[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 106 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6922-H6932]
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, 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 754 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5006.
{time} 1232
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Terry (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, September 8, 2004, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) had been disposed of and the bill
was open for amendment from page 104 line 1 through page 105 line 16.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act may be used
by the Department of Labor to implement or administer any
change to regulations regarding overtime compensation
(contained in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations) in effect on July 14, 2004, except those changes
in the Department of Labor's final regulation published in
the Federal Register on April 23, 2004 at section 541.600 of
such title 29.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we now have 8 million people out of work.
There are 3 million people that have been out of work so long that they
have lost their unemployment benefits, and the majority party in this
Congress has steadfastly refused to allow us to do something about that
by providing extended unemployment benefits for those workers.
At the same time, for people who are working and people who are not,
we have a resurrection of inflation. Inflation is running at twice the
rate this year that it ran last year. That means it cost families more
to pay for gas, more to pay for health care, more to pay for college
costs, and it will continue to rise.
Working families need every dollar in their take-home pay that they
can possibly get, and yet the administration
[[Page H6923]]
has chosen this time to institute new regulations which for the first
time in 50 years scaled back workers' entitlement to overtime pay for
overtime worked.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to do two things. It is a very
simple amendment. It simply precludes the agency from using any funds
in this bill to implement those limiting regulations. We make one
exception. We allow the expansion of overtime rights made available
under the new rule for workers making between $8,000 and $23,660 to
stand as is. But we effectively block enforcement of the other portions
of the rule.
It just seems to me that the Labor Department, the White House, and
the Congress should not be complicit in the effort of employers to
chisel on workers' overtime pay. If this amendment does not pass, more
than 900,000 employees without a college or graduate degree will be
exempt from overtime pay because of definitions of professional
employees. Thirty thousand nursery school and Head Start teachers will
lose their right to overtime pay. Nearly 90,000 computer employees,
funeral directors and licensed embalmers will become exempt and lose
their right to pay under the Labor Department rule, and there are many
other workers as well who will lose their overtime rights.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Everyone understands
it. This House has already voted on a motion to instruct to adopt
precisely the same language we are offering today, and the Senate has
already adopted the same proposal in the form of the Harkin amendment.
Despite that fact, the Republican leadership arbitrarily stripped
that language out from the conference report last year. This time
around we mean business. We mean to see this through. We will not be
dissuaded by blackmail threats on the part of the White House that they
will veto the bill if this provision which we are offering today is
included.
It is very simple. If you are on the side of a worker's right to get
overtime pay for overtime worked, you vote for this amendment. If you
are not on their side, then you vote against this amendment, or you
vote for some other mugwump fig leaf that will serve not to cover
workers, but simply to cover the fannies of Members who will be voting
this afternoon.
point of order
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment. The gentleman's amendment violates House rule XXI, clause 2
and legislates on an appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the author of the amendment. The
gentleman's amendment restricts the Secretary of Labor from
implementing certain overtime protections in current regulations. As of
August 23, Mr. Chairman, the old regulations are no longer on the
books.
So my question for the gentleman from Wisconsin is: Would your
amendment, as a matter of law, require the Secretary of Labor to return
to the regulations as in effect on July 14, 2004?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Ohio
cannot engage in a colloquy, but the Chair may hear argument and
rejoinder from each Member individually. The gentleman from Ohio may
not yield directly for an answer, as in a colloquy.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are you suggesting
to me that I cannot ask the author of the amendment to explain the
intent of his amendment?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will hear from the gentleman from
Wisconsin separately. When the gentleman from Ohio has concluded his
debate, the Chair will hear from the gentleman from Wisconsin
separately.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, as a matter of
law, would restrict the Secretary from proceeding on the new
regulations and, in effect, require the Secretary to enforce the old
regulations that had not been updated for 50 years. In fact, this is
legislating on an appropriation bill, and I insist on my point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin desire to
be heard on this point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does what it says. This amendment is a
straightforward limitation which prohibits the Department of Labor from
using funds in the act to implement any change to overtime regulations
that were in effect on July 14, 2004, with one exception. It imposes no
additional duties on the Secretary of Labor, nor does it change
existing law since the language merely says that funds may not be used
to change overtime regulations in place on July 14, 2004.
Moreover, the amendment allows, but does not require, the Department
to implement or administer section 541.6 of the overtime regulation
published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2004.
The Department has a duty to know its own regulations; and,
therefore, the amendment imposes no new duties. The limitation applies
only to the appropriation under consideration in this bill and is
operable only for the fiscal year for which the appropriations apply.
I, therefore, ask the Chair not to sustain the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be
heard further?
Mr. BOEHNER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Based on the gentleman's explanation of his amendment, Mr. Chairman,
prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the new regulations, we have,
in effect, if the gentleman's amendment were to pass, no regulations
protecting the overtime rights of American workers. No regulations.
That is the law that is being created here.
I am trying to understand from the gentleman his true intent in his
amendment and if, in fact, he is not trying to have the Secretary
enforce the old regulations.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin desire to
be heard again?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand on my statement and ask that the
Chair not sustain the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
this point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) makes a point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is subject
to a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI. The gentleman from Ohio
argues that the amendment legislates on an appropriation bill by
requiring the Department of Labor to make certain changes in overtime
regulation. However, the text of the amendment seeks only to defund the
implementation of changes to certain overtime regulations in effect on
a particular day with certain exceptions. The amendment neither
addresses what the regulatory situation might be after its adoption,
nor directs the Department to act in any particular fashion.
Under the precedent carried at chapter 28, section 64.29 of
Deschler's Precedents, it is in order in a general appropriation bill
to deny the use of funds therein for agency proceedings relating to
changes in regulations. In the opinion of the Chair, that is analogous
to what this amendment does. The Chair overrules the point of order.
Does any other Member desire to be heard on the amendment?
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Seventy-six
years ago, the Congress passed and the President signed a law which
says that if you work more than 40 hours a week, that you get time and
a half for that additional time. With some carefully reasoned and well-
thought-out exceptions since then, it has been the law for every
American worker under every circumstance.
We have before us today the question of whether we should continue
that very important principle. We should, and Members on both sides
should vote in favor of the Obey amendment.
{time} 1245
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said a few minutes ago,
there are officially 8 million Americans out of work as we meet this
afternoon. Three million of those Americans have
[[Page H6924]]
been out of work so long they have exhausted their unemployment
benefits. The price of health care has increased by 50 percent in the
last 3\1/2\ years. This administration will be the first administration
since that of Herbert Hoover that has lost more jobs than it has
created.
Mr. Chairman, 2.45 million workers in manufacturing plants around the
country have seen their jobs go overseas or south of the border,
probably lost forever. The price of heating your home, driving your
car, and educating your children rises, and the squeeze on the middle
class intensifies.
So what issue does this Congress and this administration confront?
The issue we confront is taking income away from 6 million people.
These are not 6 million people who are at the high end of the American
labor force.
In the debate on these regulations, we have heard this is about
highly skilled, highly compensated people. Not the case. The
Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan objective arm of this
institution, did an analysis of the people who will be affected by
these overtime regulations. Nearly 70 percent of the workers who will
be affected by these regulations make less than $1,000 a week. Nearly
70 percent of the people affected by these rules are making less than
$50,000 a year. This is the middle class we are talking about. It is
the working middle class. It is nursery school teachers, short-order
cooks, people who work in the shoe department of a retail store. Their
biggest problem, with all due respect, is not that they are getting too
much income; it is that they are not getting enough, and they are not
getting enough to pay the bills that their family needs to pay.
These overtime rules will adversely affect 6 million American
workers. If there are going to be changes to the overtime rules, they
should be debated here. They should be voted on by the people's
representatives, not by the appointed people who work in the Department
of Labor.
The Obey amendment will suspend these rules. It will protect the
overtime rights of more than 6 million American workers. It will leave
in place the existing overtime rules as it affects those workers, and
it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the authors of this overtime
policy change, overtime is not a gift from America's employers;
overtime is the right of America's workers. In order to protect that
right and to do what is right, I would urge my friends, both Republican
and Democrat, to vote ``yes'' on the Obey amendment.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, with its proposed overtime rules, the administration
continues its assault on working Americans. Do not be fooled when some
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this will give
overtime to more workers; they are using fuzzy math. This will give an
inflation adjustment to low-income workers which is much needed and
much deserved.
But a July 2004 study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that new
regulations will cut the pay and lengthen the hours for at least 6
million workers making as little as $23,000 a year. Basically, what the
regulations do is permit employers to reclassify people making between
$23,000 and $100,000 so they are exempt from overtime pay.
One of the reasons for enacting the Fair Labor Standards Act back in
1938 was to give incentive to employers to create more jobs. This
ensures that employers will not overwork their employees by making them
do the work of two or more people.
Since 2001, we all know that millions of jobs have been lost,
including 285,000 in New York. These final regulations will enable
employers to cut overtime for employees who presently do get overtime.
This means longer hours for the same pay. It also means that employers
will have no incentive to hire new people even though we have an
unemployed workforce of over 600,000 in New York alone.
It boggles the mind that this is what the administration focuses on
since it has the worst job-creation record since the time of the Great
Depression. And after the final regulations were announced in April
2004, we held only one single hearing in the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
In May 2004, I voted for amendments on the House floor which would
have stalled the Department of Labor's regulations, but unfortunately
none of the amendments passed. If Congress had acted, we could have
prevented the new regulations from going into effect.
The new regs would have included up to half a million of our Nation's
heroic first responders such as police, firefighters, EMTs, and nurses
who are directly engaged in homeland security efforts. Losing overtime
is not much of an incentive to people in these fields, and we
desperately need to keep them safe and healthy.
Another bad effect the regulations will have is to cause confusion in
the legal system. Right now, although the system is not perfect, there
are plenty of laws on the books developed over many years that guide
overtime cases. The new regs will simply result in new fighting about
how to implement these rules and will waste time.
I oppose taking overtime pay away from millions of workers and urge
my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Obey amendment, joined by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and my colleagues. I want
to remind my friends in the House of the obligation and responsibility
that they have dealing with the crucial responsibilities of serving the
American people. Let me just simply remind Members of people who make
this country, and it is working men and women. Those working men and
women deserve our respect and as well our duty to ensure that their
workplace and their compensation meets the work that they do every
single day.
I had the pleasure just a month ago to take my son to his first year
of college, spending time not as a Member of Congress but as a parent
listening and discussing with other parents both the excitement and joy
of taking a young person to college, but also the struggle of bringing
a young person to college. Many of those Americans who I stood
alongside as a beaming parent work two and three jobs, and overtime was
very much a part not of the excess of their income but of the necessity
of their income.
I wonder if my colleagues think about what overtime really is. It is
helping families all over America make ends meet. Do they realize that
the very same people that protect us here in the United States
Congress, our U.S. Capitol Police, the people who protect the visitors
who come and protect those who come to this place to exercise their
rights as Americans, they receive overtime.
With the administrative rules that are being passed by the Department
of Labor, we will eliminate the overtime of the very people who protect
us, first responders, firefighters and police officers, nurses, people
who simply want an opportunity.
This amendment prohibits the Department of Labor from implementing
new rules on overtime pay. Of course they have tried to hang out a
carrot for us and suggest that they are protecting the low-income
workers.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here because I do not want to have divisive
politics. I do not want to divide workers and to suggest who is low
income and who needs overtime and who does not. This is the middle-
class squeeze. Losing 3 million jobs, not yet reaching the place where
we have replenished those jobs, Americans required to work two and
three jobs, overtime is a necessity; it is not a luxury.
I cannot imagine my Republican friends going home to their elections
and to suggest we would stand today against American workers. Overtime
is survival for those who every day have to make ends meet. I am
looking at Americans who are now trying to refinance homes, not only to
send children to school for the first time, but to buy cars, cars to
take them to work to be sure that they are able to get the basic
necessities.
Just a few hours ago, I stood with my colleagues about the amending
of the Tax Code to allow sales tax to be deducted for States that do
not have income tax. Why, because in States like Texas and Tennessee,
sales tax has become onerous and burdensome for
[[Page H6925]]
hard-working Americans who have no outlet and basically are paying very
high sales tax because there is no income tax, and yet are not able to
deduct it.
We should be finding ways to put income back into Americans' pockets
the right way, not with 1 percent tax cuts that give to the wealthiest
of Americans, but allowing overtime pay, allowing middle-class
Americans not to be squeezed in a very ugly way.
I hope that this amendment is passed enthusiastically. In fact, I
would be delighted if it was a bipartisan vote. These regulations are
ill-considered and misdirected. They hurt the working person in
America, they disrespect work, and they do not acknowledge the fact
that all people want in America is an opportunity to pursue their
happiness and an enhanced, positive way of life. I ask my colleagues to
support this amendment unanimously.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I hope all of my colleagues heard the short debate over
the intent of this regulation. The fact of the matter is if the Obey
amendment passes, no American worker who makes over $23,600 will be
entitled to overtime pay. This will be no enforcement of the
regulations that the gentleman seeks to try to protect.
Under the Obey amendment, the Secretary of Labor is prohibited from
protecting workers' overtime as required by her current regulations,
and she will be forced to start the regulatory process over in order to
develop new regulations to ensure those protections.
Under the Obey amendment, by the gentleman's own admission, the
Department would have no test to administer the rules except for the
salary level at $23,600. This means the Department would be prevented
from looking at workers' duties to determine whether they were eligible
for overtime pay. His amendment would prevent the Department from
enforcing the rule with respect to any worker, even blue collar
workers, who earn less than $23,600 a year. That means firefighters,
teachers and nurses who make over $23,600 would have no ability to have
the Department protect their overtime pay. And the enforcement for
anyone earning more than $23,600 would have to be done in private
lawsuits and be the biggest gift to trial lawyers that the House has
considered in some time.
So the fact is that in an attempt to legislate on an appropriation
bill, the gentleman's amendment would in fact eliminate the
Department's ability to enforce any rules or regulations on overtime
pay for anyone who makes over $23,600 per year. I do not think that the
House wants to be on record in support of that.
Now, on the bigger issue under consideration here, we need to
understand that for some 56 years we have had the wage-and-hour law and
for the last 50 years there have been no changes to the job
classifications. So American workers have no idea under the old
regulations whether they were entitled to overtime pay or not,
employers had a very difficult time determining whether workers were
entitled to overtime pay or not, and the most serious part of the old
regulations was that the Department of Labor could not determine who
was entitled to overtime pay and who was not.
In 1977, the Carter administration recognized this problem and
attempted to bring clarity to the wage-and-hour laws with regard to
overtime pay. What happened, Congress stepped in their way. So since
1977 the picture has only gotten muddier. With job classifications and
job titles changing, especially with what has happened over the last 20
years, it is time for the Department to do their work, and the
Department did their work. They put out a regulation, an initial draft
of a regulation, they took comments from the public, and they got
82,000 comments.
They came back some 18 months later and made serious revisions to
their draft policy and put it into effect on August 23 of this year.
{time} 1300
It not only guarantees those who make under $23,600 a year they have
a right to overtime pay regardless of their job classification; 1.3
million workers will be covered under that part of the section. The
gentleman does not touch that. But it also guarantees overtime rights
for teachers, first responders, fire, police, and many other job
classifications to bring real clarity to the law so both employers and
employees know what their rights are under the law today.
But, unfortunately, that is not what this amendment is really about
today. The gentleman's amendment, if you read it and if you look at it,
would eliminate all the overtime enforcement protections from the
Department of Labor for anyone who makes over $23,600 a year. I do not
think the House wants to go on record in supporting the elimination of
those protections from the Department of Labor, so I would ask my
colleagues, as they consider this vote today, consider that these
overtime protections that are in the law are there to help American
workers. If you are on the side of American workers, and especially
those who are entitled to overtime pay, we ought to vote against the
Obey amendment and protect those rights and the enforcement of those
rights by the Department of Labor.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I never fully
appreciated until this moment the immense talent of the gentleman from
Ohio, but listening to what he said, I must take my hat off to him
because he certainly qualifies for the Nobel Prize for fiction. That is
an amazing accomplishment in this House, given the competition for that
award.
I simply want to say that if you take a look at the Congressional
Research Service analysis of this amendment, they make quite clear,
quote, `` A review of applicable principles of administrative procedure
and pertinent judicial precedents indicates that the Department of
Labor would have the authority to immediately reimplement overtime
compensation regulations in effect prior to August 23, 2004, upon
passage of the proposed Obey-Miller rider.''
That means that they can on their own volition reinstitute those
rules within 1 day. To suggest that they would not do so suggests that
they are patently irresponsible.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Miller
overtime amendment, and I support it because it blocks the
administration from gutting the income of working men and women, some
earning as little as $23,000 a year.
My Republican colleagues continue to proclaim, and we have heard it
already this morning, that they are friends to working America.
However, they and this administration are, I believe, the working
Americans' greatest enemy. They say one thing. They do another. They
are changing overtime policies to cheat millions of workers out of
overtime pay. What they ought to be doing is investing in our Nation's
infrastructure, creating jobs that pay a livable wage, strengthening
job opportunities here at home, stopping the incentives for outsourcing
the high-paid jobs in the United States of America. But, no, they
continue their attacks on American workers.
That is why we are considering a bill today that has failed to
address the $265 million backlog of the Job Corps. Their facility
renovations are essential to placing disadvantaged young adults into
jobs.
That is why the bill before us today cuts the employment service
program which is the foundation for the Nation's one-stop employment
and training service delivery system.
That is why there is no increase for adult training programs or the
title V community service employment program to aid low-income older
workers.
One hundred million dollars is being cut for the H-1B technical
skills training program, which specifically was designed to reduce the
Nation's reliance on foreign workers.
Millions of dollars have been cut for activities to promote
international labor standards, enhanced worker rights and combat
exploitive child labor.
This President, the administration that is asking us to cut
unemployment and overtime coverage for American workers, this President
has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs since he took office. It is one
thing to go to
[[Page H6926]]
Pennsylvania and Ohio and talk about job training, but President Bush's
budget, this initiative we are talking about today and this bill in
particular does not support his talk.
Americans need quality jobs. They need effective job training in
order for us to remain competitive in the global economy. The Bush-
Cheney antiworker pattern continues with policies such as the Family
Flexibility Act, which would further strip worker overtime rights. Let
us not kid ourselves. This policy proposal is not about flextime for
workers. It is about more flexibility for employers.
Bush also signed legislation overturning workplace safety rules to
prevent ergonomic standards. The President has advocated budget cuts
for job safety agencies such as OSHA and NIOSH. President Bush even
went further, suspending 23 important job safety regulations. The list
goes on and on. These are the people that are asking us to vote today
to cut overtime pay for most of the neediest workers in this country.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear this administration values corporate profit
over workers' safety. It is time that we support our workers. Vote
``yes'' for the Obey-Miller substitute.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, this past weekend we joined with our families at
barbecues and picnics to celebrate Labor Day, a day where we honor the
contributions of the American workforce. There was a dark cloud over
this Labor Day, however, because the administration decided to
celebrate workers' accomplishments by rewarding hard-working Americans
with one of the largest middle-class pay cuts in history. The decision
to undermine overtime pay and enact what could turn out to be the
largest middle-class pay cut in history is just the latest in a
relentless effort under way in Washington to disregard the economic
security of millions of middle-class families.
The regulations that went into effect on August 23 suggest that there
are those in Washington who believe that overtime pay is nothing more
than a luxury for American workers. The truth is plain and simple.
Overtime pay is not a luxury for millions of families. It is a
necessity. The changes to overtime pay could seriously reduce the
paychecks of over 6 million workers making between $23,600 and $100,000
annually.
For many people, overtime is the difference that pays the rent and
buys the groceries. I stand in this Chamber today as a product of
overtime. My father worked 80 to 90 hours a week, week in and week out,
month in and month out, year in and year out, because he had five
children that he wanted to send off to have an opportunity that he
never had, the opportunity to go to private college. He and my mother
accomplished that, and they accomplished that because of overtime.
There are countless families who rely on this kind of additional
compensation to meet the needs of their own families.
Some people may say that we should be comforted by the fact that
these regulations will not impact workers protected by a collective
bargaining agreement. I say that this reasoning is anything but
comforting, and workers covered by a union contract will ultimately
suffer a reduction in pay. Union contracts will need to be
renegotiated, and the regulation changes will make it increasingly more
difficult to negotiate fair contracts in the future as workers will now
be forced to bargain for overtime protections that were once guaranteed
by law.
Previously the law was clear: Those eligible for overtime got time
and a half for every hour you worked over 40 hours in a single week.
Now that rule has changed, and it will lower the bar for everyone. The
amendment we offer today will preserve the protections for the new low-
income workers who become eligible for overtime under the new rule. Our
amendment will rescind the rule that takes away overtime from 6 million
workers so that workers who were eligible before August 23 will once
again be eligible.
Let us stop this assault on the economic well-being of middle-class
families. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Obey-Miller
amendment.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have got a great statement, but I do not
have a lot of time, so I will submit it for the Record and just make a
few observations.
First and foremost, I would ask my colleagues in the nicest possible
way, we really should reject this amendment, and we should do so,
frankly, in a bipartisan way. There are a number of things that are
going on here, but primarily over the last few years, particularly with
a lot of work by our committee, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and the Secretary of Labor, we have tried very hard to see
if we could not bring the wage and hour laws into the 21st century and
especially the overtime rules which are not clear, are not simple.
Generally they are rules that fatten the wallets, frankly, of our trial
lawyers because so many problems have to be solved by judges and
courts. That is not what labor law really ought to be about, and we
worked hard on this language that is in the gentleman from Ohio's bill,
which is good language, and we need to leave it alone.
I just would make four quick points about it. Not nearly enough is
said in this body by people who would oppose any changes in the labor
laws that 1.3 million new people will be eligible for overtime. That
may not be important to anybody in here, but I guarantee you that is
pretty important to the 1.3 million people out there who indeed will
for the first time ever have this opportunity like so many other people
in the workforce.
The second point I would make on this is that people you say that
would through this language lose their overtime frankly do not get
overtime now, and the reason they do not, they are eligible, but they
do not get it because their employers frankly do not let them work
overtime because of the time-and-a-half rule. The bottom line here, Mr.
Chairman, for those people is not, frankly, whether they can get
overtime or not, it is how much money they can earn. And so many more
of them who, yes, maybe they cannot get overtime now, but they can make
more money. The bottom line is greater for them because so many of them
are working on commissions, so many of them are in a position that if
they need more and want to work 48 hours, they can make a lot more in
these particular kinds of jobs by being allowed to work 48 hours rather
than 40.
Thirdly, our outdated laws are confusing. There is no question to
anybody, and there are a lot of lawyers in here who absolutely
understand that better than I do, but as many cases that have to go to
court, clearly they are outdated, they are dying of old age, they are
not ready for the 21st century, and we simply need to do more than we
are doing now, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
Lastly, I would say that over the years, Mr. Chairman, the loudest
people who have been against making any of these changes, interestingly
enough to me, I have observed, are people that this really does not
affect directly. The labor bosses in this Nation represent 10 percent
of the workforce, but there are a lot of people in America, in fact 90
percent of working Americans, that are not in labor unions, do not wish
to be in labor unions, and wish to have this law changed. Yet the labor
unions, that is who is opposing this, that and the trial lawyers, and
the labor unions simply will not explain, I guess, to the American
people this really does not so much affect their members, it affects
everybody else that is working out there. And I am pretty concerned
about that. Labor law should not be written by those people who
represent 10 percent of the workforce, and that is what they try to do.
I do not even know for sure if they would be against these changes.
Since so many new people get overtime, so many more people will
actually make more money. I think it is probably all about, well, you
can't possibly have a labor law that we didn't write, and since we
didn't write this one, nobody else can have a good idea, let's be
against it. That is probably in as simple a form as I can put it what
is going on here.
I encourage my colleagues to vote down this amendment, which I feel
[[Page H6927]]
pretty comfortable that they will. We need to move forward and allow
the workforce of this country to be able to benefit from the changes
that we are going to make. I know we are in an election year, and I
know we have got to do all that, but at the end of the day, this needs
to go forward, and you can use your election year politics and let us
get this bill out of here and pass it.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot recall how many times I have been forced to
rise in opposition to this amendment, or other amendment like it that
will prevent the Secretary of Labor from implementing and
administrating commonsense regulations that will provide additional
overtime protection to millions of this country's lower income workers.
After all this time, I have just simply lost count.
But one thing is for certain, Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the
same emphatic opposition to this politically motivated, short-sighted
and dangerous amendment as the day it first appeared before the House a
little less than 1 year ago this day.
Mr. Chairman, the final overtime regulation that this shameful
amendment seeks to overturn will guarantee overtime security for 6.7
million working Americans, including 1.3 million new workers. For the
first time, any worker making less than $23,660 per year is entitled to
overtime.
The final rule also strengthens overtime protections for police
officers, fire fighters, paramedics, EMTs, first responders, and
licensed practical nurses. And importantly, the final rule makes if
perfectly clear that no blue-collar or union worker will lose his
overtime protection.
These, Mr. Chairman, are the facts.
But sadly, I fear that by pursuing this gimmicky legislative
roadblock to an important reform, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are not really interested in the facts. Instead, as November
rapidly approaches and the campaign season looms, I once again smell
the foul odor of trial lawyer cronies and big labor bosses who seek
another dime in the pocket and another union member on the rolls.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that there are simply no legitimate
arguments that substantially support the goals of this amendment. In
fact, when you peel through the onion of trumped up charges and ``sky-
is-falling'' rhetoric, all you are left with are unsubstantiated
talking points written by big labor bosses and their trial lawyer
buddies that do not benefit workers.
Mr. Chairman, I support these regulations, as I have for the past 2
years, and believe that Secretary Elaine Chao should be commended for
responding to the needs of the 21st century worker. After all, how can
a largely unaltered regulatory act written in post-Depression America
possibly represent the best interests of a rapidly evolving and
technologically advanced workforce?
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, my fellow colleagues and the
American people that it simply cannot.
I said it last year and I will say it once again: This amendment will
only worsen the confusion of current wage and hour laws by attempting
to ``freeze'' in place the old complicated and outdated system.
Worse still, Mr. Chairman, it will reverse the progress we have
already made. Since August 23 alone, when the regulations finally went
into effect, American businesses have begun to implement the final
rules directed by the Secretary by expanding overtime security to
thousands of new workers. Now is not the time to slow this progress
down. Instead, Mr. Chairman, it is time to move on and allow the
administration's final rule to be fully implemented for the benefit of
the American worker.
I urge all of my colleagues, no matter what side of the aisle you sit
on, to say ``yes'' to the American worker and ``no'' to the big labor
bosses and trial lawyers. I urge you to vote against the Obey
amendment.
{time} 1315
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think the American public would find it highly
unbelievable that if, in fact, the rules proposed by the administration
did all the things that are purported, that the advocates for working
people and the advocates for families would oppose it. In fact, it is a
rule that does not do the things that are professed here; and that is
why advocates for families, for working people oppose them in such a
loud and clear way.
The first rule ought to be do no harm when we are talking about
amending rules. And the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) have
here sticks to that creed. The administration's rules, on the other
hand, are so ambiguous that the Department of Labor and potentially
aggrieved workers will at best be involved in litigation from now to
the end of time. At worst they are going to be interpreted to prevent
possibly 6 million people from becoming eligible for overtime that are
currently eligible under the existing rules.
The administration has had every opportunity to work into a rule that
would be agreeable and understandable by everyone. The proper way to do
that, of course, would have been to work with both Democrats and
Republicans in the House, to go through the committee hearing process,
to have a debate and deliberation, and to vote and to clarify those
rules. That has not been the effort that has been taken here.
Continually, the administration throws out their rules, gets feedback,
and then tries to throw them out again, and this time, despite the
numerous people that have objected to these rules, saying that the
interpretations are inappropriate, are trying to plow this thing
through. We can see that not only Democrats are objecting but a number
of Republicans are; otherwise we would not have had to postpone last
night's session until today so that some arms could be twisted on this
measure.
What are Americans to believe of this administration other than it
desires to deprive workers of overtime and allow employers to demand
and get longer hours without more pay for workers and to work employees
more instead of hiring additional workers? This, as our economy is
being decimated by economic policies for rich millionaires, that are
doing little, if anything, for the middle class and people that aspire
to enter the middle class; 1.8 million jobs fewer today than we had in
2000; wages from last August to this August rising only 1.9 percent
while the cost of living is up over 3.2 percent.
It is a squeeze. Essentially, wages are flat but tuition bills
continue to rise, and our colleagues on the Republican side and the
administration will not increase Pell grants, will not increase work
study funds, are cutting Perkins loans funds so families are getting no
help there. Health care premiums are rising. Employers are insisting
that more and more employees pay a higher percentage of the premiums,
more co-pays, and more deductibles. Gas prices are up. Food and milk
and other prices are up.
All of this, while in my State, Mr. Chairman, in Massachusetts 86
percent of the taxpayers in 2006 will get less than $100 from the 2003
Bush tax cuts. So they are not getting any help from the tax cuts, and
they are getting the squeeze from rising prices, and wages are
stagnant. And now the administration proposes a plan, which, at best,
is ambiguous and leaves people in confusion and in a state of
litigation and, at worst, deprives almost 6 million people of overtime.
The 40-hour rule is so that families can spend some time together and,
when they cannot, that at least they get compensated so that they can
pay some of the families' obligations and bills.
Some low-income workers will actually become eligible for overtime
pay under the new rule, and that is a good thing and that is why the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California's
(Mr. George Miller) amendment does not affect that. It allows that to
go into place. And we want those people to become eligible, and we
would do that.
The other factor is that for years it has been pretty easy and pretty
clear to determine who was eligible for overtime pay and who was not.
If one was eligible, they got paid time and a half for every hour they
worked more than 40 hours a week. People should know that workers who
stand to lose their overtime pay because of these new rules include
foremen, assistant managers, registered nurses, workers who perform
relatively small amounts of supervisory or administrative work,
salespeople who perform some amount of work outside the office, chefs,
nursery school teachers, workers in the financial services industry,
insurance claims adjusters, journalists, funeral directors and
embalmers, law enforcement officers, athletic trainers, and others from
all different parts of the workforce.
I have listened to the gentleman from Ohio. I wish he were still in
the room here. And the fact is that what he says about there being no
law going
[[Page H6928]]
into effect, I think, has been soundly defeated by the comments from
the Congressional Research Service and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey). The fact of the matter is that if they had the facts, they
would argue the facts, and they do not. If they had the law, they would
argue the law, and they do not. So obfuscation is the rule of the day,
and that attempt has now been put to rest. The people that the new rule
would help, this amendment allows it to help. The people that it would
harm and the confusion there is, is set aside by this amendment. So the
only true course and the fair course to take at this point in time is
to bring us all back to the House to set a good set of rules that
protect the American worker and try to help out in this economy when
things are so difficult and people are experiencing a squeeze.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Miller amendment. For 70
years, overtime pay has meant time and a half in this country. It has
allowed the employee some flexibility to make some extra cash to put a
roof over their family's heads, to buy groceries, to pay their medical
bills. And without overtime, countless Americans, including some police
officers, firefighters, nurses, EMTs, would be forced to take a second
job to make up for the lost earnings, meaning more time away from their
families and higher child care costs.
Absent this amendment, 6 million workers, some earning as little as
$23,660, will lose their right to overtime pay. I might just add at
this moment this is pretty much in keeping with what this
administration is about when they have denied the child tax credit to
those families that make from $10,500 to $26,500. So they are in
keeping with trying to continually put people who are making these
wages in a very difficult economic position. The rule changes that we
are talking about here that went into effect in August are designed to
give companies the authority to withhold rightfully earned pay by their
employees by weakening the 1938 Fair Standards Labor Act, protections
that safeguard our workers' rights today and make mandatory overtime a
less attractive option for the employer.
This paves the way for mandatory overtime, this at a time when we
have more than 8 million Americans out of work, when income is
declining, poverty is increasing, and 45 million Americans are without
health insurance. This is an administration who says, with 8 million
people out of work that they will not extend unemployment benefits.
Historically, on a bipartisan basis when we have experienced
significant unemployment in the United States, we have extended those
benefits. But in talking some to folks at the Department of Labor, they
have said that the reason why they will not extend those benefits is
because if we do it, these workers will not go out and look for a job.
It gives us some idea of what kind of an opinion and view that this
administration has for those who work for a living. Would that they
would walk in the shoes of working men and women in this great country
of ours.
To those who would argue that these rules expand overtime
protections, I point them to a report by three of the highest-ranking
career Department of Labor officials in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton
administrations, which found that all but one of these changes to the
overtime rules take away workers' overtime rights.
Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of values, of our country's
longstanding contract with working people that says hard work deserves
to be rewarded. That is bedrock, that is what this Nation is built on,
and yet this is an administration that will reward wealth but not work.
That is what the Bush economy is all about. And these hard workers need
to be rewarded especially when that work is above and beyond the call
of duty after normal working hours.
That contract must be honored, and I urge my colleagues to support
the Obey-Miller amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for over half a century, the rules governing overtime
pay eligibility have been pretty clear, and eligible employees are paid
time and a half for every hour of work more than 40 hours in a single
week. This, in fact, is a landmark in modern economic history.
I ask my colleagues to support the Obey amendment to stop the
rollback of these rules, to stop these rules that would hurt American
workers and their families. Make no mistake about it, this anti-
overtime rule is a major step backward in the fight to reward work. I
consider it an attack on the middle class that will lead to greater
economic inequality.
Families all across America in all sorts of job categories depend on
overtime pay to make ends meet. The families that will lose overtime
protection will find that they have to work longer hours for
significantly less money. Overtime pay accounts for approximately a
quarter of the income, more than $8,000 a year for families who earned
overtime in 2000. As the pool of workers who are exempt from overtime
is expanded, those workers who are not directly affected by the
regulation will lose income as their opportunity to work overtime is
diminished. This is consistent with what the majority has been doing in
so many other areas, pushing compensatory time instead of pay, refusing
to implement a living wage, and failing to extend unemployment
benefits. They will say they are being compassionate, that, by their
way of thinking, paying the workers less will make it easier for the
employers to hire more workers and therefore more people will be paid.
This is bogus economics. This was debunked a century ago when it was
shown that Henry Ford, by paying his workers more, he actually raised
the economic activity. Claiming that lowering wages will somehow help
working families ignores a century of economic understanding. It is a
shame that at the same time the majority leadership is proposing to
eliminate overtime pay for millions of workers, they are enacting huge
tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Both proposals hurt
hard-working middle class families.
Let me tell my colleagues, if we take away this overtime pay, these
families will again be given the short shrift.
I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I found it very interesting that one of my colleagues
earlier from the Republican side said this is about election-year
politics and that is why we are doing it. Okay. Let us talk about
election-year politics. In an election year, the American people get to
evaluate what the current administration, the Bush administration, has
been doing and ask the fundamental question: Are you better off today
than you were 4 years ago? For millions of Americans, the answer is
clearly no.
Under the Bush administration's leadership, our country has lost 1.7
million jobs. Wages have not kept pace with inflation. The new jobs
that are being created, and there are only a few of those, do not pay
as much as the jobs that are being lost to outsourcing, and the number
of jobs being created does not even keep pace with the number of people
who are entering the workforce.
The Census Bureau reported that the median household income has
dropped over $1,500 in real terms since President Bush took office,
while the number of persons living in poverty and without health
insurance increased for the third straight year to 45 million people.
So, yes, this is an election year, and certainly this is a time to talk
about the economy in terms of the lives of the American citizens.
This administration, to add insult to injury, now brings before us a
proposal which would cut 6 million people from earning overtime. I
think that is offensive. They will say that it will add more people.
That is fine, and Democrats are happy to support any addition to the
people who are eligible to earn overtime, but the question before us
today, the question that is at the heart of the Obey-Miller amendment,
is whether or not we ought to keep in place language from this
administration that would cut 6 million people off the overtime list,
keep them from earning critical overtime.
{time} 1330
Let us see who we are talking about in this election year. Workers
who are likely to see their pay cut by virtue of not being able to earn
overtime include
[[Page H6929]]
2.3 million team leaders; almost 2 million low-level supervisors;
hundreds of thousands of loan officers and other financial service
employees; more than 1 million employees who lack college or graduate
degrees or who may now be considered artistic professionals; 90,000
computer employees, film directors and embalmers; and more than 30,000
nursery school and Head Start teachers across the country.
In other words, this administration and my Republican colleagues
through this measure to cut overtime are basically striking at the
heart of the American middle class, and that is simply not right.
We are saying with the Obey-Miller amendment that, yes, we want to
add people, and that part of your bill is fine, but, no, we do not want
to take people off the overtime rolls; we want them still to be able to
earn overtime and still be part of the middle class.
In fact, a quarter of the income earned by people who earned overtime
last year was from that very overtime. In other words, it is overtime
that is keeping a lot of Americans in the middle class. So when you cut
overtime, you are cutting people out of the middle class; you are
cutting people out of the American dream. We can and should do better.
I urge support for the Obey-Miller amendment to restore overtime
eligibility to 6 million hard-working Americans in the American middle
class.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues today who have expressed
outrage at the fact that these overtime regulations have been changed
such that workers in this country who work overtime are not compensated
for that time that they are working.
Millions of American workers count on this overtime pay as part of
their basic income. They do not simply make it in this country based
upon the 40 hour week and the money that they make then. They make ends
meet because they are able to add the time and a half that comes from
them having to work overtime.
Now, let us take this in this context. I often hear friends tell me,
it could not be. No one would do that, not anybody that wants to grow
this economy.
Well, I have to say to them, in fact, it is true. The Republican
majority is taking away overtime pay from working Americans while they
are giving the richest of Americans huge, huge tax breaks; tax breaks
on capital gains, on estate taxes and dividend taxes. Well, how could
this be? The idea is maybe if we give people with $1 million or more of
income a year, we are giving them $100,000 in tax cuts, that will grow
our economy.
What I find so interesting is when Republicans talk about tax cuts,
they never seem to mention that the sales taxes are going up, they
never seem to mention that the property taxes are going up, they never
seem to talk about cutting taxes on income for those on unemployment
insurance.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, unemployment insurance is taxed, but you never
hear about Republicans cutting those taxes, do you?
Mr. Chairman, I have found this a very interesting few years that I
have been in the Congress. I have seen proposals to make Medicaid a
block grant, so that entitlements are written at the State level, not
the national level, so that people's health care will be determined on
where they live in this country, not based upon whether they are in
need.
I have seen all kinds of proposals on labor law, just as there is in
this case, where workers are being punished for joining unions. I have
seen where there are bills like the TEAM Act, which essentially decides
what the manager is doing when they choose who they are going to
negotiate with. That is their idea of TEAM Act: workers will be without
a voice.
Then I see other bills, like OSHA reform, another ``sounds good''
reform, except you find out that really it is a voluntary program. No
one will even know whether an employer will comply with it or not; and,
hence, we have something that takes away from the protection and safety
of workers on the job.
And in just this last budget, Mr. Chairman, we saw the President of
the United States cut, cut the money for inspection of child labor. Get
that. This Republican budget cut the inspection for companies around
the world that may be using children in the course of their labor.
So it is interesting, because many people think we have left those
days well behind us when there was child labor. Maybe we left those
days long behind us where workers did not have a pension. Maybe we left
those days behind us where workers could not have a 40-hour workweek
and work overtime and be compensated time and a half. Maybe they think
all of these things are back in the thirties or forties or maybe
fifties.
What I am here to say is my experience being in a Republican-led
Congress the last 10 years that I have been in the House of
Representatives has led me to believe that the same battles for
economic justice that people were fighting for over a generation ago
are the same battles that we are having to fight all over again in the
2004.
This is what we are dealing with, my friends; and this, my friends,
is the reason why we need to make a choice in this next campaign as to
who we want leading our country. This is a perfect example of the fact
that elections have consequences. If you vote for Republicans, you are
voting to eliminate time and a half for workers who work more than 40
hours a week. If you vote for Republicans, you are voting to eliminate
the entitlement for Medicaid. If you vote for Republicans, you are
voting to roll back in this country all of the progressive legislation
that has been put forth that protects our workers in this country.
Let us support the Obey-Miller substitute.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Obey amendment because it will preclude anyone making over $20,000 a
year from overtime.
I rise today in strong support for the Department of Labor's new 541
``white collar'' overtime regulations. These updated rules, which have
not been touched in over 50 years, will allow millions of American
workers, who previously did not receive overtime, to obtain the
overtime wages they deserve.
Under the former outdated rules, an individual earning as little as
$8,060 a year could be classified as a ``white collar'' employee,
therefore being exempt from overtime pay.
The final rule guarantees that any worker making less than $23,660
per year is entitled to overtime, which should provide an additional
1.3 million more Americans with overtime pay and strengthen existing
protections for another 5.4 million salaried workers.
The final rule explicitly grants overtime protections for police
officers, fire fighters, paramedics, EMTs, first responders and
licensed practical nurses. These people put their lives on the line
every day and should be properly compensated for making our lives and
our country a safer and better place.
But the final rule does not stop there. It also clarifies that a
veteran's status will not affect overtime pay and removes the reference
to ``training in the armed forces'' that had been proposed in the
earlier regulations and improperly exempted some veterans.
To close, I would like to extend my appreciation to Secretary Chao
and the Department staff for their tireless efforts on behalf of
America's workforce to ensure that all workers receive the overtime pay
they have rightfully earned.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey Amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, Members should understand that the new rules that went
into effect on August 23, in my opinion, will guarantee more overtime
for more American workers than the rules that were in effect prior to
that. It is because we guarantee anyone making up to $23,660 overtime
regardless of what their position is, where it was only $8,060 before
that. I think the clarity that comes with these new rules will help
better protect the American workers.
I just received a letter from the U.S. Department of Labor, the
Solicitor's Office. Let me quote in part:
[[Page H6930]]
``The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed this proposed
amendment and analyzed its legal and practical effect. The proposed
funding amendment will not repeal the new regulation that went into
effect on August 23, 2004--employers will continue to determine an
employee's eligibility for overtime according to the new tests. Rather,
as we explain below, the amendment will essentially serve only to
prevent the Department from using its enforcement resources to protect
the overtime rights of any employee who earnings $455 or more per
week.''
Going on further in the letter they say: ``Although we have not been
able to obtain a copy, we understand that the Congressional Research
Service provided an opinion in August that the funding rider would
'require' DOL to 'immediately rescind' the final rule. This claim is
contrary to settled case law, the APA, and, most importantly, the plain
language of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment only
restricts the Department's ability to spend funds to enforce the new,
stronger overtime protections, but does not affect the validity of the
rule and has no impact on private enforcement of the new regulations
under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Simply put, the
amendment would not require the Department to take any action to repeal
the new rules, and the Department will not repeal the final rule--
because to do so would deprive workers of the new, stronger overtime
protections.''
Continuing: ``Because the amendment essentially restricts the use of
funds to implement or administer the new regulations, the proposed
amendment would prevent the Department from conducting investigations
or enforcing any of the provisions of the new regulations except those
at 29 C.F.R. 541.600. The proposed funding restrictions will also
preclude the Department of Labor from providing any information or
assistance to employees or employers as to the new overtime rules. As
an example, we will be powerless to bring an enforcement action on
behalf of a licensed practical nurse making $460 a week who claims that
he or she was not paid for substantial amounts of overtime worked after
August 23, 2004.
``Even if the Department were prohibited from enforcing the new
regulations, the Department would still have no legal authority to
enforce the old rules because the old regulations were superseded as of
August 23, and, thus, are no longer in effect.''
The point here is that the last two times this amendment has been on
the floor, existing regulations were in place, but when the new rules
went in place the old regulations went out of existence, and if the
Obey amendment were in fact to pass today, we would essentially strip
the Department of Labor's ability to enforce the new regulations and to
protect the overtime rights of American men and women. I do not think
that is what we want to do.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, we have just seen the last desperate attempt by the
Department of Labor to hold on to its outrageous regulations to take
away overtime from 6 million hard-working Americans; 6 million
Americans that use overtime to maintain their status in the middle
class; 6 million Americans that use overtime to pay for their
children's education, to qualify for their home, to make their car
payments; 6 million Americans that hate overtime on Thursday and Friday
night and over the weekend, but they love it at the end of the year
when it is in their W-2 form.
It makes up a considerable amount of their yearly income. For those
who receive overtime, it is as high as 20 to 25 percent of their income
throughout the year. This is how they maintain their standard of
living, by working overtime.
And what is overtime? It is the premium time you get paid because you
were asked to work beyond your 40 hours. You get a premium because you
have to go out and rearrange your child care arrangements, you have to
change your doctor appointments, you have to limit your ability to see
your children and participate in their school events or sporting
activities. Because it imposes a burden on the worker and it gives a
benefit to the employer, that is why it is premium time.
What does the Department of Labor do, what does the Bush
administration do, and what is this Republican Congress trying to do?
They are saying to the American worker, you are going to work the
hours; you are just not going to get the pay.
This is the largest government-imposed pay cut in the history of this
country, the largest government-imposed pay cut in the history of this
country, when American workers are threatened by the outsourcing of
their jobs, instability in the workplace, a struggling economy, their
pensions are under assault, their companies are threatening to go to
bankruptcy court to get rid of their health care, to get rid of their
pensions, to undermine their wages, to take away their union contract,
if they have one. And what is the Bush administration's response to
this? To cut their overtime.
What is it that the middle class in America did that so enraged the
Bush administration that they have an all-out attack on middle-class
families, hard-working families in this country? What is it that the
middle class did to anger them that they would undermine their
pensions? What is it that the middle class did to anger them that they
would try to take away their ability to control their workplace and the
hours they work, to take away their overtime pay, to try to get rid of
their ability to organize?
{time} 1345
It is the middle class that built this country. They built the great
institutions of this country. They built the great structures of this
country. They built our cities. They built our colleges. They built our
universities. It is the middle class that we hold up to the rest of the
world and say, if you have a large middle class, you can have a great
democracy, if people truly believe that they are getting the chance to
participate and to better the future of their children and to better
their lot in life.
Now, all of a sudden, along comes the Bush administration, and they
think the middle class is the enemy. They have been waging a campaign
for 4 years against the middle class Americans and their standard of
living. They have dramatically increased the debt that they are going
to have to pay back to the government. They have dramatically
underfunded the capabilities of Medicare and Social Security that the
middle class is going to rely on for health care and for retirement.
But I guess maybe the Bush administration, with their trust funds and
their money and their oil companies, they do not understand that. They
have never shared those burdens of the middle class.
So what we just saw here was the last attempt by the Solicitor in the
Department of Labor, who has had to rewrite these regulations several
times because they have never been able to get them right, because they
have uncovered so many people they said were not uncovered, and they
did not cover people they said were covered; but now that same
Solicitor comes out and tries to tell us that if the Congress tampers
with this, somehow it will undermine the rights of working people to
get overtime.
Well, that is a Republican Solicitor working for the Republican
Department of Labor, who is working for the Republican Secretary of
Labor, who is working for the Republican President. But if you go to
CRS, which is nonpartisan, they simply say, we all understand this, we
have seen these riders before. This tells you to go back to the
regulations and reimplement the regulations that were in effect on July
14, 2004. That is the plain reading of this act, and Congress has done
this many times.
So if you vote for this, what you will be doing is saving millions of
people their right to overtime for the work that they provide. Millions
of people who, if you do not vote for this, working foremen, working
supervisors, assistant managers, team leaders, registered nurses,
workers who perform a relatively small amount of supervisory amount of
administrative work, they are going to take away your overtime if you
tell somebody to stand over there or move or there.
[[Page H6931]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, they are going to take
away your overtime if you are a chef or a nursery school teacher. No
matter how low your pay, they are going to take away your overtime.
Workers in the financial services industries, the insurance claims
adjusters, journalists; hello, journalists, you are about to lose your
overtime.
What is it you guys have against these hard-working Americans that
you are going to rip them off this pay that they are entitled to?
Well, let us understand. Let us understand what it is about. Let us
understand that these are people who work hard and rely on this, and
this Congress, this Congress should not be the handmaiden of this
activity. And if this amendment prevails, if the Obey-Miller amendment
prevails, these workers will have another chance at holding onto that
pay for their work that is so terribly important to them.
I would hope that we would reject all of the scare tactics, we would
reject the Solicitor that has not gotten it right yet, and we would
reject the Department of Labor.
Remember the Department of Labor when they issued these regulations,
they said none of these people are affected? Then Senator Judd Gregg
ran around and created an amendment and entered 50 categories of people
that he wanted to exempt from the people that the Department of Labor
said were not impacted. That is what the Republicans' response was in
the Senate. They immediately exempted 50 professions because they were
terrified that the regulations were wrong, and the regulations, in
fact, turned out to be wrong. They said they did not cover fire and
policemen, and then they had to cut a side deal with firemen and
policemen because they were wrong.
So let us not trust the Solicitor of the Department of Labor. Let us
go with what CRS says. This is what the Congress has done, and we do
this every appropriations season on riders. This is a rider to protect
the American wage-earner in this country, and I hope that we will pass
it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, well, we are getting down to a close on this, and I
think the fact that most of our speakers have been from the Committee
on Education and Workforce illustrates the fact that this is a
legislative issue that ought to be debated and dealt with there, but,
in reality, it is before us.
But I want to just simply point out a few facts, and I hope that
those of our colleagues who are listening will keep this in mind. That
is that in the opinion of the Solicitor from the Department of Labor,
if we pass this amendment, it will preclude the Department of Labor
from enforcing regulations. That means that every employee that wants
to get overtime will have to do it on their own. It would be a bonanza
for the legal profession, because they would be filing lawsuit after
lawsuit to claim their overtime, alleged overtime, rights. So that is
fact number 1.
Fact number 2, the allegation is that we would go back to the old
regulations, but the truth of the matter is, they are gone. Therefore,
the Obey amendment covers those people under $23,600. But anyone over
that amount, which is about 34 million workers, would have no coverage.
Now, they can say, oh, yes, the old regulations would be put in place,
and even if the Secretary of Labor were to attempt to do that, it would
be subject to the rulemaking requirements, the rulemaking process,
because the law requires that. And it took 2 years to do the new
regulations, and, therefore, it would take at least 2 years to put back
in place the old regulations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, I understand the gentleman
is trying to make a point, but the fact is, as the sponsor of the
amendment, I will state categorically that legally the administration
has the authority to reimpose those regulations within 1 day. And to
suggest that they would not and leave the case that the gentleman is
talking about is to suggest that they are even more irresponsible than
I think they are.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is an
opinion that would be subject to legal action. But I think, in my
judgment, as I understand this, once the new regulations were put in
place, the old ones are gone, and, therefore, to put the old ones back
in place will require a new round of the rulemaking process. So you
have employees over $23,600 who are without coverage for a period of 2
years. They would have to try to enforce whatever might be perceived as
overtime.
Would the gentleman from Wisconsin admit that he precludes the
Department of Labor from enforcing these regulations, but that does not
mean that they will, and they may do nothing, if the Obey amendment
passes?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the CRS memo
states that the general rule requiring publication of a final rule not
less than 30 days before its effective date may likewise be voided ``as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.''
That means that they can reinstitute those rules on their own
volition in 1 day.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. REGULA. That is the CRS's opinion, and we would have to clarify
that.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear in the
Solicitor's letter from the Department of Labor that they do not share
the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. The fact of the
matter is that even if they did, the gentleman's amendment, the Obey
amendment, would preclude, would preclude the Department of Labor from
advising employees, advising employers, and enforcing the law for
anyone who makes over $23,660 per year. It would preclude that action
and that help for 1 year, under the gentleman's amendment.
I do not think we want to eliminate these protections and the
enforcement of these protections by the Department of Labor.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman
makes the point very clear.
I would say to my colleagues, when you vote on this, keep in mind
that you are putting 34 million workers at risk who may end up with no
coverage for as much as 2 years under the requirement of the rulemaking
process to put anything back in place for these rules.
I want to make one other point, and that is that it has been raised
that we had a motion to instruct. Keep in mind that when the motion to
instruct, when many Members voted for it was when the old rules were
still in place, and the motion to instruct would have allowed, had it
actually been consummated, would have allowed the old rules to be
enforced, but they are gone. They are gone. Therefore, there would not
be anything out there if we take away the Department's authority, which
is being proposed by this amendment.
So I have to reiterate that we are running a great risk that in
passing this amendment, if it were to become law, that 34 million
workers will be on their own.
Let me make a couple of other points, and that is, under the proposal
of the Department of Labor, contracts can cover any matters of overtime
rules. They can be put into union contracts, and it would supersede any
departmental regulations. So any way we look at it, we are not doing
people a favor by voting for this. I think, in fact, we are putting
their overtime very much in jeopardy, and I hope my colleagues will
consider that as they vote on this issue and on this proposed
amendment.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman and Members, I'd like to thank my
colleague, Mr. Obey for offering this amendment.
The Department of Labor has implemented new overtime regulations that
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim will bring 1.3
million new people into overtime eligibility. However, other
independent studies such as
[[Page H6932]]
the one by The Economic Policy Institute report that at least 6 million
will lose their overtime rights under this rule. Also, this analysis
projects that only 400,000 low-income workers will now qualify for
overtime pay. Not the 1.3 million claimed by the Administration.
Yesterday, leadership refused to debate this amendment because
several of their colleagues would have voted for this amendment. This
only indicates that both Republicans and Democrats know that passing
this amendment is the right thing to do.
My home state of Texas has an unemployment rate higher than the
national average and that's true for the City of Houston as well. Many
of my constituents rely on what they make in overtime pay to keep the
lights on in their homes. I think it's time we start thinking about our
most important resource in this country: the American Worker, and vote
``yes'' to this amendment.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
to restore overtime pay to millions of hard-working Americans, as
proposed by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin. I ask that my
entire statement be printed in the Record and request permission to
revise and extend my remarks.
Just 3 days ago this Nation celebrated Labor Day, honoring the
millions of hard-working Americans we all depend upon to build and
repair our homes, fix our cars, install neighborhood street lights,
stock supermarket shelves, teach our preschoolers, care for elderly
relatives, provide nursing care when we need it, prepare restaurant
meals, report the local news, and patrol the streets to keep
communities safe. By taking on such jobs, these workers keep America
running. Yet these are they very same workers that the Bush
Administration has now stripped of any right to overtime pay.
When the Department of Labor's final rule on overtime went into
effect on August 23rd, some 6,000,000 American workers lost a right
that had been guaranteed for more than 65 years under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. That right is simple and straightforward. It guarantees
that workers required to work overtime will get paid for those extra
hours of work.
This simple right used to ensure that policemen and women, registered
nurses, chefs, team leaders on construction sites, assistant managers
in fast food restaurants, nursery school teachers, grocery clerks, car
mechanics at the local dealership, and countless others were treated
fairly. When their employers required them to work overtime, they were
paid for that work. That is only fair and fairness used to be the
American way.
But the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress
have decided that fairness doesn't apply any more to these American
workers. They have come up with a new scheme, which meets Webster's
Dictionary definition of servitude. Under Republican management,
employers can require these same employees to work as many hours over a
standard 40 hour work week as they say, without paying the workers an
extra dime.
What makes this Bush and Republican-backed scheme even worse is that
it has no expiration date. Under seventeenth and eighteenth century
indentured servitude, there was an end in sight. Once you paid off your
indentureship, you were free and clear. Under the Bush Administration's
final overtime regulations, if you fit the category your employer can
continue to require you to work overtime without pay for as far into
the future as anyone can see. This kind of exploitation is blatantly
un-American.
The amendment of my colleague from Wisconsin would overturn this un-
American servitude scheme by rescinding the Bush Administration's
harmful changes in overtime eligibility. At the same time, this
amendment would require enforcement of the one noncontroversial
provision in the final rule. This minor salary adjustment would ensure
immediate expansion of overtime coverage.
Again, I strongly support this amendment to restore workers' overtime
rights and return us to the 21st century norms of American fairness.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) will be postponed.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McKeon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5006) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________