[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4687-4688]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                JOBS ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the chance to address the 
Senate briefly this afternoon on the underlying legislation. We are in 
morning business now, and we will lay down the bill shortly. I am 
informed my friend and colleague from Iowa intends to offer an 
amendment to address the proposal being developed, that has been 
developed, and continues to be developed by the administration to 
restrict overtime pay for some 8 million Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed beyond the 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before the Senate is the legislation 
called Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act, or the JOBS Act. The 
proposal of the Senator from Iowa is entirely appropriate to address 
this issue. He will be addressing key aspects of employment in this 
country; that is, the question of adequate pay for those working long 
hours in this country, and the proposal of the administration to cut 
back on their pay by eliminating the overtime for some 8 million 
workers.
  For those who have been traveling not only in their own States but 
around the country--as I and other Members have--we know we are facing 
a serious challenge in creating good jobs with good benefits in the 
United States. This is affecting the quality of life of millions of 
American families.
  The fact is, the Senate has refused to increase the minimum wage for 
a period of 7 years. We have 7 million Americans, our fellow citizens, 
hard-working Americans, men and women who take a sense of pride even in 
working at minimum-wage jobs. They are the men and women who clean the 
buildings where American commerce takes place. They work in our nursing 
homes to take care of our elderly people. They work as teachers' aides 
in many of our schools. These are men and women of dignity. They have 
worked long and hard over the period of the last 7 years, and we have 
failed to provide an increase in the minimum wage because our 
Republican leadership and this administration refuse to support an 
increase in the minimum wage. That is fact No. 1.
  Fact No. 2. Even though we have seen the total loss of some 3 million 
private sector jobs and now an overall loss of about 2.2 million jobs, 
this administration refuses to extend the unemployment compensation. 
The unemployment compensation fund is $15 billion in surplus. It was 
paid by people who have worked hard for this very eventuality that we 
are now facing--this heavy, prolonged unemployment. Those who have 
extended unemployment, who have worked hard, should be entitled to 
unemployment compensation. It is in surplus.
  The proposal of the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, will cost 
$5.6 billion to extend unemployment compensation for 13 weeks. There 
are 90,000 Americans a week losing their unemployment compensation. How 
do these families pay for their mortgage, put food on the table? How do 
they feed their children? How do they look forward to the future with 
any kind of sense of hope?
  Where are we in responding to them in their crisis of need? Our 
Republican colleagues, the Republican administration, refuses to extend 
unemployment compensation.
  If that is not bad enough, what is the administration proposing to do 
now? They are proposing to eliminate overtime pay for some 8 million of 
our fellow Americans who otherwise are receiving overtime.
  Who is receiving overtime? Police officers, nurses, firefighters. Do 
those three categories have a ring to Members in the Senate and across 
this country? Who is in those categories? Whom do they represent? They 
represent homeland security.
  On the one hand, we hear a good many statements in the Senate about 
trying to deal with the problems of homeland security. On the other 
hand, the administration is out to take away overtime for those 
individuals who are the backbone of homeland security.
  These are the categories: Police officers, nursing, firefighters. The 
list also includes primarily women workers in our society. The overtime 
pay affects all workers but it particularly affects women.
  What has been the state of our economy now in terms of new workers?

[[Page 4688]]

 Some say: Senator, you do not understand. Workers are doing well in 
the country at this time.
  I don't believe it. Those who say this do not understand it. They may 
be reading the clippings of Wall Street, but they do not understand 
Main Street. If they have been reading the clippings of Main Street 
over the past week or so, they see there has not been great news.
  The new jobs being created in the United States do not pay as much as 
jobs lost. This chart indicates the average wage in 2001 was $44,570 a 
year. Jobs gained do not pay as much as jobs lost. The average wage 
today from the jobs gained, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, is $35,410. That is a 21-percent reduction for the new jobs 
being created; a 21-percent reduction in pay over the jobs they have 
replaced.
  At the same time, this administration is trying to eliminate overtime 
even for this group. What in the world is the reason for this?
  Against this backdrop, we look at the chart demonstrating that 
Americans work more hours than workers in other industrialized nations 
of the world. This red bar represents the United States. The other 
countries on this chart include Denmark, France, Ireland, Netherlands, 
UK, Italy, and Germany. In the United States, far more than any other 
country, workers are working harder, working longer, trying to make 
ends meet. What do we do? We in the Senate refuse to increase the 
minimum wage. If these workers lose their jobs, there is no federal 
unemployment compensation. Even though they are working longer and 
harder, we will take away their overtime.
  This administration is attempting to take away overtime protection. 
This chart demonstrates what happens to workers with overtime 
protection and those without overtime protection. Those without 
overtime protection are twice as likely to be required by their bosses 
to work overtime hours as those with overtime protection. We know what 
this is all about--requiring workers to work longer, harder, for less 
pay over a period of time. Overtime has been in the law since the 
1930s. Now we have this administration trying to take away from the 
workers? For those who do not have overtime protection, they are twice 
as likely to work more than 40 hours a week. And those without overtime 
protections are three times as likely to work more than 50 hours a 
week. Take away the overtime protections and we are going to see the 
exploitation of working families in the middle class in this country 
greater than ever. That is basically greed. It is wrong.
  The amendment of the Senator from Iowa is focused on making sure we 
continue to pay the overtime.
  I make two final points. First of all, in the proposal by the 
administration to eliminate overtime, they are looking not only at the 
categories I just illustrated, but they are also saying if you have 
served in the Armed Forces and have received that training, that when 
you get out of the Armed Forces you are not going to be eligible for 
overtime. For the first time in the history of this country, they are 
saying, military training--training that you receive in the military--
is going to exclude you from coverage for overtime. Tell that to the 
servicemen who are over in Iraq. Tell it to the National Guard, who are 
making up 40 percent of those under combat arms. When you get some 
training in order to protect members of your particular unit, and then 
you come back and are out there in the civilian market, you are told by 
your boss: You got training in the military. You are not eligible for 
overtime.
  I see my friend in the Chamber. I will take a few more minutes 
because I know he wants to address the Senate. This is a letter to 
Secretary Chao from Thomas Corey, the National President of the Vietnam 
Veterans of America:

     . . . [W]e would like to make you aware that the proposed 
     modification to the rules would give employers the ability to 
     prohibit veterans from receiving overtime pay based on the 
     training they received in the military. This legitimizes the 
     already extensive problems of ``vetism'' or discrimination 
     against veterans.

  There you are. What in the world is this administration thinking?
  I will read a letter, and then I will conclude. I think it 
illustrates very powerfully what the debate is about and the strong 
reasons we all ought to be behind the Harkin amendment:

       My name is Randy Fleming. I live in Haysville, Kansas--
     outside Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in 
     Boeing's Metrology Lab.
       I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served 
     in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979.
       I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time I've 
     been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've 
     raised a son who now has a good career and children of his 
     own. There are two things that helped make that possible.
       First, the training I received in the Air Force made me 
     qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main 
     attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I 
     think it's still one of the main reasons young people today 
     decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job 
     opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the 
     recruiting ads on TV.
       The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to 
     give my son the college education that has opened doors for 
     him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those 
     college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10% or more 
     of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, but 
     we'll be counting on my overtime to help her get her college 
     degree, too, when that time comes. For my family, overtime 
     pay has made all the difference.
       That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? 
     I came to talk about an issue that is very important back 
     home and to me personally as a working man, a family man, and 
     a veteran. That issue is overtime rights.
       The changes that this administration is trying to make in 
     the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain 
     with the men and women in the military and would close down 
     opportunities that working vets and their families thought 
     they could count on.
       When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a 
     deal that I thought was fair. They got a chunk of my time and 
     I got training to help me build the rest of my life. There 
     was no part of that deal that said I would have to give up my 
     right to overtime pay. You've heard of the marriage penalty? 
     Well I think that what these new rules do is to create a 
     military penalty. If you got your training in the military, 
     no matter what your white collar profession is, your employer 
     can make you work as many hours as they want and not pay you 
     a dime extra.
       If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is.
       And I don't have any doubt that employers will take 
     advantage of this new opportunity to cut our overtime pay. 
     They'll tell us they have to in order to compete. They'll say 
     if they can't take our overtime pay, they'll have to 
     eliminate our jobs.
       It won't be just the bad employers, either--because these 
     rules will make it very hard for companies to do the right 
     thing. If they can get as many overtime hours as they want 
     for free instead of paying us time-and-a-half, they'll say 
     they owe it to the stockholders. And the veterans and other 
     working people will be stuck with less time, less money, and 
     a broken deal.
       I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union 
     contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But 
     we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one 
     that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard 
     to get rid of our union.
       And for all those who want to let these military penalty 
     rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you 
     think it's okay for the government to renege on its deals, I 
     think it should be your job to tell our military men and 
     women in Iraq that when they come home, their service to 
     their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime 
     pay.

  That is from Randy Fleming. It could not be said any clearer. That is 
the issue. Tom Harkin and I will offer the amendment. I hope the Senate 
will at least permit us a chance to vote on that amendment in the next 
day or two.
  I thank the Senator for his patience and for his indulgence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________