[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.

                          ____________________