposal denies overtime to veterans. The overtime proposal explicitly states that training in the armed forces can disqualify workers from overtime protection. Many employer groups encourage the Bush administration to deny overtime protection to more categories of work, such as veterans. Look at these comments from the National Association of Manufacturers. NAM applauds the department for including this alternative means of establishing that an employee has the knowledge required for the exemption from overtime protection to apply. For example, many people who come out of the military have the significant knowledge based on work experience. There it is. Veterans who go in and have that specialized training which is so necessary not only for their security but the security of their squad members or their company members, their platoon, or whatever it might be, they get that. When they come back as a member of the National Guard and return to the civilian workforce, bang, zippo, their employer comes up and says, This is what the rule is. This is what the regulation is, the letter from the Secretary notwithstanding. We are going to make an effort to eliminate that whole overtime rule because we do not believe the men and women who are the heart and soul of homeland security, who are the firefighters, police, nurses, and others ought to be carved out from overtime protections. There are many problems with our economy today, but one of them is not that our firefighters and policemen and nurses are getting paid too much.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. For funding purposes, most multiemployer plans recognize investment losses gradually over a period of years. So, part of a plan's investment losses incurred in 2000, for example, would first be recognized under the funding rules in the 2001 plan year. The portion of those losses that show up in the funding requirements during the relief period would be eligible for the relief.

Mr. KENNEDY. This application process is a fundamental piece of the amendment. It would not be fair to exclude all other employers from the DRC relief. There are many companies in other industries that really need this relief, and we have provided access though the application process.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we conclude our debate on this bill, I thank all of my colleagues for the fruitful debate we have had on these issues, which are vitally important to America's workers and their families. I thank Senator Frist and Senator Daschle for their leadership in ensuring that this bill was passed quickly. I also thank my colleagues, Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and Senator Gregg for working with me to develop this moderate, bipartisan measure to protect our Nation's pension plans. And I thank the following staff members for all of the work they have done on this bill: Rohit Kumar, counsel and policy adviser to Majority Leader Frist; Chuck Marr, economic policy adviser to Minority Leader Daschle; David Thompson, labor and pensions policy director for Senator Gregg; Diann Howland, pension policy adviser to Senator Grassley; and Judy Miller, professional staff member for Senator Baucus. I particularly thank my own staff--Holly Fechner, chief labor counsel; Portia Wu, labor and pensions counsel; and Kathleen Wildman, labor policy office staff assistant--for all of their hard work on this issue. Defined benefit pension plans provide certainty and security for workers and retirees. I believe that we can--and we must--do more to protect the security of America's workers and retirees. Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules deserve to enjoy their old age, to retire without having to worry whether they have enough money to pay for their prescription drugs, to pay for electricity, or even to pay for food. There are many challenges facing our pension system. Our Nation's pension participation rate is the lowest it has been in over a decade. Part-time and low-wage workers continue to lag behind other workers in pension coverage. We must improve our pension system so that all workers can have a pension. We must increase pension portability for workers--who may have many jobs over a lifetime--without sacrificing security. We must ensure that companies adequately fund their pension plans. We must encourage companies to put more money into their pension plans when times are good, instead of only penalizing them when times are bad. By passing this bipartisan legislation, we are taking a much-needed first step to stabilize our pension plans. This legislation has three critical components to help defined benefit pension plans. First, it temporarily replaces the 30-year Treasury bond rate used to calculate employers' required contributions to pension plans with a corporate bond rate. This will stabilize our Nation's defined benefit pension plans and enable them to continue to provide the benefits they have promised. Second, it provides for additional deficit reduction contribution relief to companies that had well-funded pension plans in the past and need extra assistance now. This relief will help protect the pensions and jobs of workers in these industries. Finally, the bill includes important relief for multiemployer plans, which fill major needs in our pension system. Multiemployer plans provide pensions to many low-wage workers, as well as short-term and seasonal workers who might not otherwise be able to earn a pension. I thank all of my colleagues for the support they have given to this bill. This is an important first step, but it is only a first step. I hope my colleagues will join with me in the future to improve and expand our defined benefit system, so that we can ensure that all Americans receive the secure retirement they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. As a matter of interest, Members on our side have inquired about how we were going to proceed on the legislation. I wanted to give them some opportunity. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the past few days we have had a good debate and discussion of the challenges facing the defined benefit pension plan system. I thank my colleagues for engaging with us on these issues that are so vital to the well-being of American workers and their families. As I and others have mentioned, defined benefit pension plans provide a greater certainty and greater security to retirees. Every American deserves this kind of security in his or her old age in terms of retirement. There are savings, which are so important, Social Security and pensions. We have seen savings reduced significantly with our economic downturn and we have also seen the pensions of so many of our citizens threatened. This legislation is designed, as pointed out earlier, to try to deal with a particular challenge in a temporary way until we can reach a final determination on how we are going to proceed. But it is absolutely essential. This week we have taken the first important step to stabilizing our Nation's pension plans, which have been battered by a perfect storm of economic conditions over the last 3 years. I again thank Chairman Grassley, the ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, as well as our HELP committee chairman, Senator Gregg, for working with all of us to develop a moderate bipartisan measure to address the pension system's short-term problems. This amendment does not weaken the existing funding bill. It simply provides temporary, moderate relief to give companies and workers the breathing room needed to take steps to further protect these pension plans. We must take advantage of this time to improve and expand our pension system. More and more American workers are finding themselves without a pension. Since 2000, 3.3 million Americans have lost their pension coverage. In 2002, only 53 percent of our Nation's workers were participating in retirement plans--the lowest level in over a decade. Only one in five workers today has a secure defined benefit plan. This drop in pension coverage is part of an overall decline in the quality of jobs and the quality of benefits that American workers are receiving. American workers are working harder than ever, but they are getting less and less for their effort. I want to take a few moments here on the floor of the Senate to remind our friends and colleagues what the real state of the union is with regard to workers in our country at this time. As recently as today, there were statements and comments by the chairman of the Federal Reserve. On CNN, they asked the question: Do you agree with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comment that new jobs will replace old jobs as they always have? We could ask that in this Chamber. I wonder what the answer would be. The American people get it--certainly the viewers of CNN do. This is nonscientific, but it is a reaction. Those who believe Mr. Greenspan was right were 11, and those who believe he was wrong were 89 percent. Americans are getting it. They are understanding it. The Federal Reserve Bank publication Economics and Finance, last summer said--I will include the appropriate references--that the downward turn in the mid-1970s and early 1980s shows an even mix of cyclical and structural adjustments--those who lost their jobs as temporary workers and who lost their jobs which are more permanent in nature. During these episodes, half the unemployment was structural and half was cyclical. The pattern changed in the early 1990s when industry was undergoing structural adjustments and increased its share of total employment to 57 percent. The greatest change, however, is apparent. In the 2001 downturn, 79 percent of the employees worked in industries affected more by structural shifts than by cyclical shifts. That means, in simple language, those who responded to the CNN poll understand that 80 percent of the jobs that are lost today are permanently lost. This has to be a major concern. This chart indicates that the Federal Reserve reports the Bush job loss is permanent. In the 1950s, the permanent job loss was 51 percent; in the 1980s, again 51 percent; and, early 1990s, only 57 percent. Now, there is an 80 percent permanent job loss--the first time in the history of this country. There is a report from the Department of Labor which shows that 36 States have lost jobs since President Bush took office, and 27 States lost more jobs in the last month alone. The rate of job loss in my State of Massachusetts since President Bush took office is higher than in any other State. I say to the Chair, my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, I doubt if Rhode Island is very far behind. Over the last 3 years, 193,000 jobs disappeared, and 200,000 Massachusetts residents are currently unemployed. In Massachusetts, 2,500 workers a week are running out of benefits because our Republican friends and the Bush administration refuse to extend the unemployment compensation temporarily for 13 weeks to permit these families to pay a mortgage and to put food on the table. These workers have paid into the fund. The fund has $17 billion in surplus. The cost of this legislation for 13 weeks is $7 billion. But no. Look at what the President of the United States said at the time of his State of the Union. He said, ``This economy is strong and growing stronger.'' Applause. And then he said, ``Jobs are on the rise.'' Applause. That really defies the facts and reality in terms of what is happening across the United States in terms of real jobs. I referred previously to the excellent article and report of just last Friday. This information is current. These figures are current with regard to my own State of Massachusetts. The statement of the chairman of the Federal Reserve is current. The study of the Federal Reserve is current. Here is the Wall Street Journal pointing out that the gap in wages and equality is growing for U.S. workers. The gap between the highest and lowest earners in America is widening again, with election year ramifications. The trend is a reflection of the job market. The exceptionally weak response to the current economic recovery as well as the long-term technological and economic changes have eroded the bargaining power of America's lowest paid workers. Data show that younger workers, who currently have fewer job prospects than a few years ago, in particular are bearing the brunt. The numbers indicate a movement to greater wage inequality around the time President Bush succeeded President Clinton. This is the Wall Street Journal. This is not a Democratic organ I am quoting. The disparity started under President Bush with the economic slide into recession 3 years ago. The trend represents a reversal of the late 1990s when the lowest rates in a generation enabled the lowest paid workers to keep pace with those at the top. Mr. President, we will look at the jobs referred to in the President's State of the Union. He talked about these jobs as being on the rise. Look at this chart. This refers to what is happening in the job market. The late 1990s, 1998 to 2000, all the fourth quarter--the same quarter we were coming out of the recession--for every job that paid $16.31, the new job paid $18.32, a $2 bonus. Lost your job? Get a new job and get better pay. This is the average of all the new jobs. What is it today? Under the Bush recovery, for every job that was paying $16.92, the replacement job is $15.65--22 percent nationwide; 35 percent in the State of New Hampshire where so many of our friends and colleagues are today. No wonder the citizens of New Hampshire are concerned about the state of the economy, the cost of tuition, and the cost of health care. Look what is happening in the industries across the country at the point of hiring. We find workers are working harder, working longer, and they are making less. This is the real state of the Union. This chart shows nationwide only two States--Nebraska and Nevada-- have actually increased employment and had a pay increase over the employment figures when the President took office. Every other State has seen a decline. How does the recovery stack up with other recoveries, the last nine recoveries, going back to 1949? This chart compares the constant quarter used when the recession ended. What happened to wages? Going back to 1949, they went up 16 percent; 10 percent in 1954; 10 percent again in 1958; in 1961, 7.9 percent; 9.2 percent in 1982; 1991, 6.1 percent; and 2001, 1.58. That is what is happening out here among workers in the workplace. No wonder, as CNN reported last week, that American workers are finding themselves competing with cheap foreign labor just to hold on to their jobs. They are overwhelmed because they feel as if forces way beyond their control are making decisions that affect their lives. They are exhausted because they are working harder and longer and faster just to stand still. Who is making out with this recovery? This chart compares the recovery in the 1990s and the recovery today. In the Bush economy, corporate profits ballooned compared to workers' wages. With the recovery in the early 1990s, 60 percent of the new economic activity was reflected with 60 percent going to the workers' wages; with the recovery in the 1990s, 40 percent went to corporate profits. With today's recovery, 86 percent goes to corporate profits and 13 percent goes to the workers in this country. Talk about disparity. Talk about fairness. What is going on is the most dramatic change and shift in recent history in terms of the relationship between the profits and what the workers are earning. That is absolutely wrong. The results are dramatic. In the year 2000, there were 31 million Americans living in poverty. Today, there are 34 million Americans living in poverty, according to the Department of Commerce. It is not just what is happening in the job markets; it is happening in health care costs. We see this in the most recent Time magazine, February 2, ``Why Your Drugs Cost So Much More.'' The report shows Americans spent $162 billion on prescription drugs in 2002, up from less than $100 billion a decade ago. Health care spending continues to rise; 9.3 percent in 2002, according to the trade journal Health Affairs. That is the largest increase in 11 years. Employers tighten coverage to cut costs; consumers are more resentful of what they are paying at the drugstore. While prescriptions represented only 10 percent of the total health care costs in the United States in 2002, they amount to 23 percent of the out-of-pocket costs for the consumer. We passed a drug bill last fall. One would think we would look at coverage and try to do something about costs. No way. Written into that, behind closed doors, were the provisions that this Bush administration and the Republicans prohibited the Secretary of HHS to be able to bargain with the drug companies in order to see some reduction. The Secretary for Veterans Affairs can do it and it means a 47-percent reduction for veterans' prescription drugs. But this was prohibited in the legislation. Hopefully in this Congress under the leadership of Tom Daschle and Congresswoman Pelosi, we will address what is happening with health care costs. Prescription drug costs are a special problem because the cost of prescription drugs is out of control. We have to do something for our fellow Americans, primarily our seniors but for others as well, and about the costs of health care generally. Workers are working harder, longer, and for less. They are worried about their health care. The costs are going through the roof, with very little insight to get a handle on that cost. We look not only at what workers are looking for in terms of their costs for health care and the costs of health care for their parents. Look at the costs of college education. This chart is a comparison of tuition at a 4-year public university: it was $3,700 in 2001-2002; now it is $4,700. That's a 26-percent increase since 2001. How can average working families afford to send their child to school? How do they afford their health care costs, their prescription drug costs, their tuition? Look what has happened to wages--nothing. That is the real state of the Union, not this ``jobs are on the rise, and the economy is strong and getting stronger.'' This is the description of what is happening out there to American workers. What is the answer of this administration? We say, with regard to the lowest workers, let's see an increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage has not been increased in 7 years. By the end of this year it will be at its lowest purchasing power, in real terms, in the history of the minimum wage. We say: Let's get an increase. There is a majority of the Members in this body who would vote for an increase in the minimum wage, and we have been prohibited from getting it because the Republican leadership will not let us get a vote on the issue. Seven million Americans are entitled, when they are working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, not to have to live in poverty. That is what we believe on this side. We challenge the other side to give us an opportunity to let the Senate express itself. We have the second issue that I have mentioned, unemployment compensation. Mr. President, 90,000--think of that number of people-- 90,000 individuals a week are losing their unemployment compensation. I do not know how those families do it. How does a father and mother come back and look into the eyes of their children when they lose that unemployment compensation, having worked hard all of their lives, paid into the fund, and it is suddenly gone? And they cannot find a job because we are in a jobless recovery. As the figures show, in the last month, this administration said there would be 300,000 jobs. There have been 1,000 jobs created. It is a jobless recovery. How do those parents deal with it? How do those children react? That is what is happening. Now we cut away their lifeline, the temporary unemployment compensation. No, you cannot have it. You cannot have an increase in the minimum wage to provide some relief. And that is a family value issue because most of those who work for the minimum wage are women, and many of the women have children. It is a family issue, a children's issue, a women's issue, a civil rights issue, a fairness issue. Yet we cannot have a raise in the minimum wage. We cannot have an extension of unemployment benefits. Beyond that, we are going to stick it to 8 million Americans in denying them overtime. We had the debate on that earlier, that proposed regulation by the administration to restrict overtime coverage for 8 million Americans. It was rejected here under the leadership of my friend and colleague, Senator Harkin. It came up in the House of Representatives. It was rejected there. Then those provisions rejecting this regulation were stripped out of the omnibus bill behind closed doors in the middle of the night. That is unfair to a number of different professions. It is unfair to nurses, firefighters, and police officers. They are the backbone of homeland security. But it is unfair to others as well, including many professions which have predominantly women in them. It is very unfair to working women. The cruelest part of this whole proposal was the part of the regulations that said if service men and women, when they are over in Iraq defending this country, and Afghanistan or other parts of the world, got a little specialized training, when they come back and take a job, if they had that specialized training, they would not be eligible for overtime. Can you imagine that? We use these training programs as an incentive for people to go into these services. I have asked on the floor and would love to see the exchange of information between the Secretaries of Labor and Defense on that issue because this is a major incentive-- training programs, education--for young people who perhaps do not have the resources to be able to go on to college and do not want to be a burden on their parents. They go into the service--proudly go into the service--and wear the uniform of our country, and defend our country, but they also try to get that help and assistance in the form of training and education. I will end on this issue with this letter from Randy Fleming, a veteran, and what this proposal would mean to veterans. He is a Boeing employee worried about losing his overtime. This is what his letter says: My name is Randy Fleming. I live in Haysville, Kansas-- outside Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in Boeing's Metrology Lab. I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979. I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time I've been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've raised a son who now has a good career and children of his own. There are two things that helped make that possible. First, the training I received in the Air Force made me qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I think it's still one of the main reasons young people today decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the recruiting ads on TV. The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to give my son the college education that has opened doors for him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10% or more of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, but we'll be counting on my overtime to help her get her college degree, too, when that time comes. For my family overtime pay has made all the difference. That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? I came to talk about an issue that is very important back home and to me personally as a working man, a family man, and a veteran. That issue is overtime rights. The changes that this administration is trying to make in the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain with the men and women in the military and would close down opportunities that working vets and their families thought they could count on. When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a deal that I thought was fair. They got a chunk of my time and I got training to help me build the rest of my life. There was no part of that deal that said I would have to give up my right to overtime pay. You've heard of the marriage penalty? Well I think that what these new rules do is to create a military penalty. If you got your training in the military, no matter what your white collar profession is, your employer can make you work as many hours as they want and not pay you a dime extra. If that's not bait and switch, I don't know what is. And I don't have any doubt that employers will take advantage of this new opportunity to cut our overtime pay. They'll tell us they have to in order to compete. They'll say if they can't take our overtime pay, they'll have to eliminate our jobs. It won't be just the bad employers, either--because these rules will make it very hard for companies to do the right thing. If they can get as many overtime hours as they want for free instead of paying us time-and-a-half, they'll say they owe it to the stockholders. And the veterans and other working people will be stuck with less time, less money, and a broken deal. I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard to get rid of our union. And for all those who want to let these military penalty rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you think it's okay for the government to renege on its deals, I think it should be your job to tell our military men and women in Iraq that when they come home, their service of their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime pay. You can't say it any better than that. And the cruelest part of it all is that the Labor Department puts out a publication to show employers how to go about cutting his overtime pay. Mr. President, just finally, I want to make mention of something we ought to be concerned with--and we ought to be concerned about all workers--but it just came to my attention that the administration's overtime proposal will affect the U.S. Capitol Police. The Capitol Police was first created in 1828 with the sole mission of providing security for the U.S. Capitol Building. These dedicated officers protect our lives, the lives of our staff, and the security of the Nation's Capitol every single day. Nearly 2,000 officers are responsible for these duties, and hundreds of them could lose their overtime pay under the Bush plan. After September 11, many of these officers worked around the clock to secure our safety. During the anthrax attacks, the officers dedicated hours and hours away from their families to secure the Capitol against further biochemical attacks. If you walk through these halls, you can hear the buzz among these officers: Are we going to be affected by this overtime proposal? How could they do this to us? Not every officer would be affected, but many with the specific duties listed in the Bush proposal could lose their overtime protections. Denying overtime protections to even one Capitol Police officer is too much. Sergeants and other officers who spend most of their time on nonmanagerial activities but who supervise two other officers could lose their overtime protection. And for the first time in the history of the Fair Labor Standards Act, nearly 40 percent of the Capitol Police force--those earning above a certain amount who meet just one of the exemption criteria--will not have access to overtime protections. Well, this is where we are. We want to give the assurance to the American workers, to their families, to parents and their children that we are going to battle. We are going to battle to make sure this administration doesn't implement those overtime rules. We are going to battle every moment we have, every opportunity we have, to extend unemployment compensation. And we are going to battle time and time again to increase the minimum wage. Let there be no mistake about it. It is going to come up in the Senate time and time and time and time again, until we provide some justice for workers in America. Amendment No. 2264 To Amendment No. 2233

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I have the attention of the chairman of the Finance Committee? Would the Senator enlighten us as to what he expects as far as when we are going to complete this legislation? As the Senator well knows, we have been on it Wednesday, Wednesday afternoon, Thursday afternoon, Friday, Monday, and today. We have had one amendment. I know we are going to run into all kinds of problems later on in the session about time, and I was just wondering what the leadership intended to do on this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I do not believe there are any amendments on this side.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I look forward to working with the chairman. We are together on this.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, during the last 3 years, we have seen too many good jobs leave this country, and Americans are ending up with lower pay for part-time jobs. Not only do these jobs pay much less, they are also much less likely to offer pension benefits. In fact, 3.3 million Americans have lost their pension coverage since 2000. In 2002, only 53.5 percent of our Nation's workers were participating in retirement plans, the lowest level in over a decade. This means the degradation of jobs not only hurts Americans today, it will continue to hurt them for the rest of their lives and into their retirement and old age. Instead of adopting an every-worker-for-himself retirement policy, we should be encouraging the growth of secure pension plans for all workers. Fewer American workers than ever have a secure, defined benefit pension plan. Only one in five workers today has a defined benefit plan compared with nearly 40 percent of workers in 1980. We must help low-wage workers and employees of small businesses, less than 10 percent of whom have pension coverage today. Strengthening and expanding our pension system is our long-term goal. But first we must take the initial step of stabilizing the pension plans that exist today, which have been battered by the perfect storm of economic conditions over the last 3 years. The amendment that Chairman Grassley, ranking Finance Committee member Senator Baucus, as well as the HELP Committee chairman, Senator Gregg, and I have offered is a moderate bipartisan measure to address these short-term problems. This amendment does not weaken existing pension funding rules. These are only temporary measures designed to give companies and workers some breathing room, to take steps to further protect these pension plans. An editorial in today's Washington Post expressed concern about our amendment and its effect on the PBGC and the American taxpayers. It is very important to respond to these concerns because they stem from some misconceptions about how our pension funding system works. First, additional obligations of the PBGC will not put taxpaying Americans at risk. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which ensures defined benefit plans, is a self-funded agency. It is not supported by taxpayer dollars; it is funded by premiums from employers and holds billions of dollars in assets. Second, the PBGC's funding deficit, while serious, does not mean the agency cannot fulfill its mission. The PBGC has been in deficit before. The PBGC single employer program operated at a deficit for the first 16 years of its existence. The PBGC still holds billions of dollars in assets, and the agency reports that it has sufficient cash flow to cover benefit payments and other operating expenses and other liabilities for a number of years. Also, the PBGC can and has operated at a surplus. During the Clinton economy, the PBGC not only shed its deficits, it gained a $10 billion surplus. What is more, the PBGC's multiemployer program operated at a surplus for over 20 years--until this year. When our economy improves, the financial outlook of the PBGC will improve as well. We were also concerned about overburdening the PBGC. That is why we limited the DRC relief to companies with healthy pension plans in 2000. These are companies that have been hit by terrible economic circumstances, from which we believe they will recover. Companies that receive the DRC relief will still be responsible for their regular pension contributions, and they will be restricted from increasing benefits, thus making pension promises they cannot keep. They will also be required to keep up with the costs of current benefits so they won't fall further behind in their funding levels. Finally, not passing this pension legislation will subject the PBGC to much greater risk than it faces today. Without the crucial three pieces that our legislation includes--temporary replacement of the 30- year Treasury bond rate, targeted deficit reduction contribution relief, and funding relief to multiemployer plans--far more pension plans would terminate, which would place additional burdens on the PBGC. We want to improve our pension funding rules to ensure that companies adequately fund pension plans. We want to encourage companies to put more money into their pension plans when times are good, instead of only penalizing them with increased contributions when times are bad. However, we must first address the perfect storm that is battering our pension plans today. Once we have adopted this short-term solution, I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve and strengthen pensions for all America. I thought I would take a few moments to talk about this perfect storm that has adversely impacted the pension system, and also the challenges it presents to our economy generally. Madam President, 3.3 million Americans have lost their pension coverage since 2000. Only 53 percent of our Nation's workers are participating in a retirement plan, the lowest level in over a decade. As I mentioned before, the three parts of the stool for the American workers, after they have lived a life of productivity and worked hard in the workplace, are: One, Social Security; two, their savings; and three, their pension programs. We have seen a decline in the number of Americans who are now covered. The declining quality of jobs in our country also means declining benefits for American workers. Part-time and low-wage workers are far less likely to have a pension than full-time workers. That is why we are concerned and why this legislation, as I pointed out previously, addresses the needs of nearly 35 million Americans who are covered by single-employer defined benefit pension plans and the 9.7 million Americans who are covered by multiemployer defined benefit plans, such as those who work in the construction industry who move from site to site over a year. That program was developed to make sure those workers will also have a defined benefit pension plan to provide a secure monthly benefit backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. That is a great advantage of the defined benefit program. What I am talking about in terms of the perfect storm is the economic factors which have been hurting defined pension plans: The prolonged downturn of the stock market during the Bush administration, the longest since the Great Depression; the extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates--it may be good for some industries, if you are purchasing a car or a house, but in terms of its impact on pension plans, it has been extremely adverse--and the generally weak economic conditions, which means that companies cannot afford to make additional payments and pay the excise taxes imposed by our pension laws. Smaller companies, medium-size companies, and even larger companies are hard pressed at this time because of the economic exigencies we are facing today. They believe they are under all of this pressure and they are unable to meet those responsibilities. I point this out not only to explain the challenge we are facing with regard to pensions but how inconsistent this is with the remarks of our President in his State of the Union Address when he commented that this economy is strong and growing stronger and also pointed out that the pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. As some of us have pointed out, this has been very good for Wall Street but really has not been so good for Main Street. This chart shows what has happened, going back to 1949, when the U.S. economy recovered from a recession. This is a comparison of first quarter recovery. Looking at the history, using identical figures--and this is done by EPI Analysis based upon BEA data--first of all, we see, going back to 1949, that wages increased in the first quarter by 16 percent; 10 percent in 1954; in 1958 by 10 percent; 7 percent in 1961; 6.8 percent in 1970; 7.8 percent in 1975; 9.21 percent in 1982; in 1991, 6.1 percent; and look at the year 2001, 1.5 percent. It is a pretty interesting indicator as to what is happening in the job market in terms of economic recovery, of which we heard so much during the State of the Union Address. This chart is a comparison since 1949 of what has happened to wages for workers in the quarter the recession ended. What we see is that this 1.5 percent is so dramatically different from every other quarter that it is difficult for many of us to be enthusiastic about this as an economic indicator. It is very interesting to look at where the resources have gone in the recovery. In the Bush economy, corporate profits ballooned compared to workers' wages. Look at this: In the early nineties, we saw workers' wages, as a percent of the economic recovery, were 60 percent; corporate profits, 39 percent. Workers' wages, 60 percent; corporate profits, 39 percent. Now look what it is this year. In today's recovery, we find workers' wages represent 13 percent of the total recovery and profits 86 percent--profits 86 percent. When many of us talk about the recovery being good for Wall Street, this is it; bad for Main Street, this is it. Where are the resources going? They are going to the profits of the corporation. They are not being returned to the workers. We see what has happened. At the end of last week, I noted, when I got home, a very interesting CNN report on overwhelmed Americans. This is what they pointed out in their study and review: Wages are stagnant, productivity is soaring, which means many Americans are effectively working more for less. And making matters even worse, millions of American workers now find themselves competing with cheaper foreign labor just to hold on to their jobs. Then it quotes Kate Bronfenbrenner, a professor from Cornell University, talking about American workers: They are frightened because they wake up each morning and they don't know whether their job is going to be outsourced, downsized, contracted out or eliminated. They are overwhelmed because they feel like forces way beyond their control are making the decisions that affect their lives. And they are exhausted because they are working harder and longer and faster just to stand still. I showed those other charts that say American workers are working longer and harder than any other industrial society in the world. Not only are workers working longer and harder, but it's all hands on deck both men and women, moms and dads are working longer and harder just to try to stay even. The report goes on: In growing numbers, workers are feeling overworked, underappreciated, and burned out. That's according to a recent study of 1,100 workers that concluded ``Emotion about the current work experience is extremely negative.'' In the Wall Street Journal on Friday, January 23, we saw a lead story. ``The Gap in Wages Is Growing Again for U.S. Workers. ``Inequality Is Seen as a Result of the Jobless Recovery; Potential Election Theme.'' Wage inequality--the gap between America's highest and lowest earners--has started widening again, a situation with election-year ramifications. The trend is a reflection of the job market's exceptionally weak response to the current economic recovery. This is the Wall Street Journal. This is not just an article by some Democratic study group. This is the Wall Street Journal, their studies. It says: The trend is a reflection of the job market's exceptionally weak response to the current economic recovery, as well as long-term technological and economic changes that have eroded the bargaining power of America's lowest-paid workers. The data show that young workers--who currently have fewer job prospects than a few years ago--and men, in particular are bearing the brunt . . . The numbers continue a movement to greater wage inequality that began around the time President Bush succeeded President Clinton and the economy slid into recession three years ago. The trend represents a reversal from the late 1990s, when the lowest unemployment rates in a generation had enabled the lowest-paid workers to keep pace with those at the top. This is the real state of the Union. I am reminded of the study that just came out at the end of last week from the Economic Policy Institute, a January 21st study. I will explain this chart. Basically it says the jobs that are being created, the few jobs that are being created--the estimate by the administration is it is going to be 300,000. They created 1,000 jobs this last month. The jobs that are being created are not as good as the jobs lost under this administration. This chart shows that in 48 of the 50 States, jobs in higher paying industries have given way to jobs in lower paying industries since the recession ended in November 2001. Nationwide, industries that are gaining jobs relative to industries that are losing jobs pay 21 percent less annually. For the States that have lost jobs since the recession purportedly ended, this is the other shoe dropping. Not only have jobs been lost, but in 29 of them the losses have been concentrated in higher paying sectors. For 19 of the 20 States that have seen some small gain in jobs since the end of the recession, the jobs gained have been disproportionately in the lower paying sector. They mentioned several States. One is the State of New Hampshire. Overall, 15,700 New Hampshire jobs have been lost since this President took office, and New Hampshire's unemployment rate has increased 54-percent under President Bush. The unemployment rate in New Hampshire was 4.3 percent in November 2003, up from 2.8 percent in January 2001. This change represents a 54-percent increase since President Bush took office. According to the most recent State estimate, 6.1 percent of New Hampshire residents live in poverty, up from 5.5 percent in 2001. New Hampshire had lost a fifth of its manufacturing jobs since April of 2001. Under President Bush, the low-paying jobs are replacing the high- paying jobs in New Hampshire. The New England Economic Project recently estimated the sectors that lost the jobs between 2001 and 2002 in New Hampshire have an annual average wage of about $44,000. These sectors adding jobs in the State have an average wage of $38,000. Over a third of the jobless people in New Hampshire used up their unemployment benefits before finding a new job. Madam President, here 26 percent of the people on unemployment in New Hampshire used up their benefit before finding new jobs. However, in September of 2003 nearly one-third were unable to find work by the time their benefits ended. These are hard-working Americans who have paid into the unemployment fund, which has about $20 billion surplus at this time. There are 90,000 workers a week who are losing their unemployment insurance. That is happening up there in New Hampshire. We have tried more than a dozen times to get a temporary extension of 13 weeks. It costs about $7 billion. It has been objected to by the Republicans. Real people are hurting. The unemployment filings in New Hampshire are the highest since 1992. From 2001 to 2003, the number of unemployment filings in New Hampshire was the highest it has been since 1992. Of 240,000 New Hampshire taxpayers, 40 percent--and I mention this because in the State of the Union Address, the President talked about how we have doubled the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the debt, reduced taxes on capital gains, dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, have lowered taxes for every American who pays income tax. Listen to this. In New Hampshire, 241,000 New Hampshire taxpayers, which is 40 percent of the New Hampshire taxpayers, will receive less than $100 from the Bush tax plan in 2004. The top 1 percent of New Hampshire taxpayers receive 28 percent of the benefits in 2004 and get an average tax cut of over $67,000. Some people have asked why some of us were somewhat disappointed in the State of the Union Address and didn't jump up and applaud these figures. We take the State of the Union seriously. When you have that kind of result, in terms of the President's tax bill, one which I voted against for these very kinds of reasons, you begin to understand what is happening on Main Street of America. Not only are we talking about the question of pensions, and we talk about jobs, let's think about what has been happening to the average workers with regard to their health care costs and their health care coverage. We have one in five workers who are uninsured and, when they are offered insurance, decline coverage because of the limitations of their wages and because of the costs of health insurance, which I will come back to. Sixty-five percent of the employers increased the amount workers pay for their health insurance and 47 percent of the employers increased the amount workers pay for prescription drugs and 34 percent of employers increased the cost share employees pay for office visits. These are the pressures workers are under. That is why we have some 44 million Americans who do not have health insurance--members representing not only workers but family members of the workers. About 80 percent of all those who do not have health insurance are either workers or members of workers' families. That is why I believe if it is worker related in terms of trying to get coverage, we can make a major step in reducing the total number of those who are uncovered. Look at what is happening to the costs, the premium costs versus the Consumer Price Index--the average cost of products. Look at what is happening. This is a comparison of costs for workers. In 1999, the Consumer Price Index was 2.7 percent but 5.3 percent for health care. The next year, 2000, 3.4, 8.2; 2001, 1.6, 10.9. The next year, 2002, 2.4, for the Consumer Price Index, 12.9. In 2001, 1.8, 13.9 percent increase in the cost of health insurance. We wonder why workers cannot afford it and workers can't afford it. That is the real state of the Union. That is the real state of the Union. To offer a refundable tax credit of $1,000 is laughable. I say it is like throwing a 5-foot rope to somebody who is in a boat 10 feet away and is about to go over Niagara Falls. It is virtually useless. These are costs that are impacting, affecting the costs of health care insurance and why workers cannot afford it. What do we hear from the administration? What is their solution? Should someone tell us? Do I hear it? I looked hard in the President's State of the Union Address to find it. Do you know what it was? It was medical malpractice. That is their answer to all of the problems we are talking about, and the increase in costs. We will have a chance to get into that at some time. That is going to be the answer. It isn't only the cost of health insurance. Look at what is happening to the families. These are family responsibilities. Workers have responsibilities. Parents don't want to be a burden. They worked hard. We guaranteed to the families in 1965 when we passed Medicare that we would attend to their health care needs. We didn't know prescription drugs would be so important. Every day that we fail to provide a comprehensive prescription drug program, we fail in our pledge to our seniors. Look at what has happened to the prescription drug costs with respect to the Consumer Price Index: In 2000, 3.4 percent, and the average cost-of-living increase was 16 percent; in 2001, 1.67, and 15 percent; 2002, 2.4 percent, and 14 percent. We allegedly passed a prescription drug program. What did we say in that bill that would get a handle on costs? Virtually nothing. We prohibited the Secretary of HHS from being able to negotiate for lower prices. That is not true with VA; they can reduce prices down some 47 percent, but not with regard to Medicare because we were prohibited from that. I pay respect to my Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and Congresswoman Pelosi for offering amendments which we will have a chance to address here very soon to change that. We have to do something on the coverage, we have to do something on the costs, or we are not really looking after what is happening out on Main Street. We talk about jobs. We talk about health. Let us take a look at another issue families are very much concerned about; that is, the cost of education. This is the Bush education record: Failure to provide tuition relief as college costs increase. On this chart, you find what 4-year costs for a college education are. This includes not only the tuition but it is room and board and the routine expenses with which students are faced. Look over here. In 2002, on help and assistance, these are for young people who come from families with limited means but have scholarships and are academically gifted, or are able to meet the academic standards and gain admission to these excellent schools all over the country. Look at what we see: Significant increase in the cost. Look at what help and assistance: Basically flat over the period of time. These are family issues for working families concerned about the cost of prescription drugs that are being paid by their parents. These are family issues for working families who are concerned about the cost of having their children go to the fine schools across this country. We have left them high and dry. If we look at the Bush economic record, the median household income is down effectively $1,500 across the country according to the Bureau of Census in the Department of Commerce; $1,500 for the year 2002, and a further decline beyond to 2004. That is what is happening out on Main Street. People are working harder, as these reports point out, and they are barely able to keep up. Millions are working and competing as well. As productivity goes up, they are working more for less. We see that allocations of profits versus the wages. We see the failure to respond to the needs of working families with regard to their health care costs or their children's education. These are all the issues which have been left behind. What has been the response to those urgent needs? It has been disappointing, at best. First of all, there are 13 million children who are hungry. We have 8 million Americans who are unemployed. We have 8 million workers who lose overtime under the Bush proposal. We have 7 million low-wage workers who have been waiting 7 years for an increase in the minimum wage. We have 3 million more Americans in poverty since President Bush took office, and 90,000 workers a week are losing their unemployment benefits every week. We have tried and tried to get a temporary extension for these workers. The decline in the economy is not the result of workers not working hard and producing. It is because of general overall economic mismanagement. This country has always recognized that those workers pay into the unemployment compensation, and when there is a slide in the economy, they ought to be able to withdraw some of that. But there has been objection time in and time out by our Republican friends and virtually no leadership on this issue from the President. More than three in four--77 percent--of the unemployed Americans say the level of stress in their family has increased. How do we measure that? We listened the other night to how our GNP is going up, with all of the favorable economic indicators. How do you measure the fact that in 77 percent of the unemployed families the level of stress in their family has increased? Two-thirds of those with children have cut back on spending for their children. Where is that indicated in any of these economic indicators we heard about in the State of the Union? Twenty-six percent say another family member has had to start a job or increase their work hours in order to keep the family together, and 23 percent have had to interrupt their education or that of a family member. They had to drop out of school for a year, go back to work, and then come back and try to complete their education. That is what is happening out there. We didn't hear about what is happening for average working families. If we had been able to extend the unemployment insurance, we could have avoided many of these indicators. But no, we were unable to do so. What has been the impact by this administration saying no to extending unemployment compensation? No, we can't do that. What about those workers who worked hard for 40 hours a week and 52 weeks of the year? It has been 7 years since the last increase in the minimum wage. Now, at the end of this year, it will be at an all-time low. A majority of the Members of this body would vote for an increase in the minimum wage, and we are not able to get it because of the Republican filibuster. That is the reason. Make no mistake about it. Who are these people? These are men and women of great dignity. These people work hard. They take pride in what they do. They work cleaning out the great buildings that are the offices of American industry. Many of them are teacher's aides, or they work in child care. Many of them work in nursing homes to help look after a generation who brought this country out of the Depression and sacrificed for their children. They fought in the wars. Those are minimum wage workers. They are men and women of dignity. Most of them are women. This is a women's issue. Most of the women have children. So it is a children's issue. It is a family issue. Many of them are members of minorities. It is a civil rights issue. Beyond all of that, Americans understand that if you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year, you should not have to live in poverty. You should not have to live in poverty. That is our belief. That is our standard. We are going to take this issue to our Republican friends time in and time out all of this year. We welcome those listening to communicate to our Republican friends their views on this issue. Talk about a family issue. Talk about family values. How you care for your child, how much time you are able to spend with your child, talk about family values, this is it. And we have opposition from the Bush administration on this. Finally, I mention again what is happening in terms of the overtime, opposition to extending unemployment compensation, opposition to an increase in the minimum wage, and then the rule and regulation that was debated in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats alike. Rejected. It went to the House of Representatives. Rejected. And then it was tucked into the omnibus bill behind closed doors in the dead of night and passed, although many Members strongly opposed it. Who are the 8 million Americans who would lose their overtime? It is extraordinary with this economy for the administration to say that one of the principal problems with our economy today is the fact that these workers are being paid too much. They are saying these workers are being paid too much. Who are these workers? Police officers will lose their overtime under the definition of the administration. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters will lose their overtime. Do we hear about homeland security? Who is on the front line of defense? It is the nurses, the firefighters, and the policemen. We are asking them to risk their lives in terms of homeland security yet on the other hand we will make them ineligible for overtime. Give me a break. It is very interesting that so many are professions that involve women. Women will be very adversely affected. That is why organizations, including Nine-to-Five and all of the various women organizations, are so strongly opposed to the administration's proposal. Not only did they do this but they added something new regarding who is made ineligible. That was to say if individuals had gone into the Armed Forces and they took training programs and then they come out and they have special skills--that is just what our military has today-- that because they got these training programs, because they have special skills, they will by definition be ineligible for overtime. Can anyone believe that, to say to those fighting overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, scattered around the world, when they come on back, they are in the National Guard and Reserve and they come on back in, if they have the special skills, they will not be eligible for overtime--for the first time in the history of this country. Obviously, one of the great reasons we have the best military in the world is because it is the best trained, best led, and has the best technology. It should always be that way. When we are talking about the training, the training they receive saves other soldiers' lives and carries forward the interests of the United States. I have my differences with the administration in terms of the Iraqi policy, but I am going to make sure these soldiers are well trained, well led, and have that kind of help and assistance. For those in the Armed Forces who have gone through the various training programs, quite frankly, it was a very important inducement for recruitment. I don't know what conversations the Secretary of Labor had with the Secretary of Defense. I would love to see the exchange of notes, and love to know if they ever had a conversation; obviously, it has a very important impact on recruitment. With the failed economy, so many young people, see going into the military as a way to get the kind of training that will put them on the road to some kind of hope and opportunity in the future. Now we are saying: No, no, no; that is not going to be the way it is. You get the training, you come back, and you will not be able to get paid. This is the final insult that the Bush administration would take away from the veterans, as I mentioned, the overtime pay. That would reduce the standard of living and quality of life of veterans in scientific, engineering, medical, and technical operations. Under the Bush administration, veterans who have received the training in the military, equivalent to a specialized 4-year degree, could be classified as exempt ``professional employees'' and would lose their overtime protection. This is a breach of faith with the American veterans, another reason it should be defeated. It was not. Then, one of the most extraordinary publications that any agency has ever produced in the time I have been in the Senate was the Department of Labor issuing guidelines of how to avoid paying overtime. They said: The reason for having this change in the overtime is we are bringing more workers up, raising their wages. It will have a favorable impact on a certain number of workers. It will really not disadvantage all these estimated. Then we find out what the real issue was: the publication by the Department of Labor about how to avoid paying any overtime, giving every business in this country the pathway to avoid paying any overtime. If they could not figure it out, all they had to do was read the Department of Labor recommendation and avoid it. Why? To shortchange American workers. State of the union of American workers, what is happening to their jobs, their wages, their health care, their education, and now we find out their overtime. That is ``How to Avoid Paying Your Employees Overtime,'' courtesy of the Bush Department of Labor. I will take a moment to read a letter from a veteran and a Boeing employee worried about losing his overtime. My name is Randy Fleming. I live in Haysville, Kansas-- outside Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in Boeing's Metrology Lab. I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979. I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time I've been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've raised a son who now has a good career and children of his own. There are two things that helped make that possible. First, the training I received in the Air Force made me qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I think it's still one of the main reasons young people today decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the recruiting ads on TV. The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to give my son the college education that has opened doors for him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10% or more of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, but we'll be counting on my overtime to help her get her college degree, too, when that time comes. For my family overtime pay has made all the difference. That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? I came to talk about an issue that is very important back home and to me personally as a working man, a family man, and a veteran. That issue is overtime rights. The changes that this administration is trying to make in the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain with the men and women in the military and would close down opportunities that working vets and their families thought they could count on. When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a deal that I thought was fair. They got a chunk of my time and I got training to help me build the rest of my life. There was no part of that deal that said I would have to give up my right to overtime pay. You've heard of the marriage penalty? Well I think that what these new rules do is to create a military penalty. If you got your training in the military, no matter what your white collar profession is, your employer can make you work as many hours as they want and not pay you a dime extra. If that's not bait and switch, I don't know what is. And I don't have any doubt that employers will take advantage of this new opportunity to cut our overtime pay. They'll tell us they have to in order compete. They'll say if they can't take our overtime pay, they'll have to eliminate our jobs. It won't be just the bad employers, either--because these rules will make it very hard for companies to do the right thing. If they can get as many overtime hours as they want for free instead of paying us time-and-a-half, they'll say they owe it to the stockholders. And the veterans and other working people will be stuck with less time, less money, and a broken deal. I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard to get rid of our union. And for all those who want to let these military penalty rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you think it's okay for the government to renege on its deals, I think it should be your job to tell our military men and women in Iraq that when they come home, their service of their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime pay. That says it all. This Senate rejected the administration's proposal. The House of Representatives rejected it. But the Bush administration insists they are going to implement it. And they insisted in taking the Senate passed, House approved language protecting workers' overtime pay out of the Omnibus. We are going to do everything we can, with every opportunity we have, to make sure that provision is overturned. We will do that every time we get a chance as long as we are in Congress this session. I will just take a minute to show what happens when people do not have the overtime protection. It is probably pretty understandable, workers without overtime protection are more than twice as likely to work longer hours. This chart shows that for those workers working a scheduled 40-hour workweek, without the overtime protection, 44 percent of them work overtime. If they have overtime protection, in terms of time and a half, only 19 percent of them work overtime. If there is no overtime protection for workers if they work over 50 hours a week, still, you get 15 percent of the workers who work more than 50 hours in a week; but with overtime protection, only 5 percent work overtime. It is very clear what is going to happen to workers without overtime protection: They are going to work harder--a lot harder--and make a good deal less money. Is overtime protection what is wrong with our economy? Absolutely not. I think this administration and this Congress ought to get it: People are hurting. And they are trying to find out who is on their side. We are going to address each and every one of these issues in the course of this Congress because that is required if we are going to be a fair and decent country. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is Friday. We had a good discussion yesterday about this very important pension funding amendment which is presented to the Senate by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus; they have shared jurisdiction on a number of pension matters with our committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, chaired by Senator Gregg and I as the ranking minority member. The two committees have worked very closely in recommending this legislation. I am very grateful to all and to Leader Frist for giving this a priority standing. By the early part of next week, the first part of the week, we will have final action. This will move very rapidly through the House of Representatives because it is of such importance to employers and employees. It is a temporary measure to meet the certain challenges of our time. To review again very briefly, the defined benefit pension plans are a key part of the retirement security of Americans. Americans have sort of a three-legged stool for retirement. They have Social Security, they have their savings, and they have their pension. While Social Security is certainly secure, there has been certainly a drawdown on the Social Security assets as a result of the excessive tax reductions of this administration. It is certainly secure at the present time. We have also seen that many who put savings in 401(k)s, with the slide of the market in a number of instances, have had their savings significantly reduced. Because of a combination of different events that have taken place in the economy, there is a real question about whether the pensions are going to be there for many of America's industries, the pension programs which have been supported both by their employer and the employee, paid into by workers with the guarantee that their pension would be there, would be available for them in the future. In many instances, they are threatened. This legislation is to provide breathing room into the current system to permit the system to get back on its feet and to be working again. We will take action and do it quickly. The defined benefit pension plans are a key part of retirement security for millions of Americans; they are promised a monthly benefit starting at retirement and continuing through their life. The combined plans are different from other pension plans. Only a defined benefit plan provides benefits backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Workers rely on the guarantees to help in old age to pay for health benefits, needed medical care, college, education, and for their homes. This chart is an indication of how this whole program is established. There are nearly 35 million Americans covered by single employer defined benefit pension plans. And 9.7 million Americans are covered by multiemployer benefit plans. For example, in the construction industry--where workers move from one site to the other site--the process has been worked out through the employers, which is supported both by the employers and the workers, which gives a multiemployer benefit. But these are obviously workers who work hard, play by the rules, and have a similar kind of interest as the other 35 million. It is only the defined benefit plan that provides a secure monthly benefit backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Why this legislation is necessary is because of what has been referred to earlier in the discussion and debate about a series of different economic conditions that are threatening the defined benefit pension plan. We call it a ``perfect storm'' of factors that is hurting the defined benefit pension plan funding levels. We have had a prolonged downturn of the stock market during the last 3 years, the longest decline since the Great Depression. Then we have had extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates. That may be good for those who are buying a new car or attempting to buy a new house, but if we are looking at how the pension plans were established and tie into the 30-year bond interest rates, we would see this factor, the decline of the stock market, the low interest rates and the general weak economic conditions, which mean that companies cannot afford to make additional payments and pay excise taxes imposed by our pension laws. These three elements combined have put the pension system generally, for some almost 45 million Americans, in serious jeopardy. We have come up with a bipartisan program. It is temporary, over a 2- year period, which we believe can offer the relief to permit the programs to come back and survive. Late yesterday afternoon, my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, offered amendment No. 2234. Senator Kyl called this a ``hold harmless'' amendment for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. That description is misleading because this amendment is anything but harmless. In fact, it harms the workers who can lose pension benefits as a result of this amendment. The PBGC's mission is to preserve and protect the defined benefit of American workers. By paying premiums into the PBGC, companies and their workers are buying security. They are buying a secure guarantee, that if for some reason a company can no longer provide the promised benefit, workers receive a pension from the PBGC. This amendment undermines that security and strikes at the heart of the mission by taking away pensions that workers have earned. It would replace guarantees with broken promises. My colleague expressed concern that if the pension plans fail, it would hurt workers. The irony is his amendment would make those workers in failed plans even worse off than they are under current law. It would make workers pay the price for financial relief that companies are receiving. The companies receive the relief; the workers would pay the penalty. Our amendment explicitly applies to airline and steel companies. Employees in those industries have already made many sacrifices to keep their companies and pension plans afloat. We should not penalize them by taking away pension benefits they have earned. Finally, I am well aware of the need to preserve the PBGC's financial integrity. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my concern. None of us wants to put the Nation's pension system at risk. That is why our substitute amendment targets the DRC relief to where we think it is both needed and justified. Only companies that had well- funded--well-funded--pension plans in 2000 would be provided with that relief. We exclude poorly funded plans where relief would simply expose the PBGC to increased deficits. So PBGC deficits will not be solved by taking benefits away from workers. Rather, we must seek to stabilize and expand our defined benefit pension system. As I say, this proposal and compromise has been carefully structured and carefully drafted to try to meet very special needs, and it is intended to do so. I believe the Kyl amendment would undermine that fundamental concept. The results of this ``perfect storm'' have not only had an enormously adverse impact and effect on the pension system but they are having a real adverse impact on the lives of many of our fellow Americans. I think it is important that we in this Chamber begin to understand this. The stock market may be going up with the profits, but what is happening out on Main Street should be the concern of every one of us in this body.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to mention a series of events, many of which have just taken place in the last day or two, which either were published reports, news reports, or television reports that indicate another side of America than is the America being described with rose-tinted glasses. First of all, today there are some 13 million children who are going hungry. Eight million Americans are unemployed. Eight million workers lose overtime under the Bush proposal. We have had debates and discussions on this issue. We are going to come back to it very soon, at the first opportunity, hopefully even as soon as next week. Seven million low-wage workers have been waiting 7 years for an increase in the minimum wage. I will come back to this issue. And 3 million more Americans are living in poverty since President Bush took office. The final point I make is that 90,000 workers a week are losing their unemployment benefits--90,000 workers a week. We have the unemployment compensation fund which is funded at close to $20 billion. We have tried to get a temporary extension for some 13 weeks. It has been objected to now more than a dozen times by those on the other side of the aisle. It costs about $7 billion. Nearly twenty billion dollars are there. These workers are paying into the fund. We are talking about workers who have worked hard, paid into the fund, and the fund is out there and meant to assist the workers during an economic downturn. These workers should not be blamed for the economic downturn, and they are being blamed by denying them the extension on the unemployment insurance. As I say, 90,000 workers a week are losing their unemployment benefits. I will mention one other chart that helps illustrate what I mean when I talk about 13 million children who are going hungry every night. Hunger is increasing for the minimum-wage families. The Agriculture Department reported 300,000 more families are hungry today than when President Bush first took office--300,000 more. Twelve million American households are worried they will not have enough to eat. And nearly 4 million American households have someone going hungry. This is in a country that can produce more agricultural products than any other country in the world, by far. We spend billions of dollars on land to ensure it is not going to be productive. We know how to do two things, if nothing else, in this Nation: We know how to grow food, and we know how to deliver it. We have the greatest agricultural lands in the world. We have effectively a Federal express. They can deliver products overnight. We know how to deliver it. We do not have to feed everyone by Federal express, but we sure know how to get food or get any product to people's homes or to the needy people. I believe hunger in America is a national disgrace. So this is a matter of very considerable concern. Last evening, when I returned home at a little after 6 o'clock, I turned on CNN and I was caught by a piece they did reporting on ``Overwhelmed America.'' The broadcaster said: ``Tonight, the overwhelmed American worker.'' This is the report on the study called ``Overwhelmed America.'' Wages are stagnant, productivity is soaring, which means many Americans are effectively working more for less. And making matters even worse, millions of American workers now find themselves competing with cheaper foreign labor just to hold on to their jobs. Then it went on to Kate Bronfenbrenner, professor at Cornell University: The workers there are frightened because they wake up each morning and they don't know whether their job is going to be outsourced, downsized, contracted out, or eliminated. Outsourced, downsized, contracted out, or eliminated. They are overwhelmed because they feel like forces way beyond their control are making the decisions that affect their lives. And they are exhausted because they are working harder, longer, and faster just to stand still. Americans are scared of losing their jobs. They are working longer, harder, and they still don't have job security. I will include the whole piece. It is a short piece, but I will read another sector: In growing numbers workers are feeling overworked, underappreciated, and burned out. That is according to a recent study of 1,100 workers that concluded ``Emotion about the current work experience is extremely negative.'' And the report goes on. I listened to that last night. It was very interesting. It is something that, again, restates basically what we have been saying on the floor of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that that CNN piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. And then, lo and behold, this morning, on the front page--on Friday, January 23--what is the leading story in the Wall Street Journal? ``The Gap in Wages Is Grow- ing Again for U.S. Workers. Inequal- ity Is Seen as Result of the Jobless Recovery. . . .'' Wage inequality--the gap between America's highest and lowest earners--has started widening again, a situation with election-year ramifications. The trend is a reflection of the job market's exceptionally weak response to the current economic recovery, as well as long-term technological and economic changes that have eroded the bargaining power of America's lowest-paid workers. The data show that young workers--who currently have fewer job prospects than a few years ago--and men, in particular, are bearing the brunt. The numbers continue a movement to greater wage inequality that began around the time President Bush succeeded President Clinton-- That is the Wall Street Journal report. The numbers continue a movement to greater wage inequality that began around the time President Bush succeeded President Clinton and the economy slid into recession three years ago. The trend represents a reversal from the late 1990s, when the lowest unemployment rates in a generation had enabled the lowest-paid workers to keep pace with those at the top. The article goes on. I ask unanimous consent that the article in its entirety be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, an Economic Policy Institute report came out January 21. Here we are, on January 21, the Economic Policy Institute's study of job shifting. It says: In 48 of the 50 States, jobs in higher-paying industries have given way to jobs in lower-paying industries-- The jobs that are being created in these States, as an average, are going down. since the recession ended in November 2001. Nationwide, industries that are gaining jobs relative to industries that are losing jobs pay 21 percent less annually. For the 30 States that have lost jobs since the recession purportedly ended, this is the other shoe dropping--not only have jobs been lost, but in 29 of them the losses have been concentrated in higher-paying sectors. And for 19 of the 20 States, they have seen some small gain in jobs since the end of the recession. The jobs gained have been disproportionately in lower-paying sectors. Two States have grown 21 percent less. Nebraska and Nevada are the two States that are the exception. Here is the State of New Hampshire, which still has fewer jobs than when the recession ended, and where the wages in industries gaining jobs are 35 percent lower than wages in industries losing jobs. For new jobs, they are getting paid 35 percent less in the State of New Hampshire. The State of Delaware likewise has lost jobs since the recession ended and where job-gaining industries have wages 43 percent below those in the job-losing industries. Colorado has lost 2 percent of its jobs since the end of the recession and job-gaining industry wages are 35 percent below the wages in job-losing industries. West Virginia has lost 1.7 percent of its jobs since the end of the recession, and wages in job-gaining industries are 33 percent below wages in job-losing industries. These are the facts. We have the Wall Street Journal, the Economic Policy Institute, and the study that was quoted in Overwhelmed America--that is just in the last 24 hours--about what is happening in America. That is a good deal different than what I heard in the State of the Union Address by the President. The President said on page 4: This economy is strong and growing stronger . . . Americans took those dollars [from the tax cut] and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction: the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise. These are two different Americas, Mr. President, two entirely different Americas. It is the second America that many of us are fighting for here in the Senate. What has been the answer by the administration? Let's take the minimum wage, for example. Minimum wage, unemployment compensation, overtime--we have made the presentation that American workers are working longer and harder. Not only are individuals working longer and harder, but families are working harder and longer. Women are working longer and harder. Look at what happened. And we wonder why we are seeing the increasing incidence of hungry children and hunger in America--look at what happened to the minimum wage. Now it is, without the increase, down to $4.95. That is about the lowest it has been in years. Seven long years without an increase. A majority of the membership would vote for an increase in the minimum wage. The Republican leadership and the Bush administration will not give us an opportunity to do so. In 7 years, we have increased our own salary six times, but we have not had an increase in the minimum wage. We will talk about an increase in the minimum wage. Americans, I believe, think someone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should not have to live in poverty in the strongest Nation in the world, with the strongest economy and the strongest military. I think that is a family value--being able to provide for your children, parents having a sense of dignity and pride in their work and work product, families being able to stay together. That is a family value. We hear a lot of speeches on this floor and elsewhere about family values. That is a family value--making sure that hard-working men and women are going to be able to provide for their families. We are denied that opportunity. We are not taking no for an answer. That minimum wage is coming at this institution and it is coming once, twice, as many times as necessary. So there will be no doubt among the American people who will be standing for those workers and who is against them. Unemployment compensation. Ninety thousand workers who worked hard now have seen their benefits expire--90,000 a week. We have heard on the other side of the aisle in the last 2 days--the leaders in the Republican Party--saying: Don't worry about it, Senator, we are creating new jobs. Well, let's have a reality check. The administration promised 300,000 jobs and the reality is 1,000 jobs. Who are we kidding? The American people are getting used to the fact that there is a lot of rhetoric on the one hand and no followup on the other. That was true in the No Child Left Behind Act, and it is apparently true about our trip to Mars. Did you see the rollout of the President talking about going to Mars, and there was no mention of it in the State of the Union Address. The best estimates are it will cost a trillion dollars and they are allocating $5 billion. Get the political hit and then forget about it. That is also what happened with No Child Left Behind. That we cannot get an extension on unemployment compensation, when the economy is creating only 1,000 jobs, and they estimated over 300,000, makes the point. Those hard-working Americans who paid into the unemployment compensation fund, which is in surplus at the present time, should be able to get the extension of 13 weeks. Third is the overtime issue. We have seen who that affects. It affects basically the policemen and firefighters and nurses--some 8 million Americans. And included in the recommendations, as I pointed out, for the first time, it will say if a veteran had certain kinds of training in the military, which may very well have been the reason he went into the service--obviously, the underlying reason is because he or she wanted to serve their country. But the idea that you are going to get a skill is attractive, too. You can get education benefits, which is attractive, too. That makes a difference in recruitment. We have seen it. I know about it. I am on the Armed Services Committee. We know we are falling further behind and not meeting our recruiting goals in the National Guard by 10,000 this year. We know we are offering any of the soldiers over in Iraq a bonus of $10,000 if they reenlist over there. So we know we have these challenges. Now for the first time they are prohibiting overtime, not only for those I just mentioned, but the rule, as I read into the Record, includes--these are the exact words, Mr. President: Under the Bush plan, veterans who have received training in the military that is equivalent to a specialized 4-year degree could be classified as exempt ``professional employees'' and lose their overtime protection. There is a whole list of training programs. Obviously, we have new technology. Our military is the best in the world. We have new technology, new training programs. People go into the military and get the training. They serve our country and risk their lives to protect our Nation. They come back from Iraq and get a job, but no, no, you don't get overtime. Why did they put in that provision? It is interesting. In looking over the comments of different groups about overtime, there is one particular company, a major defense company, which commented on the Bush proposal saying that their company observes that many of its most skilled technical workers received a significant portion of their knowledge and training outside the university classroom, typically in a branch of the military service. There you go. So they add, we will include the American military veterans in banning them from receiving overtime. People wonder why workers are discouraged, overworked, they can't get decent pay, they can't get benefits. They have seen their jobs outsourced. They are seeing their jobs sent overseas. Their pension programs are in jeopardy. Their security in the job place is very much threatened. We ought to be thinking about what we can do for families. There are a series of steps we can take. Certainly increasing the minimum wage, extending unemployment compensation, and making sure these workers receive overtime is just a bare minimum. I look forward to the debate on those issues. This is really a part of a whole concept, and that is the condition of workers in this country. We didn't even begin to get into the workers' payment of prescription drugs, which has been escalating out of sight. The bill that passed some weeks ago, and the prohibition written into that bill, again behind closed doors, prohibits Medicare from bargaining for bulk- rate purchasing of prescription drugs that would give some advantage and protection for our seniors. That has affected the quality of life for working family members who retire and are on Social Security and pay much higher prescription drug prices. I didn't mention that impact and what is happening to working families. I haven't mentioned the extraordinary escalation of the cost of health care. I was rolling over in my mind the answer by the administration to the escalation of health care costs. The one answer that was given in the State of the Union Address was malpractice insurance is going to solve this problem. Come on. We are at the present time spending close to 15 percent of our gross national product on health care, more than $5,000 for every man, woman, and child. Thirty cents out of every dollar is a nonclinical dollar. Most industries are down 17, 18 percent. If we reduce the 30 cents to 27 cents, we save $50 billion a year. If we reduce it to 20 cents, we save $100 billion a year. We can do a lot with $100 billion. There are ways of doing that. Do you think we can do that? We will have an opportunity to debate those issues. I welcome the fact the majority leader says health care and health insurance will be on the floor because we will have an opportunity to get a meaningful result. It may not be the kind of program the pharmaceutical industry supports, and it may not be the program the insurance industry supports, but, by God, it will be a program the average family and the working families of this country will support, and it will make a difference in their lives and in their families' lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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