[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 121 (Friday, September 5, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11134-S11150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2660, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2660) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
  Pending:

       Specter amendment No. 1542, in the nature of a substitute.
       Byrd amendment No. 1543 (to amendment No. 1542), to provide 
     additional funding for education for the disadvantaged.
       Akaka amendment No. 1544 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funding for the Excellence in Economic Education Act 
     of 2001.
       Mikulski amendment No. 1552 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     increase funding for programs under the Nurse Reinvestment 
     Act and other nursing workforce development programs.
       Kohl amendment No. 1558 (to amendment No. 1542), to provide 
     additional funding for the ombudsman program for the 
     protection of vulnerable older Americans.
       Kennedy amendment No. 1566 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     increase student financial aid by an amount that matches the 
     increase in low- and middle-income family college costs.
       Dodd amendment No. 1572 (to amendment No. 1542), to provide 
     additional funding for grants to States under part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       Harkin amendment No. 1575 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide additional funding for the Fund for the Improvement 
     of Education.
       DeWine amendment No. 1561 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funds to support graduate medical education programs 
     in children's hospitals.
       DeWine amendment No. 1560 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funds to support poison control centers.
       DeWine amendment No. 1578 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funding for the Underground Railroad Education and 
     Cultural Program.
       Clinton amendment No. 1565 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide additional funding to ensure an adequate bioterrorism 
     preparedness workforce.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, until the hour 
of 9:30 a.m., the time will be equally divided between the two bill 
managers or their designees.
  In my capacity as a Senator from Alaska, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum and ask the clerk to call the roll. The time will be charged 
against both sides.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the first vote this morning 
will be on the Harkin amendment; is that true?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first vote will be on the Clinton 
amendment, No. 1565, to be followed by the amendment of the Senator 
from Iowa, No. 1575.


                           Amendment No. 1575

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak a couple minutes on my 
amendment. The amendment we will be voting on has to do with school 
construction. Actually 3 years ago, this Congress appropriated almost 
$1 billion for school construction around the United States. This money 
has gone out to States all over the country. Some of it has been used 
and some of it still is going out for construction and renovation 
purposes. But what it has done is leveraged for every Federal dollar 
about $15 or $20 of local money. So we are getting a heck of a bang for 
the buck by putting money into school construction and renovation. That 
happened in Iowa, and it is happening in every other State in the 
country.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers 3 years ago gave a report 
card on the infrastructure of America, and they gave the schools a D 
minus, the lowest grade of any category, lower than sewer and water and 
highways and everything else. They said schools were a D minus 3 years 
ago. Just yesterday they came out with their report card again and said 
there has been no progress at all.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. The time 
was equally divided before 9:30. The Senator's time has expired. Under 
the previous agreement, the time before 9:30 was equally divided 
between the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the objectives 
sought by the Senator from Iowa. In the past, on budget resolutions in 
prior years, I have supported using Federal funds on school 
construction. But the difficulty this year is that there is no money 
available for this line. Senator Harkin and I, on a bipartisan basis, 
have worked out the allocation of $137 billion. I would like to have 
money for school construction, but it simply isn't there.
  It was not included in the budget resolution this year. It has always 
been highly controversial to pass this body, and it was only Senator 
D'Amato and Senator Campbell and I who supported it in the past, when 
Senator Harkin spearheaded this effort along with Carol Moseley-Braun. 
This is one of the many laudable objectives I would like to see funded. 
I fought hard for a larger allocation from the subcommittee. I would be 
glad to join Senator Harkin in supporting this measure, but as manager 
it is my duty to stay within the confines of the bill and within the 
confines of the allocation. So it is with regret that I have to raise a 
point of order.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year

[[Page S11135]]

2004 that the amendment exceeds the discretionary spending limits 
specified in this section and therefore is not in order.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Which amendment is the point of order 
raised against?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that was raised against the amendment to 
be voted on first, which has already been noted by the Chair, the 
amendment of Senator Clinton.
  Similarly, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the 
concurrent resolution for fiscal year 2004 that the amendment of 
Senator Harkin exceeds the discretionary spending limits and therefore 
is not in order.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. So the Senator has made a point of order 
under each of the amendments?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of House 
Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2004, I move to waive section 504 of that concurrent 
resolution for the purpose of the pending amendment, and also for the 
amendment that I offered, which would be following this vote at 9:30 on 
the Clinton amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the two motions are 
received.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on both 
amendments.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1565

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the motion 
with respect to amendment No. 1565.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McConnell. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Fitzgerald), the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), 
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Miller), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 328 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Alexander
     Breaux
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Hutchison
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Shelby
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this question, the yeas are 41, the 
nays are 47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of 
order is sustained and the amendment falls.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1575

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, we will now 
proceed to a vote on the point of order made against the Harkin 
amendment, amendment No. 1575. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  There is a previous order for 5 minutes of debate equally divided in 
the usual form prior to the second vote. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we know there are many Members anxious to 
depart for planes, and Senator Harkin and I have decided to yield back 
our time and proceed directly to the vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. All 
time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Ms. Hutchison), the Senator from 
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Alexander
     Breaux
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Hutchison
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Shelby
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1580 to Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
     Edwards, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Leahy, 
     Mr. Durbin, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed, and 
     Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment No. 1580 to 
     amendment No. 1542.


[[Page S11136]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 23, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds provided under this Act shall 
     be used to promulgate or implement any regulation that 
     exempts from the requirements of section 7 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) any employee who is not 
     otherwise exempted pursuant to regulations under section 13 
     of such Act (29 U.S.C. 213) that were in effect as of 
     September 3, 2003.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment about which I spoke 
at some length yesterday and the day before on the floor. Others spoke 
on it also. This is the amendment that would preclude the 
administration from issuing final proposed regulations that would take 
away the right of up to 8 million to 10 million Americans to get 
overtime pay if they work over 40 hours a week.
  Just to recap for a minute, earlier this year, sort of under the 
cover of darkness, without one hearing, the Department of Labor issued 
proposed regulations to modify the Fair Labor Standards Act that would 
basically modify, in a very drastic manner, how employers would decide 
who was covered under overtime law and who was not.
  Now, again, this has been in existence since 1938. We have had some 
changes in it since that time, but none as sweeping as the 
Administration has proposed this spring and that would result in 
millions of working Americans losing their overtime pay protection.
  The Department of Labor has said this only affects about 644,000 
workers. Well, they're only counting the people are currently, 
routinely work overtime and receive overtime pay. There are about 8 to 
10 million people who are qualified to get overtime pay, but they are 
not working overtime.
  Again, if an employer were to ask them to work overtime, then they 
would get time and a half. Well, this pending regulation would take 
that away for many workers. And then we'll see their employers require 
them to work longer hours, without pay.
  The first wave of people who will be most affected by this will be 
working women, women who work on a salary basis, maybe as accountants, 
working in banks, insurance companies, whatever, women who have 
children in childcare, daycare centers. Now they are going to be asked 
to work longer hours with no more pay, but they are going to have to 
continue to pay more for childcare. This is antiworker. This is 
antifamily. And its bad economics.
  Obviously, if I am an employer, and I don't have to pay overtime pay, 
and I can work people longer than 40 hours a week, I'm not going to 
hire new people.
  And I will--not today; I know others want to speak this morning--but 
when we come back next week I will be laying out in even more detail 
how it is that American workers are working longer than workers in all 
other industrialized countries, and now they are being asked to work 
longer without even being paid for it.
  I think this is one of the most crucial issues facing this Congress 
this year: whether we are going to sit back and let the administration 
change, sort of by fiat--not by legislation, not through the hearing 
process and the developing of legislation and the votes here--but just 
through rules and regulations, to just wipe out--wipe out--the 
protections 8 to 10 million working Americans have to guarantee that if 
they have to work over 40 hours a week, they are going to get at least 
time-and-a-half overtime. Just wipe out the 40-hour work week, that has 
been law for 65 years now.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am delighted to yield to the assistant leader.
  Mr. REID. As the Democratic manager of this bill, it has been your 
intention, has it not, to have this as, if not the most important vote, 
one of the most important votes in this multibillion dollar bill? I 
think it is about a $125 billion bill you and Senator Specter are 
managing. So you consider this a very important vote?

  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Nevada, I consider this--well, we 
have a lot in the bill for education, but in terms of what we are going 
to do to protect working Americans, to protect their families, and to 
ensure their right to get time-and-a-half overtime, this is the key 
vote.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to.
  Mr. REID. And it has been a fact that we have presented to the 
majority since Tuesday of this week the fact we were going to have our 
four Democratic Presidential aspirants here on Tuesday, and that we 
wanted to have a vote on this most important amendment on next Tuesday; 
is that right?
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to the leader, yes, that is right. In fact, I was 
part of a conversation that took place on the floor just last evening 
regarding that. There were no surprises. The amendment I have offered I 
actually read into the Record yesterday so everyone knew what the 
amendment was. It has been out there. It is not a very convoluted 
amendment. It is just a very simple, straightforward amendment. So 
everyone knew what it was.
  Since it is such an important issue, I think we all thought it would 
be advisable to have as many Senators here as possible to vote on this 
amendment. Therefore, as I understood it, there was at least some 
agreement made that we were going to vote next Tuesday on this 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. REID. And we also worked very hard, with your staff principally 
and floor staff generally, to come up with a finite list of amendments 
Democrats wanted to offer; is that true?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is my understanding. I saw the list. I think it was 
drawn up last night with a finite list of amendments, yes.
  Mr. REID. I would finally say to my friend, the distinguished 
Democratic manager of this bill, the Senator would acknowledge, I am 
sure, we have been most cooperative in this most important piece of 
legislation. We have set amendments aside and moved to other amendments 
for the convenience of Senators.
  It is my understanding the manager of this bill now feels so strongly 
about this overtime amendment, that now this amendment is laid down, 
and you are not going to agree to set this amendment aside to offer any 
other amendments; is that true?
  Mr. HARKIN. The leader has it correct. I feel so strongly about this, 
and the fact that we worked with the leadership on the other side and 
on this side to try to get a finite list of amendments, to get a time 
certain on Tuesday to vote on this so there would be no surprises to 
anyone, and then I am told today that has fallen through for some 
reason. It was not my intention until now, but it is my intention. I 
have laid down the amendment. There are no more votes today. The leader 
on that side said there would be no more votes today, that we would 
have one vote or maybe two on Monday evening, I don't know on what. 
There are other things up there.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield on that issue?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. We had two amendments lined up. We had one or more from the 
Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. We had one on Head Start from the 
Senator from Connecticut, and we had one on libraries from Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island. We had amendments lined up here that would be offered 
today and we would vote on those Monday.
  Mr. HARKIN. But as I understand it, that cannot happen now. So it is 
my intention, since this is such a vitally important issue----
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. In just a second, as soon as I finish my statement.
  Since there are no more votes today, and there are only going to be 
one or two votes on Monday, at the most--I don't know what is lined 
up--it is my intention that I will object to setting aside my amendment 
until such time as we have an up-or-down vote on it, which should occur 
on Tuesday, so there should not be any problem. But I will object to 
moving off this amendment for any other amendment.
  Without losing my right to the floor, I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is entirely likely the Senator from 
Iowa

[[Page S11137]]

can regain the floor. I would like to make a brief statement.
  Mr. HARKIN. I was yielding without losing my right to the floor. I 
thought you wanted to ask me a question.
  Mr. SPECTER. No, I didn't say that, but I agree that you maintain 
control of the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Oh, OK.
  Mr. SPECTER. And you are just yielding for a brief comment.
  Mr. HARKIN. OK.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the assistant Democratic leader and the 
distinguished ranking member have been cooperative, I don't think 
realistically anything above and beyond the call of duty. Senator 
Harkin is always cooperative, and so is Senator Reid. We have been 
working on a list for some time and finally got the list late yesterday 
afternoon. But that was the first time a condition appeared that we 
would have to set a time certain for an amendment. That is the first 
time that occurred, and I found it rather surprising.
  The Senator from Iowa made reference to an agreement. I don't think 
there ever had been an agreement as to a time on Tuesday. That would be 
my preference to accommodate the Democrats. But I think it is not 
inappropriate to say the calendar, as the Democrats wish it, revolves 
around the absence of their Members who are running for President, a 
lofty ambition. It even happened once to Senator Harkin. It even 
happened once to me. But the Senate is in session on occasions when the 
people who run for President are not present.
  I can understand your interest in wanting a time certain to have all 
your Members here. But in regular order, we debate amendments and we 
vote. In this august body, any Member can tie it up at any time. So 
that tries to produce comity. I think Senators Reid and Harkin and I 
have gone a long way to establish comity and try to get the business of 
the Senate done. I will continue.
  There are concerns on this side of the aisle to set a time on that 
amendment. That is on the substance. There are also a lot of concerns 
about letting the absentee Democrats set the time. I am prepared to do 
that because that is the nature of our business here, and Senators do 
run for the office of President. But it is my hope that as we reflect 
on this matter over the weekend, cooperation will prevail on all sides, 
that we try to work to a time which is agreeable to the absentee 
Senators, that we do ultimately set aside amendments, and that we 
proceed to take care of the business of the Senate.
  I am distressed to know that the amendments which were going to be 
offered are not now going to be offered. That enables me to return to 
Pennsylvania a little earlier today. I have a primary campaign in the 
general election. We are in the election cycle, but this is my day job, 
and I would be here as late as necessary to finish the work of the 
Senate.
  As far as this week is concerned, on Tuesday we worked 6 hours 45 
minutes and had two amendments on which to vote. And we thank the 
Democrats for offering them. On Wednesday we worked 9 hours 59 minutes, 
and on Thursday 10 hours 50 minutes. We have only had seven rollcall 
votes. Two amendments were accepted by voice vote, and we have 92 
Democratic amendments and 27 Republican amendments pending. So we have 
a lot of work to do.
  Senator Harkin and I have worked seamlessly for more than a decade. I 
expect that to continue into next week. Senator Reid has been a master 
at organizing the Senate. He has spent more time in the Senate Chamber 
in the last several years than any other Member. I complimented him 
privately yesterday about his efficiency. I do so publicly today.
  I know there are partisan considerations. That is a part of the 
process. But I hope we can move ahead on Monday to finish this bill and 
accommodate all of the competing interests.
  I thank my colleagues for yielding.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, who has been 
cooperative, as he said, we have worked together well over a decade. We 
have always worked these things out to make sure we get a bill through. 
We will this time also.
  My point is that there were at least some conversations last night 
with leadership on both sides about accommodating schedules and having 
votes set up on Tuesday.
  The fact is that nothing has hindered the progress of this bill 
because four Democrats are running for President. We have had votes 
every day. We haven't filibustered anything. We haven't done anything. 
We have offered our amendments. We have had good debates and 
discussions, and we have had up-or-down votes. We had two votes today. 
It was not my decision to have two votes today. I could have had four 
or five votes today. Someone else above my pay grade made the decision 
that we would have two votes today and go home.
  It was not my decision that on Monday we will have one vote late in 
the day. Again, the leadership makes those decisions, not I. So Tuesday 
looks like a day when we will all be here. Everyone is going to be 
here. That is the day when we can get a lot accomplished.
  We are making good progress on this bill. I say to my friend from 
Pennsylvania and others, when you look at the past, this is a big bill. 
This bill covers more spending and more Departments and Agencies of the 
Federal Government than any other bill considered in Congress. In terms 
of total spending, it is second only to Defense. But it covers a host 
of Agencies and Departments, more than the Defense Department does.
  In the past, in 2001, we had 5 days of floor action on this bill; in 
2000, we had 7 days; in 1999, 5 days. In 1998, it was passed in an 
omnibus, but in 1997, 9 days. So as you can see, it has always taken 5, 
6, 7, 8 days to finish this bill because it covers so many different 
subjects.

  We went on the legislation on Wednesday. Monday was Labor Day. We 
came in, by agreement of the leadership, with no votes on Tuesday. That 
was, again, not our decision. That was a leadership decision on the 
Republican side. So we had Wednesday and Thursday and two votes today. 
Basically, we have been on the bill, at least voting, really only 2 
days. To say we are going to have another couple days or 2 or 3 days on 
this bill is not exorbitant. It is in line with what we have done in 
the past.
  We would like to finish the bill as quickly as anyone. I think we 
have been very diligent in bringing up our amendments, offering them, 
and moving ahead.
  Again, I will object to setting aside any other amendment until we 
vote on this because it is that important. Everyone is going to be here 
on Tuesday. So we can vote on it on Tuesday, and we can vote on a lot 
of other things on Tuesday, too, and get a lot of this bill finished on 
Tuesday when the maximum number of Senators will be here in the 
Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I know the Senator from New York is here to make a very 
important statement.
  Let me say this: I appreciate the work of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. He has done an outstanding job on this bill, and he and 
Senator Harkin have set a pattern for how people should work together 
on legislation. I recognize it is not Senator Specter's decision how we 
are handling this legislation.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is absolutely true.
  Mr. REID. We know that. If it were up to Senator Specter, we would 
have the vote on Tuesday at any time we wanted the vote. Someone else 
is making that decision.
  We understand the parliamentary procedure. We know there is a way of 
getting off the Harkin amendment. They could move to the regular order 
and move to table Senators Byrd, Akaka, Mikulski, Kohl, Kennedy, and 
Dodd. But when they get to DeWine, we are going to offer your amendment 
as a second-degree amendment. They are not going to figure out in a 
parliamentary fashion a way to prevent the American people from having 
a vote on this legislation.
  They may pull the bill. This may be a big enough issue for the 
President of the United States to hurt American workers and help the 
American business community, as always happens, it seems, with this 
administration. The people who work, the men and women who work for a 
living, get it in the rear end. They may want to pull this bill and say 
we are not going to allow the Congress of the United States to have a

[[Page S11138]]

vote on this. If they do that, we know there are other appropriations 
bills and other issues that come up that maybe this amendment will not 
be in order, maybe it will not be germane, but we are going to offer it 
anyway. We are going to continue with this as an issue.
  There are cartoons all over the country--I saw one earlier today--
making a joke of what the President is trying to do. I saw one that was 
given to us by the senior Senator from South Carolina that says maybe 
the point is that they want the American people not have as much 
leisure time as they have had in the past.
  This is by Toles, and this ran in a number of papers around the 
country. This one is from South Carolina's largest newspaper. It shows 
a man standing there at his desk. It reads:

       In the 1960s, Americans wondered what they'd do with all 
     their free time in the twenty-first century.

  The next view reads:

       1. Vacationing at sea-floor resort.
       2. Eating gourmet meals in pill form.
       3. Flying personal car to robot store.
       4. Attending spaceball game on Saturn.

  The next view shows him with some consternation on his face and 
reads:

       I . . . I just can't decide.

  And then the final view reads:

       So they have decided for us.

  And some little person says to the man at the desk with his head 
against the computer:

       You'll spend your leisure time working a 70-hour week. 
     Without overtime.

  Then there is a little man at the bottom who says:

       You could take your vacation in pill form.

  We believe this is an important issue. Overtime pay has been the law 
of this land since the 1930s, Federal law. They are going to change it 
by administrative fiat? I don't think so. They can do a lot of things 
to stop us, but they can't stop us from talking.
  We are going to continue to talk on this until the American people 
understand what this administration is doing to American men and women. 
Here it is not subtle; it is just a slap in the face to the American 
people.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his support 
and for the support of our working families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleagues and 
leaders, the Senators from Iowa and Nevada, for their heartfelt, 
eloquent statements on behalf of the rights of Americans to be paid for 
the work they do. I appreciate greatly that our leader on this bill, 
the Democratic manager, the Senator from Iowa, has really drawn a line 
in the sand, because we know we are not creating jobs, we know that 
more people have fallen into poverty, and we know that the incomes of 
more Americans will be cut dramatically if the provision this 
administration wants to put into effect is allowed to go forward. So I 
thank them for their very strong commitment.


           EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse

  Mr. President, I wish to talk about another very important issue, one 
that directly affects the people I represent in New York but which I 
believe affects our entire country and the credibility of this 
administration and our Government. I am speaking about the report 
released on August 21 by the Office of the Inspector General of the 
Environmental Protection Agency entitled ``EPA's Response to the World 
Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for 
Improvement.''
  As the title suggests, this report is carefully researched, 
constructively presented, and it outlines how the EPA carried out its 
charge in the immediate and longer term aftermath of the terrible 
attack that struck New York on the infamous day of September 11--now 
almost 2 years ago. No one will ever forget that day. Those who were 
there in lower Manhattan will never be able to erase the images--not 
just the visual images but the feelings, the smells, the sounds, the 
smoke.
  I remember so well being there the day after and seeing the 
firefighters emerging from the haze that hung over the site, covered in 
dust and debris; the rescue workers, whom all of us saw, and many of 
whom I have met, who guided people to safety without a mask or a bit of 
concern about their own long-term health. I am sure that Americans 
remember--and New Yorkers lived with--the apartment buildings, the 
business buildings that were covered in gray dust.
  When we turned to our Government in Washington for guidance in the 
hours, days, and weeks after that tragedy, one of the questions I was 
asked and I know the EPA was asked, the White House was asked, and the 
city and the State were asked was: Is the air safe?
  What did the EPA tell us? The EPA said: Yes, it is safe. Go back to 
work, get back to your daily lives.
  Mr. President, it is a very hard thing to stand on this Senate floor 
and say this, but I believe our Government let us down. It wasn't by 
accident and it wasn't a mistake during the chaos of those terrible 
days. Instead, as spelled out in this report by the EPA inspector 
general, it is clear that the EPA was overruled and directed about what 
to say.
  I want to underscore the important fact that this report is not the 
product of my office, not the product of an advocacy group or an 
outsider; it was done by the EPA's own career watchdog.

  Why do we have inspectors general? Because we know our Government 
needs somebody to keep track of and hold accountable for actions that 
are taken. It is not a Republican or a Democratic job; it is a 
nonpartisan job. Sort of like Sergeant Friday, they ``just want the 
facts.'' They want to be able to know what is actually going on in the 
bowels and processes of these huge bureaucracies that perform so many 
important functions. But still, like any human institutions, extra eyes 
are needed on what they are doing.
  The inspector general of the EPA looked at the actions EPA took to 
address the quality of the air affected by the collapse of the World 
Trade Center and what the EPA told the public about the air we were 
breathing. The inspector general rightly acknowledges that the EPA, 
like all of our governmental entities at the Federal, State, and local 
levels involved with the response to September 11, found themselves 
dealing with an unprecedented crisis, the scope and nature of which 
none of us ever imagined.
  I admit, and I think it is fair to say, that no part of Government 
was prepared for the enormity of what occurred on September 11, and 
that is understandable because of what did happen. So in that spirit, 
and I think realistically so, the inspector general recognized that the 
particular demands placed on the EPA were considerable.
  I was there day after day, down at Ground Zero in the city, meeting 
with EPA officials, and I know how stressed they were because of all 
they were having to contend with. But still, even taking into account 
the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the implosion of the 
buildings, releasing into the air billions and billions of particles of 
all kinds of compounds and chemicals, the EPA inspector general found 
and asserted that where the Agency could and should have been more 
thorough, more proactive, more effective in its responsibility, it did 
not live up to what we should have rightly expected.
  We looked to the EPA to give us straight information and help us try 
to reduce the dangerous emissions in the air from the collapse, from 
the cleanup and the recovery, and the inspector general looked 
particularly at the EPA action dealing with monitoring, testing, and 
cleaning up of indoor air.
  I want to make this distinction because I think it is very important. 
When the towers collapsed, clearly, so much was released into the 
environment. We could see, as we helicoptered over the site on 
September 12, the burning fires still. The outdoor air was of 
particular concern to all of the people--the brave men and women who 
were on the search and recovery teams, who were beginning to work to 
remove the debris. But there is another separate and equally important 
issue, and that is about indoor air, because this blizzard of debris 
and dust went through windows, went through cracks in buildings, 
settled on roofs, fell into living quarters and businesses.
  As a Senator from New York, I have been particularly concerned about

[[Page S11139]]

these air quality issues and the implications for the public's health 
since September 11. I have worked with other elected officials 
representing New York and the region. I have worked with our first 
responders--our firefighters, police officers, and public health 
professionals. I have worked with residents and workers and 
businessowners to press for the help and the resources and the 
information we needed so that the air, both outdoors and indoors, would 
be clean as fast as possible and that the public's health would be 
protected as much as possible.
  With Senator Lieberman, who was then chair of the Clean Air 
Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I 
serve with him, we held a field hearing in lower Manhattan in February 
of 2002 to examine what we thought then were troubling and 
contradictory messages from the EPA about the quality of air in 
downtown New York City.
  I especially wanted to be sure of the basis for then-Administrator 
Christy Todd Whitman's statement on September 18, 1 week after the 
attack, that the air in New York was ``safe to breathe.''
  I pointed out that information from other Government and official 
sources contradicted that assertion, not to mention the concerns of my 
constituents who were coming to me asking whether it was safe for them 
to go back to their apartments, to go back to work, to bring their 
children home because of what they could feel and smell in the air. 
Every time I went down there, my eyes burned and my throat burned. It 
was a palpable feeling that we were in an environment that may not be 
safe.
  I do not think either Senator Lieberman or I at that hearing received 
a straight answer. I am not sure we ever got a straight answer in the 
time between September 11, 2001, and August 21, 2003. In fact, we know 
we did not because the inspector general's report confirms that New 
Yorkers and others affected were, in fact, misled about the most 
fundamental issue: whether the air they were breathing, the breaths 
they took were safe.
  I find this deeply disturbing and very disappointing. Let me quote 
from the report itself. I have excerpts from the report on these two 
charts.
  In the executive summary of the report, the inspector general says in 
the very first finding:

       EPA's early public statements following the collapse of the 
     World Trade Center Towers reassured the public regarding the 
     safety of the air outside the Ground Zero area. However, when 
     EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 
     ``safe'' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and 
     analyses to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air 
     monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of 
     concern, including particulate matter and PCBs.
       Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental 
     Quality, influenced, through the collaborative process, the 
     information that the EPA communicated to the public through 
     its early press releases when it convinced the EPA to add 
     reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.

  The inspector general later on in the report states:

       Based on the documentation we reviewed and our discussions 
     with numerous environmental experts, both within and outside 
     the EPA, we do not agree with the Agency's statement of 
     September 18, 2001, that the air was safe to breathe 
     reflected the Agency's best professional advice. In contrast 
     . . . it appeared that the EPA's best professional advice was 
     overruled when relaying information to the public in the 
     weeks immediately following the disaster.

  Basically, what the IG is saying is that the EPA did not have the 
testing data and analyses to make the statements it did, and that the 
best professional judgment of the EPA experts was influenced by the 
White House itself.
  As examples of where White House officials intervened and what the 
EPA told the public at the time, the inspector general reports that the 
White House had the EPA remove recommendations that all area residents 
obtain professional cleaning of their homes and offices and told the 
EPA to remove any reference to the increased risks from air pollution 
for sensitive populations, such as young children and the elderly.
  On these charts, I now want to turn to the actual examples that the 
inspector general includes in the report of where and how the White 
House evidently--although we do not know this--evidently, through its 
Council on Environmental Quality, dictated very specific changes to the 
EPA on what it could and could not say in its press releases to the 
public.

  Here we see in vivid language, to once again use the very words of 
the inspector general's report, the White House's role in insisting 
that ``the EPA's overriding message was that the public did not need to 
be concerned about airborne contaminants caused by the World Trade 
Center collapse.''
  If we look at these charts, we can see very clearly what was told by 
the White House to be changed. Here is the draft press release from the 
EPA, and it reads:

       Recent samples of dust gathered by OSHA--

  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration--

     on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos in EPA tests.

  The issued press release after the White House dictated the changes:

       The new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air 
     quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause 
     for public concern. New OSHA data also indicates that indoor 
     air quality in downtown buildings will meet standards.

  Draft press release:

       Seven debris and dust samples taken Thursday showed levels 
     of asbestos ranging from 2.1 percent to 3.3 percent. EPA 
     views a 1 percent level of asbestos as the definition for 
     asbestos-containing material.

  Changed press release at the White House direction:

       Debris samples collected outside buildings, on cars, and 
     other surfaces contained small percentages of asbestos, 
     ranging from 2.1 to 3.3--slightly above the 1 percent trigger 
     for defining asbestos material.

  These are statements that were added to the press release based on 
the White House instructions. Here was the instruction from the White 
House:

       Add sentence about OSHA monitors walking the streets 
     yesterday and wearing personal monitors and coming up clean.

  Of course, the EPA did what they were told by the White House. This 
is what they said:

       OSHA staff walked through New York's financial district on 
     September 13th, wearing personal air monitors, and collected 
     data on potential asbestos exposure levels. All but two 
     samples contained no asbestos. Two samples contained very low 
     levels of an unknown fiber which is still being analyzed.

  Of course, what we know now is that they had not done the analysis. 
They did not have the data. So, basically, the White House decided they 
better invent some and put it in the press release so they could create 
more reassurance than what the facts clearly indicated.
  The White House says: Get a quote in from somebody in charge, 
somebody with some responsibility; put a quote in so you can get people 
back to work and back to living downtown. So they came up with a quote 
by a Mr. John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. This 
is the quote they put in:

       Our tests showed that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back 
     to work in New York's financial district.

  They just made it up: Might as well tell them it is OK to go back to 
work; don't put in any cautionary language about children or the 
elderly, people with preexisting asthmatic, pulmonary, or respiratory 
conditions. Tell them it is safe.
  It is really discouraging, I have to say, to go through this because 
it is not what any of us expected. It is certainly not what any of us 
told our constituents and what we were told as we walked these streets 
and as people asked: Is it OK to go back?
  I believe this is the kind of interference by Government altering 
scientific data, putting happy talk in where mature and accurate 
information would be better suited, and that does our Government a 
great disservice.
  I conclude with these two final changes: The draft press release that 
the experts at EPA put out had this caption:

       EPA Initiating Emergency Response Activities, Testing 
     Terrorized Sites For Environmental Hazards.

  That sounds pretty descriptive. That is what they were doing. That 
was their job. That is what we expect the EPA to do, to go do the 
emergency response activities and test for environmental hazards.
  This is what the White House said they had to put as the caption:


[[Page S11140]]


       EPA Initiating Emergency Response Activities, Reassures 
     Public About Environmental Hazards.

  We went from testing to reassurance because of changes in words 
dictated by the White House, not based on data, not based on science.
  Then this final example, the draft press release said:

       Preliminary results of EPA's sampling activities indicate 
     no or very low levels of asbestos. However, even at low 
     levels, EPA considers asbestos hazardous in this situation 
     and will continue to monitor and sample for elevated levels 
     of asbestos and work with the appropriate officials to ensure 
     awareness and proper handling, transportation and disposal of 
     potentially contaminated debris or materials.

  I have no problem with that. That is a very thoughtful, informative 
statement: Thankfully, our testing shows very low levels at this point 
but we want to caution people because even very low levels can be 
dangerous, so we want to tell you what you should do to deal with this 
dust that is everywhere, that is in your house, that covers everything 
from your drapes and your rugs to your teapot sets, that is filling the 
streets and the roofs, so we are going to tell you what we need to do.
  Here is what the White House told them to say instead:

       EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears 
     to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in 
     New York City, said Administrator Whitman. We are working 
     closely with rescue crews to ensure that all appropriate 
     precautions are taken. We will continue to monitor closely.
       Public health concerns about asbestos contamination are 
     primarily related to long-term exposure. Short-term, low-
     level exposure of the type that might have been produced by 
     the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is unlikely 
     to cause significant health effects. EPA and OSHA will work 
     closely with rescue and cleanup crews to minimize their 
     potential exposure, but the general public should be very 
     reassured by initial sampling.

  Nothing about proper handling, transportation, or disposal.
  These are very disturbing revelations. What the EPA wanted to report 
to the public in their press releases and communication was different 
from what they did report, and yet all of us relied on those reports.
  I have talked to a lot of parents with kids who live downtown. I have 
talked with a lot of business owners. They asked me whether they should 
send their children back to the schools when they opened, whether they 
should go to work when the businesses reopened. Based on both the 
public information and the private information that I had solicited, I 
said, yes, from all we know, we think it is safe.

  I understand what tremendous challenges these horrible events caused 
for everyone, but I just cannot come up with any excuse, justification, 
or rationale for the White House to interfere with the agency in charge 
of providing accurate and trustworthy information about whether our air 
indoors and outdoors is safe to breathe. Dictating what the EPA can 
generally say is inexcusable, but making them misinform the public on 
such a critical issue is outrageous.
  As the inspector general's report clearly points out, the EPA has a 
clear mandate to communicate honestly and openly with the public about 
environmental hazards and risks. The reporting even lists the Agency's 
own seven cardinal rules of risk communication in carrying out these 
important roles that they have done over the years in dealing with 
countless situations such as toxic spills and explosions. Those rules 
were tampered with and the public was misinformed.
  On Tuesday, August 26, Senator Lieberman and I wrote to President 
Bush to convey our serious questions and concerns about what we have 
learned through the IG report. We asked the President to provide 
Congress and the public with an account of what took place in the White 
House that resulted in changing the content and the overall message 
conveyed by EPA through its press releases. We asked for the identities 
of the White House officials referred to in the report, who played a 
role in imposing these changes, for an explanation on why the White 
House felt compelled to insist on the changes, and copies of the actual 
communications between the White House and the EPA about the air 
quality in downtown New York.
  We asked for a response by September 5 with the hope of obtaining a 
full and frank explanation of the sequence described in the report and 
be assured that the EPA does indeed have the authority and the liberty 
to communicate accurately with the public on what it knows.
  I know the White House did not cooperate with the inspector general 
report but I hope they would want to get to the bottom of this and 
learn the lessons that we should not only about the past but going 
forward. However, I cannot say that I will be surprised if we continue 
to hear from the administration some of the same excuses that they have 
been making in response to the IG's report.
  In one statement reported a few days ago, former EPA Administrator 
Whitman said: We did not want to scare people.
  White House representatives have said that the edits and changes 
imposed on the EPA were necessary for national security reasons.
  Frankly, this is a canard. The public deserves better. When it comes 
to our health, the health of our children, the health of our elderly 
relatives, we need accurate information in a timely manner.
  Should we have worn a mask? Should we have gotten more sophisticated 
respiratory protective gear? Should we have gotten a professional 
cleaner to clean our apartments before we went back? The public needs 
to know what the risks are so they can appropriately respond.
  To say that national security somehow justifies telling people the 
air is safe when it is not is to essentially say that people are going 
to be told that when they need their Government the most at a time of 
terrible disaster they cannot trust what they hear.
  A national crisis does not justify giving people the wrong 
information and continuing to do so days, weeks, and months after the 
event.
  Would any of us have wanted to worry that the Centers for Disease 
Control had changed what they were telling us about SARS or the West 
Nile virus or any other public health incident? Would we ever want to 
question the FDA about what they tell us when it comes to drugs 
available in our pharmacies? Should we ever fear the EPA's information 
about a toxic spill in our community or our own backyard? What the 
inspector general told us in its August 21 report is that we have to 
raise these questions now.
  What I hope we can achieve from examining this report and seeking 
answers is that all New Yorkers and Americans will be assured that in 
the future the EPA and all parts of our Government responsible for 
communicating to the public about our health and safety will do so 
honestly and accurately without any political interference.
  I have talked about this report and the serious issues it raises with 
residents who live near Ground Zero. These New Yorkers have been 
through so much. Many of them were forced into homelessness for months. 
Many faced devastated neighborhoods when they returned home.

  For them, who have lost so much, it is tragic if they lose one more 
precious thing, namely, their trust in their Government, their faith 
that they would be given accurate, truthful information they could make 
judgments on. People made life decisions based on what the EPA told 
them. Families moved back into the area with their children. Parents 
sent their children to school. Doctors told their patients not to worry 
because of what the EPA told them.
  To restore any semblance of that trust, we need to get to the bottom 
of what happened. I hope the administration, led by the White House, 
will understand that and will help us do what we need to do which is, 
number one, to find out what the truth was, unvarnished, without any 
embroidery or reassuring words, just what it was; second, do an 
analysis of the quality of the indoor air now. These particles, these 
contaminants stay in rugs, drapes, and air vents. We need to know 
whether people are living in places right now that are putting their 
health at risk. Then our Government needs to show good faith by doing 
what they said they would do, namely, to make sure the indoor air 
quality was cleaned up. And, perhaps most importantly, we need to 
restore that trust which has been breached.
  I hope the administration will help. These events also require 
oversight by

[[Page S11141]]

the Congress. A number of my colleagues have asked we hold hearings in 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. I hope we will. I cannot 
imagine anyone representing any State in this country with so many 
constituents still coughing, who have acquired severe asthma, who have 
pulmonary dysfunction, not asking for the very same thing I am asking 
for, congressional hearings and a full, cooperative relationship with 
the administration.
  I conclude by responding to one of the constant themes I hear from 
the administration, that they did not want to cause panic, they did not 
want people to be upset. If New Yorkers had to prove this one more 
time, they certainly did on September 11th and they did it again in the 
blackout. These are terrible times that try people, but New Yorkers 
rise to the occasion no matter what it is. They would have taken 
accurate information and acted accordingly. They would have done what 
they needed to do to take precautions for themselves, their children, 
their friends, their neighbors.
  I cannot imagine this idea we did not want to cause people to panic. 
There are many ways of saying--we saw from the EPA's own language--the 
truth and then telling people, here are the necessary steps you should 
take. There is not one firefighter, not one police officer, there is 
not one construction worker I met who would not have gone out of that 
pile, would not have tried for days to find survivors, would not have 
begun to remove the debris, to put the message clearly out to the world 
and the terrorists that we were not in any way daunted or fearful. Not 
one. But they might have worn their masks and asked for and demanded 
better respiratory protection. Instead, the Government says the air is 
safe.
  I have not met one family member or business owner who did not want 
to go back downtown and rebuild and live their lives again. They would 
have done it. But maybe instead of cleaning with a wet mop and a wet 
cloth to try to get rid of asbestos and PCBs, they would have done what 
the EPA said, go out and get a professional cleaner. But the air was 
safe.
  This in and of itself is a serious, profoundly important issue that 
has disturbing consequences, particularly when it comes to the trust we 
should be able to place in our Government, believing they are looking 
out for our best interests when it comes to health and safety. I hope 
the administration will respond to my letter, that the Senate will hold 
hearings, and we will all make it absolutely clear we will not abide 
misinformation and political interference in something as important as 
the air we breathe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 1580

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know we are still on the Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education appropriations, and I wish to speak for a 
little while on the pending amendment which I have laid down prior to 
the distinguished Senator from New York speaking. I want to follow up 
and speak for a little bit longer on that. I know my colleague from 
Alabama and maybe others are here so I will try to be as succinct as 
possible, but I did want to, before the weekend came, to again lay out 
for the Senate and for the Nation why it is so important for us to take 
action, to stop the implementation of these proposed changes in rules 
and regulations that deal with overtime pay.
  I thought I would take some time now to, number one, respond to some 
arguments made by the Senator from Wyoming yesterday, Senator Enzi, but 
also to again give some personal stories of what is happening to people 
around the country today and how others might be affected with these 
changes in rules and regulations.
  As I have done with the rules and regulations, you can read them. If 
you want to go to sleep fast, try reading rules and regulations 
sometimes. That will put you to sleep. It becomes a blur out there as 
to what all these fancy words and phrases and subparagraph and titles 
all mean. But when you get through it all, it means people are affected 
one way or the other, either for good or for ill. It means workers are 
either supported in their jobs and their family life or they are not.
  That is what these changes and rules are about, affecting human 
beings and their lives and how they live and how they work and what 
their quality of life is going to be.
  Again, a couple of things I want to lay out. One, to lay out what the 
industry has said about the proposed overtime rule. I also wanted to 
bring specific examples and then show what has happened to the 
workforce over the last few years because, as I said earlier, the first 
wave of people to be hit by this proposed change in rules and 
regulations, if they go into effect, are working women. I will show why 
that is so in my comments this morning.
  First of all, the Bush administration has said the proposed rules on 
overtime will not substantially change the exempt and nonexempt status 
of American workers. They say they merely want to ``clarify the current 
rules.''
  I believe this is misleading, at best. The proposal will have a 
sweeping effect on millions of Americans and will unalterably change, 
will change fundamentally, the basic principle of the 40-hour workweek 
as we have known it since 1938.
  Don't take my word for it. Look at some of the comments from 
industry. In May 2003, an analysis by Hewitt Associates, which 
advertises on their Web site as a global human resources outsourcing 
and consulting firm, says on their Web site their client roster 
includes more than half of the Fortune 500 companies. Here is their 
analysis of the proposed rule changes:

       These proposed changes likely will open the door for 
     employers to reclassify a large number of previously 
     nonexempt employees as exempt. The resulting effect on 
     compensation and morale could be detrimental as employees 
     previously accustomed to earning in some cases significant 
     amounts of overtime, would suddenly lose their opportunity. 
     That is from Hewitt Associates.

  And from the Society for Human Resource Management, which on its Web 
site says it is ``the world's largest association devoted to human 
resource management.'' And regarding the proposed overtime changes, the 
society said:

       This is going to affect every workplace, every employee, 
     every profession.

  So, again, whether we hear from the administration, from the 
Department of Labor, that this is simply a clarification, these are 
simple little clarifications. Meanwhile, the main human resource 
management association and a human resource consultant for Fortune 500 
companies say this is big stuff. It is going to affect every workplace, 
employee, every profession, according to the Society for Human Resource 
Management.
  This same Society for Human Resource Management said the proposed 
rule is not clearer than current regulations. Deron Zeppelin told the 
Chicago Tribune:

       It looks like they're just moving from one ambiguity to the 
     next.

  Again, as I said, according to the Chicago Tribune:

       The Labor and Department's [Wage and Hour Administrator 
     Tammy] McCutchen predicts a deluge of lawsuits as employees 
     and employers press for clarifications once the new rules go 
     into effect.

  I thought we wanted to reduce the number of lawsuits. My friend from 
Wyoming argued that we have all these lawsuits out there right now. But 
this is going to open the door for even more lawsuits. The reason we 
are having lawsuits out there now is because employers are already 
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, in terms of the 40-hour 
workweek. I will refer to that more later.
  The Chamber of Commerce said, on the proposed rule, in their formal 
comments:

       We support raising the minimum compensation necessary to 
     qualify as an exempt employee provided that such change is 
     made in conjunction with significant reforms of the duties 
     and salary basis test.

  Understand what they are saying. They are saying we can raise the 
minimum compensation, that is fine, but not unless we have significant 
reforms of the duties and salary basis test--significant; not minor, 
not simple clarification but significant reforms.
  The American Corporate Council Association, and I am quoting from 
their statement:

       . . . also supports other aspects of the present draft, 
     including creating a new computer employee exemption; 
     eliminating discretion and independent judgment test as a 
     criterion of the professional exemption;

[[Page S11142]]

     eliminating the primary and nonprimary duties criterion of 
     the administrative exemption; and the changes made to the 
     outside sales exemption.

  For the uninitiated, in all this fancy jargon, what the American 
Corporate Council Association says is that they want a major exemption 
for computer technicians from overtime protections. They also want to 
really relax the current ``duties'' test to be exempt from overtime to 
incorporate more workers in the overtime exemption.
  These are big changes, sweeping changes in who would get overtime pay 
and who would not.
  Last, the National Association of Manufacturers said, on eliminating 
the academic study requirement for the professional exemption--right 
now it is generally based on 4 years of college. If you have 4 years of 
college that is sort of the first hurdle that you would be exempt as a 
professional employee. It doesn't necessarily mean you are exempt, but 
its one of the key requirements to be exempt. The proposed rule changes 
all that. It just says you can replace that academic requirement with 
work experience or training. I get it, you do the exact same job for a 
couple of years--let's say, nursing--so you go from getting overtime to 
being reclassified as a professional from all of that experience--and 
you no longer receive overtime pay although you're doing the exact same 
job. Well, the National Association of Manufacturers appears to think 
that's a great idea. They applauded the Labor Department for including 
this alternative means of establishing that an employee has the 
knowledge required for the exemption to apply.

  Again, what does that mean? You don't need 4 years of college. You 
could have on-the-job training, a high school degree and, bang, all of 
a sudden you are a professional, and they can say you are exempt.
  So when you hear people say these are minor changes, they are not 
minor at all. That is why 8 to 10 million people are going to be 
affected by this.
  Again, there is the argument that we need to update these rules. I am 
all for updating them. The Senator from Wyoming spoke the other day 
about some of the occupations that are still listed. I think one of 
them was straw man--I forget what some of the others were. Oh, a leg 
man and a straw man and all that--fine. If they want to tweak the 
regulations to get rid of those jobs that no longer exist, fine by me. 
But don't take overtime pay protection from those workers, those jobs 
that currently have it.
  The fact is, the Department has revised overtime regulations several 
times since 1938 just because, obviously, jobs change. Some of the 
things they covered before don't exist. Obviously a straw man, whoever 
that was, or a leg man, whatever that was, doesn't exist anymore. If 
they want to do away with that or change that, that is fine. But that 
is not what they are doing. So if they want to update them to match 
current occupations, that is fine. If the administration had done that, 
that would have been OK. But they went far beyond that.
  I have just a few other brief things. The Senator from Wyoming said 
the other day the amendment I offered would not allow the Department of 
Labor to review the 78,000 comments they got in. That is simply not 
true. My amendment says they can't promulgate these rules and 
regulations. They can have the comments, they can look at them, they 
just can't issue a rule that would take away the present overtime 
protection that workers now have. That is all my amendment does.
  And he said my amendment would block an increase in the income 
threshold for low-income workers. Again, that's just not true. My 
amendment specifically only prohibits implementing a rule that would 
take overtime pay protection to those millions of workers who currently 
have it. We would support new rules to increase overtime pay protection 
for workers.
  Then the Senator from Wyoming said the union contracts protect 
overtime. That is true, union contracts do. But union contracts right 
now only cover 13 percent of the workforce in America. What about the 
other 77 percent who are not covered? And right now when a union goes 
out and the contracts expire, overtime is not an issue. Why? Because 
the law says they have to pay overtime.
  So when the contract comes up, that isn't even an area for 
negotiation because the law says they have to pay them overtime over 40 
hours. Now with these proposed changes in rules and regulations, every 
time a union contract expires, that is a negotiable item. We have to 
negotiate for whether or not they will get paid overtime. That means 
they will have to give up something else in order to get overtime.
  There is something floating around about first responders, nurses and 
such, and that somehow that wouldn't be changed. But we have been 
through these rules and regulations. There is no exemption. There is no 
carve-out for policemen, for firemen, and first responders. Not one 
thing in this carves them out. I have heard it said that the 
administration said sort of quietly that maybe they will not include 
this. I don't see that anywhere.
  Lastly, it has been said that wage and hour cases now exceed 
discrimination suits. Well, I wonder which. Maybe it is because a lot 
of employers are now basically violating the Fair Labor Standards Act 
because they can get away with it.
  For example, Wal-Mart, the largest retailer, is facing 37 lawsuits in 
29 States from employees alleging they were illegally forced to work 
extra hours to meet corporate productivity demands--not 1 but 37 
lawsuits in 29 States.
  In fact, in December, a Federal jury in Portland, OR, found Wal-Mart 
guilty of asking workers to clock out and then to return to work 
unpaid. A Federal jury found them guilty of doing that. Workers clocked 
out and then they had to come back and work overtime without getting 
paid.
  About 270 insurance claims adjustors have filed here in U.S. District 
Court in Washington, DC, alleging that their employer, GEICO Insurance, 
broke the law by improperly classifying workers as exempt from overtime 
pay.
  Again, maybe it doesn't surprise me that wage and hour cases are now 
exceeding discrimination cases.
  The proposed rules and regulations would make this legal and say to 
Wal-Mart you are off the hook. All these lawsuits would just fall by 
the wayside because of a change of law, and they could exempt these 
people. They are big changes.
  I said earlier that the first wave of people who would be hit by this 
would be working women. I want to show you what I mean by that.
  This chart shows basically what is happening in the workforce in 
America--from 1948 it 2002. As you can see, the labor force 
participation rates for men and women have steadily declined. Look at 
what has happened with women--going from slightly over 30 percent to a 
little over 60 percent of the workforce in that period of time. More 
and more women have entered the workforce over that period of time.
  Here are some other statistics.
  In 1975, 44.9 percent of women with children were in the labor force 
in 1975. In 2001, 70.8 percent of women with children were in the labor 
force. In 1975, 30.8 percent of the women who worked had children under 
the age of 2.
  Today, 58 percent of the women in the workforce have children under 
the age of 2.
  Here are two more statistics.
  Twenty-eight percent of working mothers work nights or on weekends. 
Forty percent of working mothers work different schedules than their 
spouses.
  What that adds up to is families are working longer and longer, and 
they are taking time away from their families to make ends meet. This 
chart shows the average weeks worked per year by middle-income families 
with children.

  In 1969, the average family with children worked 78.2 weeks per year. 
We know there are 52 weeks in the year. That means that perhaps someone 
worked 40 or 52 weeks, and someone had a part-time job and they worked 
maybe 28 weeks during the year in 1969. In 2000, the weeks worked by 
the average middle-income family with children was 97.9 weeks per year.
  Where is that coming from? It is coming from the women in the 
workforce who are working longer hours, working nights, and working 
weekends. They are the first ones who are going to be hit by these 
changes in overtime laws. Many of these women are working as 
secretaries, as claims adjustors,

[[Page S11143]]

as nurses, bookkeepers, social workers and paralegals. They are 
salaried. They work in insurance companies and banks. Right now, if 
they work over 40 hours, they are paid overtime. Under these changes, 
their employers can legally take away their overtime.
  Let me give a couple of examples of people who would be affected by 
these changes.
  Here is Michael Farrar who works at the NAV/AIR depot in 
Jacksonville, FL. He is a cost estimator at the NAV/AIR depot who 
specializes in aircraft engine and component production and repair. If 
he loses his right to overtime pay, he will be paid straight time for 
any hours over 40 per week.
  He says:

       If I don't get my overtime, it will be hard to exist.

  He and his wife rely on overtime pay to support their 21-year-old 
disabled son who lives with them.
  He says:

       When I took this job, it was clear that I was supposed to 
     work more than 40 hours a week, and I agreed to that because 
     I knew I would need the money. We would be devastated without 
     the overtime. We have no more corners to cut.

  Let us not go back 40 years with these proposed Bush regulations. Let 
us go forward and pay people what they deserve.
  Here is Susan Moore, a planning coordinator from the Chicago Park and 
Planning District, a member of the International Federation of 
Professional and Technical Engineers.
  She says:

       I am currently entitled to time and a half under Federal 
     law. I know for a fact that that is the reason I am not 
     required to work long hours like the project managers who are 
     not entitled to overtime pay. My supervisor has to think hard 
     about whether to assign overtime to me because he has to pay 
     for my time. That means more time for my family and that time 
     is important to me. If the law changes and I lose my right to 
     overtime pay, I will be faced with the imposing choice of 
     losing time with my family, or losing my job.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I would be glad to yield to my friend from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator so much.
  I have been trying to thank the Senator for a couple of days now, but 
it has been hard to get a moment. I am so glad I have this moment to 
thank him so much for giving us an opportunity here in the Senate to 
stand up for working families.
  I want to read just one letter I received from a woman in my State 
and ask the Senator to comment because his point is so right.
  This Bush administration rule, which would take away the pay from 
hard-working people, is an attack on America's families. What is so 
interesting to me is, when I think back after 9/11 and the President 
going to Ground Zero and standing with his arms around firefighters and 
saying, ``These are the heroes,'' the firefighters are the ones who are 
going to be hurt by this change. The safety workers are going to be 
hurt.
  I want to read a letter, and I want to ask you to please comment. 
Celine Krimston, the wife of a firefighter from La Mesa, wrote:

       We are a family of four. Our children are four months and 
     five years of age. I work full time outside of the home to 
     make ends meet for our family. My husband's firefighter 
     income is not enough to support a family of four, yet too 
     high to receive any type of subsidy. Without the overtime pay 
     we would actually be deemed low income and qualify for 
     subsidized childcare. Our nation should be ashamed!
       Please support America's working families by voting against 
     the Bush administration's proposal to cut overtime.

  So all I want to do today, in this brief interlude, if you will, is 
to thank you. These working people--who barely have time for their 
kids, who are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table, 
to pay the rent or the mortgage, to give their family a modicum of 
security--are under attack by this Bush rule.
  I want you to comment on this, if this does not reflect the comments 
you are hearing as our leader on this issue?
  Did it not strike you--let's just use the word in an ironic way--when 
President Bush stood, on Labor Day, with a group of working people and 
talked about how much he understood that they were going through hard 
times and how important it was for them to get jobs? By the way, we 
have lost more jobs now than ever in history since Herbert Hoover, 
since the Great Depression.
  But while he is doing this missionary work and trying to tell working 
people how he is going to get them jobs, he is also going behind their 
back and cutting their pay with this rule.
  I wonder if my friend would comment on those two issues: The irony of 
this hitting our firefighters, our first responders, and also the fact 
that at a Labor Day event the President was saying how he understands 
working people, and then putting this provision in, which is such a 
disaster for our people.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California for her observations 
and her questions. I again thank my colleague from California for her 
many years of working so hard on behalf of our working families. There 
is no one who has worked harder and longer and fought more diligently 
for the rights of working families, working men, working women, in this 
country than Senator Boxer of California.
  I say to the Senator, I am proud to have you on our side in this 
fight, too, because it is a fight for justice. It is a fight just to 
make sure people are treated decently as human beings.
  I guess in my fondest, perhaps, hopes, maybe President Bush didn't 
even know about this, and this was going on underneath him. Maybe 
through our debates here he will find out about it and say: What is 
happening? Who is doing this on my watch? Well, the buck does stop at 
the President's desk. Maybe he doesn't even know this is going on but 
the people he has hired underneath him are implementing this. So maybe 
our debate will enlighten the President. Maybe some word will get to 
him and he will say, ``What is going on?'' and he will become alarmed 
at what people under him are doing, and perhaps he will put a stop to 
it. That would be my fondest wish.

  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would hope your wish comes true, but I understand we 
received a message that he would veto this bill with this in it. Let's 
hope he knows that letter came over here because, frankly, if he 
doesn't know it, he is not doing his job. So I have to assume he knows 
it. That is my own view, not that I want to ruin your day.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, no, as I say, hope springs eternal. I was hoping 
maybe the President might learn about this. We did get this veto 
message from the White House.
  I say to the Senator from California, this is mind-boggling. Here is 
an appropriations bill that funds all education, all health care, all 
research at the National Institutes of Health--on breast cancer, on 
emphysema, on diabetes; all this wonderful research done to help people 
live their lives better--Head Start Programs, job training programs, 
and he is going to veto the whole thing if we stop these rules and 
regulations from going through that takes away overtime. To me this is 
mind-boggling.
  Again, I hope it is his underlings doing this, and maybe he doesn't 
know about it yet, and maybe he will learn about it. I hope he will 
learn about it. Maybe he will tell his people to stop this nonsense.
  Mrs. BOXER. Maybe he will take back that letter he sent us.
  Mr. HARKIN. I hope he would take that letter back and say he 
wouldn't. The idea of having a veto threat out there, to veto this 
entire bill, if the Senate works its will and says: No, we are not 
going to let these rules and regulations come into effect, this almost 
borders on the bizarre that something like this would happen.
  I thank the Senator.
  I see my great leader. Again, talk about a fighter for working 
families in America, there is no one, including me and the Senator from 
California, who has fought harder and longer for working families than 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. My friend, you are living in a dream world if for a moment 
you think this President doesn't know what he is doing. You are living 
in a dream world. I hope to be with you in your dreams at some point.
  Mr. HARKIN. As I said, hope springs eternal. And I always believe in 
redemption. The hope for redemption is

[[Page S11144]]

always there, that the wayward will come home and find the true path. 
And I hope the President will sit down and think about this and 
understand what is happening on his watch with regard to this issue.
  So I appreciate what my friend from West Virginia has said. I would 
hope this would happen. But again, we can't go on hope around here. We 
have to go on what reality is. And the reality is, the Department of 
Labor, under this administration, has promulgated these proposed 
changes in overtime. They will go into effect unless we take 
this action. That is the real world we live in. That is why I have 
offered this amendment. And that is why I feel so strongly about it.

  Oh, there are maybe a few things that each of us gets interested in 
and gets involved in because we feel deeply about them. One of the 
issues I always get involved in and for which I take the floor is to 
make sure we expand and promote opportunities for people with 
disabilities in our country. This goes back to when I was the chief 
sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act. So this is another area 
in which I always keep a close watch and find out what the 
administration and the Supreme Court and others are doing to cut down 
on the rights of people with disabilities. That is one area.
  Another area I feel so strongly about is our working families, 
working people who don't have a lot of say-so over their jobs. They go 
to work every day. They do what their bosses tell them. They put in 
extra effort and extra energy. A lot of times they don't get paid 
overtime for that extra few minutes every day, that extra effort. But 
if they are asked to work overtime, they should get paid. If they are 
taking time away from their families to work overtime, they ought to be 
justly compensated for it. That is why I feel so strongly about this.
  I couldn't say it any better than Sheila Perez of Bremerton, WA. Here 
is what she said:

       I began my career as a supply clerk earning $3.10/hr in 
     1976. I recognized early in my federal career that in order 
     for me as a working single parent to support my family, I 
     needed to find more lucrative employment. I entered an upward 
     mobility program and received training to become an engineer 
     technician with a career ladder that gave me a yearly boost 
     in income. It seemed though that even with a decent raise 
     each year, I really relied on overtime income to help make 
     ends meet. There are many more single parents today with the 
     same problem. How does one pay for the car that broke down 
     or the braces for the children's teeth? Overtime income 
     has been a lifesaver to many of us. When I as a working 
     mother leave my 8-hour/day job and go home, my second 
     shift begins. There is dinner to cook, dishes to wash, 
     laundry, and all the other housework that must be done 
     which adds another 3 to 4 hours to your workday. When one 
     has to put in extra hours at work, it takes away from the 
     time needed to take care of our personal needs. It seems 
     only fair that one should be compensated for that extra 
     effort. Overtime is a sacrifice of one's time, energy, and 
     physical and mental well-being. Compensation should be 
     commensurate in the form of premium pay as it is a premium 
     of one's personal time, energy, and expertise that is 
     being used.

  That is a great sentence that Sheila writes:

       Compensation should be commensurate in the form of premium 
     pay as it is a premium of one's personal time, energy, and 
     expertise that is being used. It has been a crime that many 
     engineers and technicians were paid less than even their 
     straight time for overtime worked. It has never made sense to 
     me that the hours I work past my normal eight are of lesser 
     value, when those additional hours are at a cost of my 
     personal time.

  Sheila Perez from Bremerton, WA. I could not say it any better. That 
is what this fight is all about. It is about people who get up and go 
to work every day. They pull their load, pay their taxes. They are good 
citizens. They raise their families. They want to spend time with their 
families. If they are being asked to work overtime, as Sheila said, 
that is premium time. That is personal time. That is family time. They 
ought to be paid for it. They ought to be paid time and a half for it.
  What these proposed changes would mean is that Sheila Perez could be 
asked to work over 40 hours a week and not get paid one penny more than 
what she is being paid right now. She would not be paid anything more 
if she were on a salaried basis. It is sort of free time.
  That is why I said the other day, not only is this President and this 
administration shipping jobs out of the country, they are now importing 
into this country Third World labor standards: work 60 hours a week, no 
overtime, no commensurate pay.
  We will have another issue on pensions where they are trying to 
change the pension program, take away the rightful pensions which 
people have earned, privatize Social Security, privatize Medicare. It 
doesn't sound like the America I grew up in and the America that built 
a strong and viable middle class.
  Right now American workers work longer per year than workers in any 
industrialized country. The International Labor Organization found that 
American workers put in an average of 1,825 hours a year, average. In 
Europe, French workers have an average of 1,545 hours per year; German 
workers, 1,444 hours per year. So we are already working longer. Now 
they want us to work longer without any pay. That is why I have said 
this is antiworker. It is antifamily to change these rules and 
regulations as they want.
  I have had my say. I know others want to speak. I ask unanimous 
consent to add Senator Johnson as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  Mr. HARKIN. I will have more to say about this next week. I hope we 
will vote on this up or down when next Tuesday comes. But I hope the 
American people get the word about what is happening. These proposed 
rules came out without one public hearing, not one. There still haven't 
been any public hearings. Why don't they go to Dallas, TX, or Des 
Moines, IA? Why don't they go to Detroit or Los Angeles? Why don't they 
go to West Virginia, have public hearings and listen to what people 
might have to say about this? No, they just want to ram them through 
without any public hearings.
  This is our public hearing. This is the public's house, the Senate 
and the House of Representatives. Here, as we once said, the people 
rule. Here we are supposed to do the work of the people, not the 
special interests. The American people want us to fight for them and 
for their rights, to support them in the workplace and to support their 
families. That is what this fight is about--nothing more, nothing less. 
That is why this Senate needs to speak, and we need to vote early next 
week to say no to the Bush administration's proposed changes in 
overtime rules and regulations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa 
for his position on this matter, for his words today on this subject. I 
will always remember Senator Tom Harkin for standing up for the working 
people of this country. Through the years that I served with him, he 
has never deviated from that course. He has never veered from that 
course: standing up for working people, the common people, the men and 
women of America who work with their hands, who get their hands dirty, 
whose hands show the horns of toil and working. I will never forget him 
for that. He has always been that way.
  I think he has a streak of that coal miner in him. He doesn't want to 
go back to the 1930s. What would have happened to me in the 1930s? I 
was married in 1937. I worked as a produce boy. I don't mind being 
called boy.
  I was a produce boy in a company store in the mining camp where my 
foster father was a coal miner, where my wife's father was a coal 
miner. I was a produce boy, produce salesman. I got out on some Sunday 
afternoons.
  I am a Baptist. I was a man who revered the Bible long before George 
Bush ever got to this place. When he was running around in knee pants, 
I believed in the old time religion. I wasn't a Christian to the left 
or to the right. I believed in the old time religion that comes from 
the King James version of the Bible. If you want to stir up the 
churches, take me. We will sing ``Amazing Grace.'' We will get them out 
into the aisles, those who are not afraid to say: Amen, amen. So he 
speaks the language of the working poor. No, he is not mistaken about 
President Bush. I respect President Bush. He is President of the United 
States, but he came from the other side

[[Page S11145]]

of the tracks. He didn't come from the side of the tracks I came from, 
or where the Senator from Iowa, I would venture, came from. I didn't 
come from the corporate boardrooms of this country.

  I came from the coal camps. I lived during those days the Senator is 
talking about, back in the 1930s. I worked 6 days a week. I was glad to 
have a job. I remember when I was making $70 a month working in a 
butcher shop. I was a butcher. I was a produce boy. Yes, we worked long 
hours. We didn't get paid time and a half when I was in the butcher 
shops in southern West Virginia, but we were glad to have a job. I made 
$70 a month. Imagine living on $70 a month. Of course, things were 
cheaper then. But we didn't get time and a half. We had to work 
whatever time was required to hold our jobs.
  My dad had to clean up his ``place'' back in the coal mines. They 
would shoot down the slate and the coal, and he was expected to clean 
that up before he went home. He was glad to have a job. There was 
always someone else there waiting on his job. If he didn't want to 
clean up the place, somebody was waiting to take his job.
  I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership, and count me as one who 
stands with him.


                                  IRAQ

  Mr. President, after a dismal summer of watching the situation in 
Iraq spiraling from bad to worse, the White House appears to have 
finally--finally--acknowledged what many of us have understood from the 
beginning. It is going to take huge amounts of money--your money; aha, 
they like to talk about that term ``your money''--it is going to take 
large amounts of your money, a long-term commitment, and substantial 
help from the international community to restore order to Iraq.
  After stiff-arming--I will say that again--after stiff-arming the 
United Nations for its refusal to rubberstamp the administration's war 
plans for Iraq, and alienating some of our staunchest allies in the 
process, the White House--hear me down there--has finally acquiesced to 
seeking a new resolution that potentially would give the United Nations 
a vital role in postwar Iraq that the President once pledged.
  I only hope this change of heart on the President's part is not a 
lesson too late for the learning. The United States has squandered on 
Iraq so much of the international good will that followed the September 
11 terrorist attacks that it may be impossible to regain all the ground 
that has been lost.
  It is particularly ironic that the administration's decision to seek 
a new resolution to win international support from the United Nations 
comes almost exactly 1 year after the President sternly warned the 
United Nations that it faced becoming irrelevant if it failed to 
support the United States on Iraq. How far off the mark that assessment 
turned out to be. How far off the mark. Instead of being irrelevant, 
the United Nations has emerged as America's best and possibly only hope 
to win desperately needed international support for the postwar mission 
in Iraq.

  It is deeply ironic that the administration is seeking an estimated 
$60 billion to $70 billion in additional funding for Iraq from the 
American taxpayers--your money, I say--at a time when the Senate is 
debating adding a fraction of that amount to an appropriations bill to 
provide critical funding, funding that the President himself pledged to 
provide in his No Child Left Behind initiative for schoolchildren in 
poor school districts.
  Earlier this week, I offered an amendment to the Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education appropriations bill that would add $6.1 
billion for title I education programs to fully fund the money Congress 
authorized for fiscal year 2004 in the No Child Left Behind Act. This 
is money--your money--I like that term ``your money.'' Yes, it is your 
money that Congress promised to provide. It is your money that our 
schools desperately need.
  Unfortunately, I fear I am fighting an uphill battle to win the 
passage of my amendment. It is going to take 60 votes on that 
amendment. I fear I am fighting an uphill battle. Opponents of the 
amendment have already staked out their positions, complaining that we 
cannot afford the additional funding, that the amendment will add $6 
billion to the deficit, and that we are already doing plenty for 
education.
  We will never do enough for education. I am not one who believes in 
throwing money at education. No, not I. I came from a two-room 
schoolhouse back in the hills of West Virginia. Yes, I know about the 
Baby Ray Primer. Yes, I studied by the old oil lamp. I memorized my 
history lessons. I knew about Nathaniel Green, about Hamilton, and 
Madison. Those were my heroes when I was a boy. I got my heroes out of 
the history books. The history book that I read was Muzzey. There 
weren't many pictures in my history book. There was substance there. I 
memorized my history lesson. That was good for me. We didn't have all 
the frills and so on that we have today.
  So don't count me in to just throw money at education. I don't 
believe in that. But this is $6 billion that Congress promised and that 
the President said he needed. He was for the No Child Left Behind act. 
Well, let's mean what we say. Let's get behind our words.
  I don't believe and I don't buy any of the arguments used against my 
amendment. I wonder how the Senators who object to the cost of my 
amendment will view the President's request to add $60 billion, $65 
billion, or $70 billion to the deficit to fund military and 
reconstruction activities in Iraq. I wonder if those same Senators will 
be comfortable voting to support a massive spending program for Iraq if 
they cannot bring themselves to support a comparatively meager increase 
in education funding for American schoolchildren.
  I intend to speak at greater length on my education amendment at a 
later time, but I urge my colleagues to begin reflecting on what kind 
of signal we will be sending to the American families if we shortchange 
education funding by $6 billion one day and approve 10 times that 
amount for Iraq the next.
  Make no mistake about it, Congress had little choice but to provide 
some level of additional funding for military and reconstruction 
activities in Iraq. Oh, yes, we now want the help of those whom we 
strong-armed. They were not going to be relevant. They are very 
relevant today when we need them. We bulldozed our way into that 
country, into Iraq, almost single-handedly, over the objections of most 
of the international community. They saw us as a bully. Now we are 
paying the price for our unmitigated arrogance.

  With the exception of the help we have received from the British, we 
have gotten almost no monetary assistance and precious little military 
assistance from other nations to assist with our operations in Iraq. It 
was a war that we should never have fought. The U.N. inspectors were in 
that country, and they were finding weapons. Weapons were being 
destroyed. We did not need to send our men to invade another nation 
that had not attacked us. And all of the claims that this was a nation 
that posed an imminent danger to our country? How foolish we were to 
accept that idea.
  I said at the time there is no such imminent danger to us. I said it 
then. So I come with some credibility when I say it today. No, it was 
not a just war. Think of the boys, think of the men and women who have 
had to go to Iraq in the hot Sun and sweltering weather and be away 
from their homes; the Guard men and women and the reservists who have 
had to go there. Some have perished. Say to their mothers and fathers 
that it was a just war. Say it to them. No. And they could not even 
lift a plane against our forces.
  Where was the imminent threat to our security? Where are the weapons 
of mass destruction? We were led down the primrose path by the 
leadership of this country: Oh, it was an imminent danger. Our security 
was in danger. It was urgent that we invade another nation that had not 
invaded ours, that had not attacked our Nation in pursuance of the 
doctrine of preemption. That got us into Iraq.
  I did not fall for that stuff. I did not vote for it and so said at 
the time that this country was not in imminent danger, that our 
national security was not being threatened.
  Never before had we invaded another country when we had never been 
attacked. A major war--the American people have had to pay for that, 
and there are some people in this country who have had to pay it with 
their sons and daughters and husbands. When are they going to come 
home?

[[Page S11146]]

  We have stiff-armed some of our most staunch allies through the 
years. We gave them backhand slaps. We criticized them because they 
would not follow us into Iraq because their constituencies did not 
agree with us. Yet we expected them to follow us. They did not see it 
as a war in which we were being placed in imminent danger. They did not 
see it. They did not see it with respect to their own countries. They 
had to follow their constituencies' feelings, and yet we had a good 
deal to say about them that today we probably wish we had not said.
  The polls released by the Pew Research Center on March 18, the day 
before the war began, showed that opposition to a war in Iraq was at 69 
percent in Germany; 75 percent in France; 86 percent in Turkey; and 87 
percent in Russia. And yet the White House scoffed at this opposition 
and belittled the need to unify the world in confronting Saddam 
Hussein.
  Could it be that we are now paying the price for the administration's 
bullheaded rush to war without the broad and active support of the 
international community? We have perhaps a chance to mend the fences 
and garner more support from the United Nations if the United States 
can swallow, if this administration can swallow its false pride and 
come up with a new resolution that cedes a meaningful role in the 
reconstruction of Iraq to the international community.
  Perhaps we also have a chance to attract some serious monetary 
contributions from the international community, but I doubt we will 
begin to approach the level of support that we have received from other 
nations during the first gulf war. Nevertheless, we must keep trying, 
we must keep returning to the United Nations because that is an 
important, if not long overdue, first step.
  Moreover, Congress and the American people must insist on a full 
accounting from the administration of the dollars it is requesting for 
Iraq. The fact that we are faced with staggering demands in Iraq does 
not mean Congress should feel compelled to hand the administration a 
blank check and we should not be afraid to ask questions. It is not 
unpatriotic to ask questions. After all, it is your money out there, as 
I look into those television lenses.
  Lack of careful planning on the part of the administration for 
postwar Iraq helped to get us into our current difficulties, and we 
cannot afford to repeat our mistakes. Oh, they were in a hurry. They 
were impatient. They talk today about the need for patience. The 
administration was not very patient when it wanted to take this Nation 
into war.
  Just 5 months ago, Congress provided $78.5 billion in funds--your 
money--for military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Now we are learning that we will need far more money--your 
money--for Iraq far sooner than the administration either anticipated 
or admitted.
  We need to demand the details before we approve any more money for 
Iraq. We should require the President to submit a detailed budget 
request for the $60 billion to $70 billion he is seeking in 
supplemental funding for Iraq, and the Appropriations Committees of 
both Houses should hold hearings on that request.
  We could not get straight answers from the administration on the 
expected cost or duration of the Iraq operation prior to the war. We 
could not get the information we needed the first time around. We 
cannot afford to settle for evasions this time around.
  The supplemental funding request that the President is expected to 
send to Congress in the next few weeks gives us an opportunity to get 
some answers to some of the most pressing questions involving our 
occupation of Iraq. We had no business getting into that war. We had no 
business invading another country that had not attacked us. The so-
called imminent threat to our security was not there.
  What is our postwar strategy for Iraq? What are we doing to improve 
the security situation in Baghdad and other key cities? What have we 
accomplished in terms of restoring the electricity, the drinking water, 
and other basic services to the Iraqi citizens?
  What kind of timetable are we facing? Do we have any kind of exit 
strategy? Who is making the decisions? By far, the greatest monetary 
cost in Iraq is the cost of the military occupation. Of the $60 billion 
to $70 billion President Bush is expected to request, all but $10 
billion or so is earmarked for the Defense Department. The current cost 
of military operations in Iraq is $3.9 billion a month--$1 billion a 
week. That is your money.
  With massive Federal budget deficits staring us in the face, how long 
can we sustain that level of spending in Iraq? Do we have any realistic 
expectation that other countries will help to offset that cost? Even if 
we manage to get another U.N. resolution, who is going to help us in 
Iraq, and how will they help us? These are extremely important 
questions. Somebody ought to be asking them.
  The American people are not here to ask them. The young people of 
this country are not here to ask them. The young people, young high 
school children and college students who are going to pay the interest 
on these deficits we are running cannot be here to ask the questions.
  We have a duty to ask the questions. These are important questions. 
Congress and the American people need to know the answers before 
committing more resources to Iraq. Congress should put the White House 
on notice now that it will require a full explanation and a rigorous 
justification of the budget request before voting on it.
  The President said several weeks ago major operations in Iraq have 
ended. Have they?
  In the meantime, Congress has other pressing matters on its plate. 
Next week the Senate will consider whether to fully fund a critical 
education program for our neediest school children. I was one of those 
children once upon a time. I was a disadvantaged child. So were just 
about all of the other children in my mining town. So I try to see 
myself as one in that class. The bottom rungs on my ladder of life were 
gone also.
  I hope we will treat this issue and my amendment with the same sense 
of urgency and importance the President expects us to treat the 
supplemental budget request for Iraq. It is important. We will have to 
treat that budget request as a matter of urgency. It will face us. But 
there is no issue more important to the future of our country than the 
education of our children.
  I am reminded of Benjamin Disraeli in the English Parliament who said 
in 1874: Upon the education of the people of this country, the future 
of this country depends.
  Look it up. 1874. That was the year before my foster father was born. 
Benjamin Disraeli said in the English Parliament: Upon the education of 
the people of this country, the future of this country depends.
  We can say that here: Upon the education of the people of this 
country, the future of this country--the USA, God bless America--but 
upon the education of the people of America, the future of America 
depends. So there is no issue more important to the future of our 
country than the education of our children.

     I took a piece of plastic clay
     And idly fashioned it one day
     And as my fingers pressed it still
     It moved and yielded to my will.
     I came again when days were past.
     The bit of clay was hard at last.
     The form I gave it, it still bore,
     And I could change that form no more.
     I took a piece of living clay
     And gently formed it day by day.
     And molded it with my power and art
     A young child's soft and yielding heart.
     I came again when years were gone.
     He was a man I looked upon.
     He still that early impress wore,
     And I could change him nevermore.

  We have in our hands a piece of clay. On this issue especially I hope 
the Senate will put aside partisanship and vote to fully fund the No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Prescription Drugs and Medicare

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, at this time the conferees of the Senate 
and House are meeting with regard to the prescription drug bill and the 
Medicare reform that is part of that bill. I know the Presiding Officer 
represents

[[Page S11147]]

the State of Texas, and having worked with some of the issues I am 
going to address, I think no State would benefit more from the reforms 
I will be talking about than the State of Texas.
  What most Americans do not know is when a person goes to a hospital 
for surgery, for example--and over half the people who go to the 
hospital for surgeries in America today--their health care is paid for 
by Medicare, senior citizens on Medicaid, low-income people, is paid 
for predominantly by the Federal Government. There are formulas that 
decide how the hospitals and providers get paid for doing the services 
they provide. The net result, and the way the system is working today, 
there is a very substantial difference in how much a hospital in 
Alabama or Texas would get paid compared to a hospital in a State with 
a high wage index.

  Of course, within States there are differences. Even within a State, 
at hospitals a few miles from one another, one hospital is paid 
substantially more for a gallbladder operation, for heart surgery, for 
a mastectomy, or many other surgeries. The system is out of control. It 
is unjust and it is unfair.
  The driving factor behind it is the formula called the wage index. 
Unfortunately, when determining how much Medicare pays for a hospital 
to perform a medical procedure, 71.4 percent of that formula is 
determined by the wage index--how much they say salaries will be in 
that hospital, in that region. One expert's independent study says the 
real percentage should be 56 percent. The CMS, the Federal agency that 
handles this, admits it ought to be 62 percent, not 71 percent, of the 
allocation of money based on wage index.
  This bill fixes that. This bill has the wage index at only 62 
percent--not as low as I think it should go--but 62 percent of the 
formula to determine how much they should be paid. This will narrow the 
disparity somewhat, not enough, but it is a very significant first 
step.
  Currently, we are rewarding the rich. In this system, the rich are 
getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. For example, there is a 
hospital that comes out with the low wage index. They receive less 
money per surgery than a hospital in a larger city down the road. What 
do they have to do? They have to cut costs. So maybe they reduce the 
number of RNs, maybe they reduce the salaries of their hospital workers 
and nurses, or a number of things to cut costs. What happens then? A 
year or two later, or the next year, they come in and recalculate wage 
costs and say: Yours went down; you are getting by with less, so we do 
not have to give you as much as we gave you last year.
  The one who got more money, who was able to raise salaries and pay 
more, has increased costs. So they come out, in the current formula, 
showing they need more. The rich are getting richer and the poor are 
getting poorer. It is not right. It is a transfer of wealth from poorer 
areas to wealthy areas of the country. It is too big a gap.
  We can do something about it. This fix for which I advocated, and we 
passed in this Senate, is part of the bill. Likewise, it was made part 
of the House bill. So both bills are in conference and have fixes for 
the wage index according to the terms I just mentioned. It needs to be 
in the final bill. I have to insist it be in the final bill. We have 
seen in times past bills get manipulated in conference, even when 
something has passed both Houses and should be in a bill.
  I appreciate the chairman of the Senate conference and the chairman 
of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. He has stood 
firm on this issue. He understands the issue. He is not going to accept 
any erosion of this legislation. He has communicated that clearly to 
the conferees. There has been some discussion about it. He has 
communicated very clearly, in my presence, to President Bush, and 
President Bush agreed with him. This would be in the bill. We are 
moving forward with the possibility of a significant reform this time.
  We need to watch it. There are a lot of competing demands for money. 
A lot of people in conference may have another priority, but it passed 
both Houses. Senator Grassley is standing firm, standing like a giant 
oak tree. I don't believe he is going to be moved. I thank him for his 
leadership and determination to see this matter to its end and to make 
at least this significant reform in that legislation. If we do it, we 
will find these two classes of health care will not be continued in 
America where rich hospitals and rich centers get more and the rural 
areas get less.
  There are some programs out there for rural hospitals to give them 
special benefits. But Alabama, like Texas, has a lot of areas that are 
metropolitan but not high-cost centers, or not perceived to be high-
cost centers, centers in cities with 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 people. 
They do not get the benefits of rural assistance, nor do they get the 
benefit of a big city. That factor has been hurting us.
  We worked hard on this. We will be watching this legislation very 
carefully. The fix in it for wage index and rural health care needs to 
remain in the bill. I thank Senator Grassley for his determination to 
ensure that it remains in the bill. If the bill is passed as it came 
out of this Senate, and I hope it will be, we will see some benefit to 
our hospitals, many of whom are hurting.
  In particular, I note Alabama hospitals have the lowest wage index in 
the Nation. Why, I cannot imagine. For example, the University of 
Alabama Birmingham University Medical Center is one of the finest 
medical centers in the world. People come from all over the world to be 
treated there. They are No. 1 in the world in liver transplants and No. 
3 in kidney transplants. They do some of the top work for the National 
Institutes of Health. The University of South Alabama in Mobile, 
likewise, is a first-rate medical school and medical center. Yet 
somehow this weird formula comes out in our State providing 
substantially less. It is just not right. Our people pay the same 
Medicare tax. A Texan pays the same Medicare tax as a person does in 
New York. But their hospitals do not get paid the same for the surgery.
  We need to make some reform. We have an opportunity to make a nice 
step forward. It is not the end of the road. It is still too much of a 
gap. If we are lucky and things go as I hope, this bill will come back 
as it left this body. Then we can know that our hospitals, at least, 
had one good step forward as a result of Medicare reform and the 
prescription drug bill.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 1580

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of 
Senator Harkin to preclude and prevent the Bush administration from 
eliminating overtime pay for millions of hard-working Americans.
  We just celebrated Labor Day. As is the custom, the President was out 
addressing labor in Ohio, talking to working men and women. The reality 
is that many of those families depend on overtime pay to make ends 
meet. He did not announce to them that buried in the bowels of the 
Federal Register is a provision that would severely restrict access to 
overtime pay for millions of American workers.
  He talked about creating a position of economic czar to spur 
manufacturing, but, frankly, I think if that audience understood that 
as he spoke he was also proposing and working to deny many of them 
access to overtime pay, they would have been shocked and amazed--as I 
am shocked and amazed.
  At a time when our economy is searching for ways to rebound from the 
longest recession we have experienced in many years and from the most 
severe loss of employment of any administration since Herbert Hoover, 
the idea that we should prevent people from getting overtime pay seems 
ludicrous, but that is precisely what the administration is proposing.
  Indeed, if the administration were serious about ways in which we 
could stimulate the economy, one way is to reward the effort of working 
Americans when they work beyond 40 hours, give them access to 
traditional overtime pay, and let them go ahead and use

[[Page S11148]]

those resources for the family, for investment in America.
  Frankly, it is a shock to me that the President is conducting this 
campaign to surreptitiously and quietly remove overtime protection that 
has been the law for the country since 1938 which every American takes 
for granted. In the 1930s, there was a great debate about labor laws, 
and a compromise was struck. Some industrial nations absolutely have a 
prohibition on working beyond so many hours a week, and I think 
rightfully so, but that is too inflexible--but certainly at some level, 
and the level decided on was 40 hours. After that, it would be 
appropriate--in fact required--that a worker would be compensated for 
at least time and half for his wages.
  We are here today because Senator Harkin, I think quite rightly, has 
proposed that we step to the plate publicly--not surreptitiously--and 
vote on this measure, vote whether we are going to deny overtime pay to 
millions of Americans or continue a practice, a tradition, and a law 
that has served this Nation well for almost 70 years.
  About 79 percent of today's workers qualify for overtime pay. It 
accounts for about 25 percent of their income. Just think, if working 
Americans--79 percent of them--lost 25 percent of their income or, even 
a fraction of that, 10 percent of their income. They would be in 
desperate straits with their mortgage responsibilities, their tuition 
responsibilities, and their health care responsibilities.
  All of us know because we spent the last month back in our home 
States visiting with families who are working hard. Both spouses are 
working hard just to make ends meet--not saving up for a fancy vacation 
or for a fancy anything but just to make sure the bills are paid. As I 
said, in 1938 we struck a balance. We set a clear line. We said 
essentially that if you work beyond 40 hours a week, then you get time 
and a half. It gives families an option. In fact, we all know some 
families look forward to the opportunity for overtime work because that 
is what gives them the margin to get by in a very competitive 
environment, and a very expensive one.
  In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act recognized that there has to be 
some flexibility in legislation. It says there are certain white-collar 
workers who are professionals--highly paid executives, highly 
compensated workers who do not need the protection because of the 
nature of the marketplace and who could be exempt from the requirement 
to pay overtime. They established several salary tests--a ``salary-
level'' test, a ``salary-basis'' test, and the ``duties test.'' But 
essentially, as I view it, it was a narrow exemption. The rule was that 
if you worked more than 40 hours, you would qualify for overtime pay. 
But there is a narrow exemption for white-collar duties. Again, because 
of the nature of the marketplace, these individuals, because of their 
skills and because of their abilities, are quite capable of negotiating 
their own arrangements and their own terms. That was, a reasoned and 
principled balance. Today, that balance is being upset by the proposal 
by the Bush administration.
  First, let's briefly discuss what the rules are today. If you earn 
less than $8,840 per year, you cannot be exempt from the requirement to 
pay overtime. That is sensible. Of course, $8,840 a year is trivial in 
some respects in terms of buying for a family in the United States in 
the year 2003. The administration recognizes that the proposal is 
artificially low. They proposed to raise the figure to the total of 
$22,100. But they are not going to index this figure. So this figure 
could be locked in concrete for years. More importantly, even this 
figure of $22,100 is basically the poverty level for a family of five. 
In fact, the Department of Labor's own lower living standard income 
level--when they do predictions--suggests that a family of four 
requires about $31,750 to avoid poverty. Yet we are saying there is a 
range of people earning $22,000 and beyond who could lose their 
overtime pay even though they are desperately close to poverty. It 
doesn't make any sense to me. I think we should raise the level. We 
should raise it to a level that is consistent with keeping a family out 
of poverty before we take away their automatic rights for overtime 
beyond 40 hours a week.

  But the biggest change the administration is proposing is to 
basically broaden the category dramatically for who is white-collar or 
executive. What it means is that before we considered a professional--
according to the definition, it is someone who has had a prolonged 
course of intellectual studies: lawyers, doctors, obviously academics, 
civil engineers with qualifications and certificates. But now the 
administration wants to go ahead and say, no, this is really just 
someone who, through experience, has gained the title of 
``professional.''
  This means we are opening up this possibility of losing overtime pay 
for draftsmen, engineering technicians, paralegals, emergency medical 
technicians, licensed practical nurses. And I can tell you that 
licensed practical nurses in a hospital are professionals but they are 
certainly not paid like a doctor is paid. This rule would put them on 
that level. She is a professional. I don't think that makes any sense. 
Lab technicians, dental hygienists, physical therapists, respiratory 
therapists, lab technicians, and some registered nurses will be denied 
overtime pay because they are now ``professionals.''
  There is a broadening of the definition of ``executives.'' When this 
legislation was passed almost 60 years ago, those executives had a 
narrowly construed exemption. They were someone who exercised 
significant authority over a significant number of people. Now they are 
talking about someone in a minimal supervisory responsibility who could 
be classified as an executive. Some restaurant workers who happen to be 
the head of a shift of other waiters are now suddenly executives. That 
is news to a lot of the people I know who work in the hospitality 
industry. Certainly, they would be executives in terms of base pay. But 
in terms of overtime pay, they are not.
  Again, to me, that is something that strikes against the whole spirit 
of people working beyond 40 hours a week. They should qualify for 
overtime with these narrow exemptions. Exceptions now are being 
broadened beyond that definition. I think this rule, as a result, is 
very questionable.
  The effect may be that families will lose out. The average American 
working puts in more hours than in any other country in the world--
almost 1,900 hours a year. That is how long the average American worker 
works.
  As I said, more and more families rely on not just the income of a 
primary breadwinner but both spouses are working. We are the hardest 
working nation in the world. We pat ourselves on the back for our 
industry, for our dedication, and for our determination. And here the 
administration is not rewarding that effort but effectively punishing 
people, saying: Well, you might be compelled to work overtime but you 
won't be paid for that. That doesn't make any sense.
  This has a particular impact on health care workers, I suggest, 
because it is so easy in that context to talk about supervisory 
responsibilities and professional qualifications. There is just enough 
pay so they will go over the threshold. My home State of Rhode Island 
has 68,000 health care workers. Thousands of them count on overtime pay 
to just make it through the month. If they lose that pay, they are 
going to be in a serious predicament, along with their families and our 
whole economy.
  The Department of Labor estimates that the proposal will only affect 
about 644,000 Americans. Frankly, that is a gross underestimate. 
Probably millions will be affected by it because of the ambiguity of 
these new classifications because the incentives, if you will, are for 
employers to find ways to deny individual workers the right to overtime 
compensation.
  In fact, the Economic Policy Institute studied just 78 of the 257 
proposed ``white-collar'' occupations and estimated that 2.5 million 
salaried employees would lose their right to overtime if these 
proposals were adopted. I don't believe we should weaken the exception 
in this economy.
  We have just today seen another report of unemployment. Unemployment 
is hovering at 6.1 percent at recessionary levels.

  In fact, we saw a dramatic fall in payrolls, the number of people 
actually in nonfarm occupations working. We have seen productivity 
increases which are good, but they have not been balanced by gains in 
employment.

[[Page S11149]]

  Fewer people are working. Since the administration took office, 9 
million people have lost their job. Today, in addition to that, we are 
telling the people who are still hanging on to employment: ``Don't 
count on overtime''? That is not fair and it is not good for our 
economy.
  I would hope we could vote on this amendment and that we could send a 
very strong message that what has worked for 60 years, what most people 
believe is deeply ingrained in the fabric of the American market and 
workplace--the simple notion that if you work more than 40 hours a week 
you qualify for overtime--can be maintained as it has been. I hope we 
can do that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill 
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee contains $10 million to 
fund a small, but important, provision passed in 1996 which would 
extend the Federal Tort Claims Act coverage to medical volunteers in 
free clinics in order to expand access to health care services for 
those who are low income and have few avenues to receive health care. 
This long overlooked provision is Section 194 of the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and is similar to the 
coverage already offered community health centers.
  Congress never appropriated funds for section 194. No administration 
requested funding and no regulations to implement this section of the 
law were ever published. Yet, one of the key reasons retired health 
professionals often do not volunteer is the cost of malpractice 
insurance. Free clinics simply cannot afford to purchase insurance for 
them. HIPAA provided a mechanism to solve the problem, yet 7 years 
after the law's passage, failure to fund this section of law has 
prevented it from becoming a reality.
  Year after year, I, and several colleagues, have urged this and 
previous administrations to implement this provision. The current 
administration has been concerned that they would not be able to 
implement the provision without funding. I thank my colleagues on the 
committee who have helped make this funding a reality, and I will 
continue to work with them to assure that the provision stays in 
through the conference.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid 
Hispanic educational opportunities amendment.
  My Democratic colleagues and I have held roundtables with Hispanic 
leaders across the Nation and members of the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus that have allowed us to share ideas and develop an agenda that 
addresses the issues that matter most to the Hispanic community.
  We know how important education is to Hispanics and will continue to 
ensure that it remains a top priority for the Democratic caucus.
  Two years ago, Congress and this administration worked together to 
pass the No Child Left Behind Act to improve the quality of education 
in America's public schools. We had the commitment from President Bush 
that additional resources would be provided to help schools implement 
the changes required.
  Today, this administration has broken its promise and has chosen to 
cut funding for NCLB next year by $1.2 billion below this year's 
enacted level of funding. I stand with my colleagues in support of this 
amendment because we recognize the education of Latino students as a 
national priority. We are here today to ensure that these resources are 
restored.
  Hispanics are now the largest minority group, as well as the youngest 
fastest-growing minority group, in the country. Hispanic children make 
up 17 percent of the total school-age population in the country and 
recent trends indicate that the number of Latino children attending our 
Nation's schools is increasing. Despite these changing demographics, 
Hispanic children remain among the most educationally disadvantaged of 
all students.
  Hispanic children are more likely to attend schools in predominantly 
low-income areas, they are more likely to be enrolled in segregated 
schools, less likely to complete high school, and are less likely to be 
enrolled in and graduate from college than their non-Latino peers.
  This amendment will help restore funding for several key programs 
that have traditionally helped put Hispanic students on par with their 
more advantaged peers.
  This administration has chosen to eliminate dropout prevention at a 
time when the dropout rate among Hispanics is growing and continues to 
be higher than that of White or Black students. Nationally, the dropout 
rate among Hispanics in 2000 was 34 percent up from 22 percent in 1990, 
and in New York State, the percentage rose to 38.4 percent in 2000. In 
New York City, 38 percent of all children enrolled in elementary and 
secondary schools are Hispanic, higher than any other group. These 
children face many barriers to graduation, yet New York City's dropout 
prevention grant will be zero funded in this appropriation bill.
  School districts in New York and across the Nation already lack the 
resources, staffing and programs to help new immigrants adapt to U.S. 
schools and overcome language barriers. Eliminating this funding will 
just make matters worse. We know that young adults who do not finish 
high school are more likely to be unemployed than those who graduate. 
At a time when our unemployment rate is staggering, we should be 
doubling the funding for dropout prevention- not eliminating it.
  I applaud Senator Bingaman for his leadership in making dropout 
prevention a national priority and look forward to working with him on 
this issue.
  This appropriations bill cuts title III of the NCLB by $20 million, 
severely underfunding bilingual education programs and jeopardizing the 
academic success of hundreds of thousands of English language learners 
across the nation. New York's schools serve a large and growing number 
of Latino students and the rate of enrollment for limited English 
proficient students has grown by 44.3 percent, since 1990. Resources 
provided under title III of the NCLB help school districts in my State 
provide English language instruction to over 300,000 limited English 
proficient children and nearly 120,000 immigrant children.
  Since this program was consolidated and turned into a block grant, 
states like New York have had to reduce their services. This 
appropriations bill adds insult to injury by forcing cash-strapped 
schools to serve more students with far fewer resources. Restoring this 
funding will help States, local schools, and colleges build their 
capacity to teach limited English proficient students effectively.
  The children of migrant farm workers, often called ``children of the 
road,'' face many obstacles in their lives, including extreme poverty, 
geographic and cultural isolation, discrimination based on race or 
ethnic status, language minority status, and, most importantly, 
mobility.
  I am pleased that this amendment restores and increases funding for 
key migrant education programs that serve this at-risk population, 
including Head Start for children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. 
Currently, only 664 of 1,177 eligible migrant children are enrolled in 
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start centers across New York. This is 
especially troubling given the fact that migrant children who are not 
in head start classrooms are either cared for by other younger siblings 
or are left in the fields.
  This amendment will take an additional 150 migrant children in New 
York out of the fields where they are put at risk of exposure to 
harmful toxins and pesticides and into quality head start classrooms 
where they can receive the social, behavioral, and cognitive skills 
they need to help prepare them for school.
  This amendment also restores funding to the High School Equivalency 
Program, HEP, and College Assistance Migrant Program, CAMP. The HEP and 
CAMP programs are both very important to New York as well as other 
States in the Northeast. The HEP program helps migrant students who 
have

[[Page S11150]]

dropped out of high school get their GED, and CAMP assists migrant 
students in their first year of college with both counseling and 
stipends.
  The children of migrant farm workers face the highest dropout rate 
among all other Hispanic American ethnic groups. Current estimates 
place the dropout rate for migrant at between 50 and 60 percent. Before 
the Federal Government created CAMP programs, there was no record of a 
migrant child having completed college. With HEP and CAMP these 
students are making amazing progress. At the State University of New 
York at Oneonta, both programs serve students from migrant and seasonal 
farm working families from New York, Maine, Pennsylvania and 
Connecticut. This year, Luis, a New Yorker and former HEP and CAMP 
student will be entering as a sophomore at SUNY-Oneonta. Luis' 
experience as a migrant youth is shared by countless other children of 
migrant and seasonal farm workers.
  For many migrant children, moving from state to state can take its 
toll. For Luis, it resulted in a pattern of repeating grades until he 
quit school to work with his father in the vineyards in Western New 
York. A year later, he learned about High School Equivalency Program, 
HEP. With the assistance of the HEP program, he earned his GED, applied 
to college, and was accepted to SUNY last year as biology major. As a 
CAMP student, Luis received vital academic, social, and financial 
support during his first year of college, the most critical year for 
most first-generation college students.
  Luis now mentors other CAMP students, is a member of the Migrant 
AmeriCorps program and has maintained a cumulative GPA of 3.04. 
Securing additional resources for HEP and CAMP will help ensure the 
dreams of students like Luis become reality. I also support increasing 
funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions, HSIs.
  For New York this increase will help 12 colleges and universities 
expand their capacity to serve a large and growing number of Hispanic 
students. By supporting these institutions we are recognizing the large 
contribution they make to increasing access to higher education for 
traditionally underserved communities, and are making the dream of 
college a reality for many more Hispanics. The condition of America's 
future will depend upon how well we meet the demand for an educated 
workforce.
  Cuts in education programs might help balance the books in the short-
term, but it is a bad idea for our economy in the long-term. We need a 
highly skilled workforce to compete in this global economy and 
investing in the education and training of our Hispanic population will 
help our Nation meet this challenge.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                          ____________________