[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 98 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8217-S8221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 2004--Continued
Amendment No. 3563
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on the DeWine-Kennedy amendment. There is 4 minutes per side
prior to the vote.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I understand we have 4 minutes on each
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes on each side.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to make sure
people understand the tobacco buyout portion of the amendment upon
which we are about to vote. No. 1, to make sure there are no
misunderstandings or misconceptions, this amendment will end a tobacco
price support program. That will be over. Second, there were several
hearings on this proposal, both in the House and a field hearing in
North Carolina chaired by Senator Dole.
I also want to make it clear how this amendment would pay for the
buyout. It would be paid for by a manufacturer's fee, not by the
taxpayers.
It was suggested that 85 percent of the recipients of the buyout are
not farmers. In fact, every single quotaholder owns at least part of a
farm. They may have leased it out, but they own at least part of a
farm. So these do go to farmers.
I hope our colleagues will support the buyout. I think it is a
reasonable proposal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the heart of this amendment is the FDA
provision which will lead to fewer children starting to smoke and fewer
adults suffering tobacco-induced disease. If parents want their
children to grow up and grow up smoke-free, if they want to shield them
from a $9 billion campaign designed to entice children into smoking, if
they want to help millions of smokers kick the habit before it kills
them, they will support the DeWine-McConnell-Kennedy amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote
against this amendment for two or three reasons. One, the bill we are
voting on has never been marked up out of the Agriculture Committee. It
has never been marked up in the HELP Committee. We are going to spend
billions of dollars. We are rewriting the farm bill. We have a $12
billion buyout for tobacco farmers.
I heard my colleague from Kentucky say it ends the tobacco program.
It does not end the tobacco program. This amendment was offered late
last night, but under the bill of the Senator from Kentucky it did not
eliminate the program. The House bill spends $9.6 billion and it does
eliminate the program. It eliminates this quota. This bill eliminates
quotas, but it does not eliminate the Secretary from having the
authority to be able to restrict acreage on who grows tobacco. So we
are going to spend $12 billion and not even eliminate the program, and
not have any limitation on how much it is going to cost?
It is estimated the House bill would have almost 500 people make $1
million. This bill is much more generous than the House bill. There are
going to be a few people who are going to become multimillionaires as a
result of this bill, but yet we were not given the chance to offer any
amendments. We could not say there should be a limit of $250,000 per
person who is not a farmer. Incidentally, 85 percent of the people who
receive money from the buyout are not farmers, are not living on a
farm. So this is a buyout for a few people.
The FDA section is the biggest grant of power to the FDA, which not
only gives them the power to regulate tobacco, but frankly I believe
they can ban tobacco. It is a blank check to do almost anything they
want--the most sweeping power they have ever been given. I think the
House was wrong to add the $9.6 billion tobacco buyout in their tax
bill, and two wrongs do not make a right. Now we are adding totally
unrelated things, not considered by committee. It is going to cost
billions of dollars, and we are going to add it to the Senate bill.
It is going to come back from conference in all likelihood with some
provision. I think it jeopardizes the entire FSC bill. I do not think
it should become law. Certainly, this is not the way it should become
law. If it should become law, let us take it up freestanding and give
Senators the right to amend and discuss it before spending billions of
dollars.
The cost of this buyout is multiples of the so-called quota buyout we
did for peanuts. It is going to cost billions of dollars. I urge our
colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we regulate every product that is consumed
in this country today. We put the contents of that product on the
label--every product except tobacco. It makes absolutely no sense. This
is a very modest bill, a very modest proposal, that gives the FDA the
authority to regulate tobacco. I point out to my colleague, it does not
give the FDA the authority to ban tobacco. It does not give the FDA the
authority to do that at all. It is a modest compromise, but it will
save lives. It makes sense.
One of the biggest health problems we have in this country today is
underage smoking. We know if we can get a child at 19 or 20 and he or
she does not start smoking by then, they probably will never start
smoking. This bill allows us to get at advertising targeted at young
people, which is a major problem today.
I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am prepared to vote.
Mr. DeWINE. We yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Pursuant to rule XII, paragraph 3, I ask unanimous
consent to be excused from voting on this question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 17 seconds.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on page 45 of the bill, it says:
The Secretary may by regulation require restrictions on the
sale and distribution of a tobacco product, including
restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and
promotion of, the tobacco product, if the Secretary
determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the
protection of the public health.
If the Secretary determines something is appropriate for the
protection of the public health, they can do whatever they want, I
believe, including banning tobacco. That is very broad discretion for
the Secretary of Health, to do whatever they want.
Also, the program does not end the tobacco program. At least it
didn't in Senator McConnell's bill. We have not had a chance to really
review it, but it didn't in his bill. It did in the House bill. I
compliment the House. If you are going to spend $10 billion, you ought
to
[[Page S8218]]
eliminate the program. We are going to spend $12 billion and not
eliminate the tobacco program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have
been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) votes
``present.''
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]
YEAS--78
Akaka
Alexander
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--15
Allard
Burns
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gregg
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Sununu
Thomas
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Carper
NOT VOTING--6
Baucus
Domenici
Edwards
Inhofe
Kerry
Nelson (FL)
The amendment (No. 3563) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment, as amended, is
agreed to.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third
reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it has taken us too long to reach
this point. Frankly, we are doing today what should have been done last
fall. We are finally moving forward with the Jumpstart Our Business
Strength--the JOBS bill.
I commend the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader for reaching
the agreement that allows this bill to move forward. I commend, as
well, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who has
been so instrumental in bringing us to this point.
There is a reason why we call this bill the JOBS bill. This bill will
help create and keep good, high-paying manufacturing jobs right here in
America. And this bill will help remove crippling European tariffs that
rob American firms of business. Every month that goes by without
enactment of the JOBS bill results in more tariffs on our American
companies. We need to enact this bill.
So, as we go forward to conference, it is critical that we adhere to
the following 5 principles.
First, we should preserve our bipartisan support for this bill. The
Senate-passed JOBS Bill had strong bipartisan support. It passed by a
vote of 92 to 5 on May 11. To preserve this bipartisan support we need
to ensure that any significant change from the Senate-passed bill be
limited, germane, and agreed to on a broadly supported bipartisan
basis.
Second, any conference agreement should be budget neutral. The
government is running record budget deficits. Gone are the surpluses of
just a few years ago. We should show fiscal discipline and
responsibility. The conference agreement should be budget neutral. And
the conference agreement should not employ budget gimmicks.
Third, we should protect our Nation's manufacturing jobs. Since
January 2001, America has lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing
jobs. In my home state of Montana, we have lost 2,700 jobs in that
time, over 12 percent of our manufacturing jobs. Therefore, savings
from repeal of the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income,
FSC/ETI, regime should go to domestic manufacturing. The conference
agreement should devote the preponderance of its total cost to the
centerpiece of this bill: a domestic manufacturing tax benefit.
Fourth, the conference agreement should incorporate the important tax
shelter reforms that the Senate has repeatedly passed. It has been
nearly 3 years since Enron and other corporate scandals. Yet Congress
still has not enacted any meaningful tax legislation to close the
corporate abuses of the tax code. The Congress should retain the
package of the Senate-passed tax shelter provisions, including the
provisions ensuring that business transactions are undertaken for
economic, and not tax avoidance purposes, and requiring CEO signatures.
Finally, an important part of the Senate bill is its coverage of all
types of businesses. The conference agreement should provide a domestic
manufacturing tax benefit to all domestic manufacturers, regardless of
choice of business entity. It should cover not just C corporations, but
also S corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships.
Mr. President, I will fight to ensure the conference agreement
adheres to these principles. I will fight for the Senate's position
across the board, including on overtime rules and on energy tax
provisions.
Here is the bottom line: The Senate passed the JOBS bill with a wide,
bipartisan majority. The conferees have to work together, across
political differences, to move this important bill forward. We need to
continue our fight for good jobs, here in America.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been very outspoken in my
opposition to this bill, and was one of only five Senators to vote
against its passage in May. I voted against it because it was loaded
with wasteful spending and tax breaks for special interests and the
super rich. With the Nation facing a half-trillion dollar deficit, now
is not the time for Congress to be enacting wasteful tax credits.
The proponents of this bill are fond of pointing out that it is
``revenue neutral'' and that all of the tax cuts in the bill are paid
for with offsets. I firmly believe that, due to our current fiscal
crisis, any proposed offsets would better be used to reduce the
deficit. It is incomprehensible to me, at this time of record deficits
and debt, coupled with our war against terrorism and the need to secure
our homeland, that we would consider risking the future of our
manufacturing base and our standing in the international community by
wasting time and jeopardizing corrective action while carving out sweet
deals for special interests.
We missed a golden opportunity with this issue. We could have passed
a good, clean bill months ago that would have brought us back into
compliance with World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements and stop the
burdensome tariffs now imposed on our manufactures. Unfortunately, the
goal of achieving the legislation's underlying worthy purpose has been
lost to a host of special interest add-ons.
In a June 19th editorial, The Washington Times, not known
for liberal propaganda, stated: The ideal solution would have
been a quick, simple repeal of FSC/ETI, which is bad economic
policy in any case. Unfortunately, both the House and the
Senate versions of the bill became magnets for the special
interests. A steady train of lobbyists tacked on $167 billion
in tax breaks over the next 10 years to the Senate bill,
while the House bill expanded by $143 billion in similar
additions. The Senate bill, for example, includes breaks for
NASCAR racetracks and foreign dog-race gamblers, while the
House version lavishes its attention upon tobacco
[[Page S8219]]
growers, timber owners and alcohol distillers. The imminent
House-Senate conference, predictably, promises to be a de
facto food fight between congressman, lobbyists and tax
watchdogs. And so while the lobbyists duke it out, EU
sanctions will continue to rise and American manufacturers
and the U.S. economy will deal with the consequences.
Let me quote from some other newspapers who have editorialized about
this terrible bill.
From The New York Times: What started out as Congress's
urgent obligation to resolve a trade battle with the European
Union has degenerated into an embarrassment as lawmakers and
business lobbyists vie in a costly frenzy of corporate
handouts.
From The Dallas Morning News: The United States'
credibility also is at stake. As a WTO member, the United
States has an obligation to follow the trade body's rulings
or risk undermining the WTO's authority over global trade. .
. . The simple solution would be to end the tax break. But
election-year politics threaten common sense.
From The St. Petersburg Times: Tax cut fever has gripped
lawmakers, and they're beginning to act delusional. . . . The
bill is so irresponsible it deserves to fail.
From The Los Angeles Times: Further driving up the federal
budget deficit with tax breaks will probably worsen U.S.
sales abroad. The more money the Treasury has to borrow to
cover the deficit, the more pressure there is on the Federal
Reserve to raise interest rates to attract those funds,
eventually driving inflation.
An article in the April 19th edition of The Washington Post exposed
the Senate-passed bill for what it is and how it became such a
monstrosity. The article stated the following:
Congress's task seemed simple enough: Repeal an illegal $5
billion-a-year export subsidy and replace it with some modest
tax breaks to ease the pain on U.S. exporters. But out of
that imperative has emerged one of the most complex, special-
interest-riddled corporate tax bills in years . . . The 930-
page epic is packed with $170 billion in tax cuts aimed at
cruise-ship operators, foreign dog-race gamblers, NASCAR
track owners, bow and arrow makers and Oldsmobile dealers, to
name a few.
The article also quoted a tax lobbyist involved in drafting the bill
as saying that it ``has risen to a new level of sleaze. I said a few
months ago, any lobbyist worth his salt has something in this bill.''
This is not the way we should be doing the people's business.
Incredible deals for the special interests, big tax breaks for oil and
gas companies, and other big corporations have already stalled WTO
compliance for too long. The manufacturing base of our country will
suffer, the economy will suffer, and jobs will suffer. Is that what we
want? Is that what the American people want? The answer is no. They
deserve better than this, Mr. President. We work for them--not for the
big money special interests and their fat cat lobbyists.
As I have said before, we need to start making some tough decisions
around here Mr. President. With little legislative time remaining this
election year, the Senate would serve the American public far better if
it stayed focused on accomplishing the intended purpose of legislating.
Unfortunately, this FSC/ETI bill, which is a much needed bill, is being
dragged down with the unnecessary weight of billions of dollars in
wasteful subsidies, tax breaks, and special exemptions for the special
interests.
We have got to restore some sanity to the way we do things here in
Washington. The facts are clear, we simply cannot continue to spend and
spend and spend while continuing to cut taxes and fund the war against
terrorism. It's high time we face up to the challenge and do what's
right. Passing this bill, and the others like it of which this body has
become so fond, is tantamount to placing a millstone of debt around the
necks of our children, grandchildren, and who knows how many future
generations of Americans. It has to stop, and I hope this body can find
the courage to stop it.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have a few words to say about the
importance of protecting overtime pay for hard-working Americans. This
bill that we're about to vote on is nicknamed the JOBS bill. But the
most important thing we did for American workers in this bill was to
pass Senator Harkin's amendment to protect overtime pay. I was proud to
stand with Senator Harkin and stand up for American workers. I urge the
conferees on this bill to make sure the Harkin amendment stays in the
final version.
Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay to pay their bills and
make ends meet. Yet the Bush administration wants to strip overtime
protections for hard-working men and women. I thought in this country,
the best social program was a job. Yet 6 million workers would lose
overtime protection under the Bush proposal. Who are these workers?
They are registered nurses, police sergeants, nursery school teachers,
and others. These men and women work hard to serve our communities.
They protect us and they help us when we are in need. They deserve
extra pay for their extra efforts.
What does the Bush proposal mean for workers? It means workers will
have to work long hours for less money because they will no longer be
eligible for overtime pay. They might have to find a second job because
they won't be able to count on overtime pay to make ends meet. They
will spend less time with their families, but they won't get
compensated. I think that's outrageous.
Let me give an example. America is facing a crisis in nursing. In
Maryland hospitals, 12.6 percent of nursing jobs are vacant. They
desperately need over 2,000 nurses. Nationwide, we will need about 2.8
million registered nurses by the year 2020, but only about 2 million
will be available. Nurses work an average of 8.5 weeks of overtime each
year. Eighty-seven percent of Maryland nurses work overtime just to
make up for the shortage. If the Bush proposal becomes law, it will be
easier for employers to deny overtime pay to registered nurses. RNs
will have to work the same long hours for no extra pay, or hospitals
will have to get by without enough nurses to take care of patients.
Lack of overtime pay will discourage young nurses from entering the
profession and experienced nurses from staying. I worked hard to pass
legislation to help eliminate the nursing shortage. Changing the
overtime rules would be a huge step backwards.
The Bush plan would also deny overtime pay for police sergeants. The
Bush Labor Department got a lot of criticism when the American public
realized that first responders would lose overtime pay. So they revised
their proposal; and now they claim that first responders won't lose
overtime protections. Yet the National Association of Police
Organizations, the International Union of Police Associations, and the
International Brotherhood of Police Organizations say that police
sergeants and other managers could still lose their overtime pay.
What a thing to say to police officers and their families. These men
and women put their lives on the line to keep us safe no matter what
time it is or how many hours they've worked already. Every time a
police officer leaves their home, they don't know when they'll be home.
They don't even know if they'll be home. And now the Bush
administration is asking them to donate their overtime. That's no way
to show our appreciation. We need to protect the protectors so that
they can protect us. That means protecting their overtime pay.
Nurses and police sergeants are just a few examples. The Bush
proposal would deny overtime pay for workers in many industries, from
nursery school teachers to insurance claims adjusters. It would take
money out of the pockets of hard working Americans and their families.
I think the Bush administration ought to be ashamed of itself.
Families in my State of Maryland are worried. They're worried about
their jobs. They're terrified of losing their healthcare, when costs
keep ballooning. They don't know how they can afford to send their kids
to college. Tuition at University of Maryland increased by 30 percent
over the last 2 years. Our middle class families are stressed and
stretched. Many are holding down more than one job or working overtime
to make ends meet. They're racing from carpools to work and back again.
They want to know what we in the United States Senate are doing to help
them. We need to protect their jobs and protect their overtime pay.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Jumpstart Our
Business Strength, JOBS, Act.
I supported this bill when first passed out of the Senate on May 11
of this year and I will support it again today. In fact, the DeWine-
Kennedy amendment on FDA oversight of tobacco improved the bill.
[[Page S8220]]
Without this legislation, U.S. companies will face increasing tariffs
as a result of a World Trade Organization ruling that determined that
significant portions of our Federal Tax Code ran counter to
international trade laws.
The DeWine-Kennedy amendment that we adopted will strengthen the bill
by restricting advertising and promotions that appeal to children;
stopping illegal sales of tobacco products to children; requiring
changes in tobacco products, such as the reduction or elimination of
harmful chemicals, to make them less harmful or less addictive;
prohibiting unsubstantiated health claims about so-called ``reduced
risk'' tobacco products that would have the effect of discouraging
current tobacco users from quitting or encouraging new users to start;
and requiring the disclosure of the contents of tobacco products and
tobacco industry research about the health effects of their products.
This amendment is absolutely essential to me should a tobacco buyout
be included in the conference report.
But this legislation is still far from perfect and I have growing
concerns about what we may see when this bill returns to the Senate
following conference. This concern has been heightened by what I see
contained in the House bill.
First, the House bill contains the $9.6 billion tobacco buyout
proposal that contains no provision for FDA oversight of tobacco
products.
Second, the House bill is not offset by revenue raisers and would
cost $35 billion through 2014, according to the official Joint
Committee on Taxation estimate. Alarmingly, this cost estimate does not
provide a true sense of the bill's fiscal impact because the bill
employs two budget gimmicks.
The first gimmick involves phasing in tax cuts slowly over the 10-
year period covered by the legislation. This ``backloading'' of tax
cuts shaves tens of billions of dollars off the 10-year cost of the
House package.
The second gimmick involves having tax cuts expire before the end of
the 10-year period, even though the intention is, in many cases, for
the tax cuts to be extended and to remain in effect on an ongoing
basis.
The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that making permanent most of
the temporary tax cuts in the House bill would add $190 billion to the
cost of the bill through 2014.
In contrast, the Senate bill is fully offset and will effectively
provide a 3-percent tax cut for manufacturers; give manufacturers a 50-
percent tax credit for the cost of adding jobs; extend the research tax
credit through 2005; protect hundreds of thousands of workers from cuts
in Federal overtime protections; prevent the Federal Government from
spending taxpayer dollars on contracts with companies that use foreign
labor when there are domestic alternatives; provide a tax credit for
companies which produce energy by using underbrush and other
potentially hazardous fuels found in our forests; provide a tax credit
for consumers who buy hybrid vehicles; protect the California film
industry and the jobs it creates; and provide for FDA oversight of
tobacco products.
I will be looking for very specific items to be included in the
conference report. The final bill should be fully offset and not
increase the deficit; contain strong and effective FDA oversight of
tobacco products if the bill contains a tobacco buyout provision; and
require that any tobacco buyout provision be funded by tobacco
manufacturers, not taxpayers; contain a tax credit for the open-loop
biomass industry that works to reduce fire hazards in California; and
protect companies, such as the film industry, that did nothing wrong
under the old law and yet face the possibility of having their tax
benefits cut.
And, to the conferees, I want to stress the importance of these
provisions to me. These are not ordinary times and we must protect the
integrity of our tax system from those who would twist it at the cost
of fiscal responsibility.
The long-term budget outlook remains grim. Although the deficit may
recede somewhat over the next few years from its current historically
high level, it will swell as the baby boomers retire in large numbers
in the coming years and eventually reach unsustainable levels. One of
the most prudent steps that we as policymakers can take in preparation
for this impending challenge is to reduce the deficit today.
Moreover, corporate tax revenues are at all time low levels as a
share of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projected in
March that corporate tax revenues will equal 1.4 percent of GDP in
2004--lower than the average levels seen in each decade since the
1940s.
Furthermore, CBO projects that corporate tax receipts will remain at
about 1.8 percent of GDP through the end of the decade. This is lower
than the average level of corporate tax receipts in each of these
decades except for the 1980s, when corporate receipts plummeted from
the effects of tax cuts and economic conditions.
Given the historically low corporate revenues, it does not represent
sound policy to use the revenues gained from closing corporate
loopholes to fund new targeted corporate tax breaks. The goal should be
to restore the corporate revenue base, at least in part, in order to
help reduce the deficit, not to diminish the corporate revenue base
further.
So while I support the Senate version of the JOBS bill because on
balance it provides important protections for California workers and
businesses, I do so warily and will reserve final judgment until I see
the conference report.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a new study by the Economic Policy
Institute makes clear that 6 million Americans, including teachers,
nurses, cooks, clerical workers, and pharmacists, will lose their
overtime protections under the Bush overtime rule. President Bush is
once again putting corporate profits ahead of workers and their
families. Profits are already up more than 60 percent since President
Bush took office, yet workers' wages have actually declined. The last
thing America's struggling workers need today is a pay cut.
The Bush overtime rule puts special interests above worker interests.
An independent analysis by three former high ranking Department of
Labor employees concluded: `` we believe that (with the exception of
the change in the salary level test) the interests of U.S. workers and
their families will not be advanced--indeed will be harmed--by the
implementation of these new regulations.''
It is clear that the Bush administration is putting business's bottom
lines first. The National Association of Manufacturing, NAM, the
Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association, the funeral
industry and many other groups lobbied hard for more relaxed overtime
requirements. The final rule includes a broad exemption for workers in
the financial service industry that helps the insurance and banking
industries and for the retail and restaurant industries.
With more than 8 million Americans out of work, and with so many
other families struggling to make ends meet, cutbacks on overtime are
an unfair burden that America's workers should not have to bear.
Overtime pay accounts for about 25 percent of the income of workers who
work overtime. Workers stripped of their overtime protection would end
up working longer hours for less pay.
The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted in the 1930s to create a 40-
hour workweek and requires workers to be paid fairly for any extra
hours. Especially in times like these, it is an incentive for job
creation, because it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead
of forcing current employees to work longer hours.
The overtime protection is vital to the 40-hour workweek. If
employers no longer have to pay extra for overtime, they will have an
incentive to demand longer hours, and workers will have less time to
spend with their families.
In 70 percent of American families all parents are working, either
both parents, or the single parent, as compared to 1960 when 70 percent
of all families had at least one parent at home full time. Workers are
already struggling to balance their families' needs with their work
responsibilities. Requiring workers to work more hours for less pay
will add a greater burden to this struggle.
In May, 99 Senators voted for the Gregg amendment that said it was
wrong for the Bush administration to deny overtime to millions of
workers, including police sergeants, nursery
[[Page S8221]]
school teachers, nurses, computer programmers and others in 55
different job categories. And a bipartisan majority of 52 Senators
voted against taking away overtime from any worker currently entitled
to it. It would be unconscionable if this bill comes out of conference
without those protections.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The bill (H.R. 4520), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House. The Chair is
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate at the ratio
of 12 to 11.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. 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 Presiding Officer (Mr. Bennett) Appointed Senators Grassley,
Hatch, Nickles, Lott, Snowe, Kyl, Thomas, Santorum, Smith, Bunning,
McConnell, Gregg, Baucus, Rockefeller, Daschle, Breaux, Conrad, Graham
of Florida, Jeffords, Bingaman, Lincoln, Kennedy, and Harkin conferees
on the part of the Senate.
____________________