Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is absent attending the funeral of his wife's grandmother.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, I know the Democratic leader is going to make a statement, and I don't know if the majority leader is going to make one. I am wondering if I could ask unanimous consent that the majority and minority have a full half hour on each side today, irrespective of the statements of the two leaders.

That is right.

Mr. President, we have three who wish to speak in morning business on our side: Senator Stabenow, Senator Corzine, and Senator Cantwell. I ask unanimous consent that on our side they be allotted 10 minutes each.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator tell us the subject matter of the proposed amendment?

I withdraw my reservation of objection.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

Madam President, we agree with the majority leader that this is an important piece of legislation. Cloture was not invoked on it. It came out of committee in a bipartisan fashion. However, the Senate has been this way for more than 200 years. People have the right to offer amendments.

There was an extremely important amendment dealing with overtime. Senator Harkin agreed to take 15 minutes and vote on it. If there is anything to be said about bringing down the bill, it is not us. We want the bill to pass. We also want a vote to recognize the plight of 8 million Americans, men and women who are in the process of being denied overtime, something they have had for more than a half century.

So we can give all the speeches we want about political posturing. The fact is, the majority didn't want to vote on overtime. We voted on it before; the amendment carried then. The House instructed its conferees that they wanted the Senate's position. So it is a simple matter where we have now wasted 2 days, and this is the third day. We could have been covering the few amendments Senator Baucus has lined up. He has pared it down from 75 amendments to probably 10. On every one of those, there would be short time agreements.

This bill could be finished. I think it is a sad day for the country that we have not been able to move forward on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, during the day, there have been a number of statements given about the importance of the bill upon which the Senate is now acting. I agree. We agree on this side that the bill that Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley worked to bring to the floor is very important for our country. We think it is so important that we are willing to basically say, on the overtime amendment, Senator Harkin would take only 10 minutes. The majority can take 10 minutes, and we will vote on it. There are a couple of other amendments, as we have discussed before. We did have 75 amendments. That list has been cut down to approximately 10, and there will be short time agreements on each amendment.

We can complete this bill very quickly. It is, as has been said on a number of occasions by various Senators, a bill that is important. I acknowledge that. This overtime issue is also important. I refer to the Wednesday--today--Congressional Quarterly. In this, the chairman of the Finance Committee indicates that he would prefer a vote. This is a direct quote:

I prefer to vote things up or down and move on.

He said:

My feeling is that sometime we have got to face this issue.

So we might as well face it now.

Senator Grassley is absolutely right. This issue is not going to go away. It is an issue that affects 8 million Americans. It is whether or not they are going to be paid overtime, whether or not the overtime is going to be taken away from them. We recognize the importance of this bill, but we recognize that we have an obligation to 8 million working men and women in this country, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we have the ability to vote on it.

In September of last year, there was a vote on whether the President should be able to move forward on this overtime proposal. The Senate said no. The House of Representatives voted, also by a large margin, approximately 225 votes, saying we agree with the Senate. They instructed their conferees to follow the Senate's lead. This is a matter stricken in the middle of the night without a single Democrat present, and that is not the right way to legislate.

Senator Grassley is right. My feeling is that somehow we have to face this issue, so we might as well face it now.

There have been statements on the floor today that this overtime issue is not important; how could this issue hold up what we are trying to do on this overall legislation? I said it last night and I say again, if the majority thinks this is not a very important issue, then they have made their case; we have made ours; let's vote on it. I am convinced the vote would turn out just as it did last time. We would send a message to the President that what he is doing on overtime is wrong.

Also, there have been a number of statements on the Senate floor that are simply not based on fact. I guess this is an effort to separate myth from reality.

One myth that is floated here is that the Harkin overtime protection amendment would prevent the Department of Labor from issuing any new overtime regulations.

That is false. The facts are that the overtime protection amendment would allow the Department of Labor to issue any new overtime regulation as long as it did not restrict the eligibility for overtime pay. Overtime pay in this country has been the rule for more than half a century. Why suddenly do we want to take it away? That would be wrong.

Another myth that has been propounded on the Senate floor over the last few days is the amendment is not necessary because the administration has no intention of taking away workers' overtime.

Reality: The administration has been fiercely opposing this amendment since last summer, even pressuring the omnibus conferees to disregard the rules of both the Senate and the House. If the proposed rules do not cut overtime pay, why would the administration be opposing this amendment so strongly?

Another myth: The administration's proposed rules do not cut overtime.

That is false. The Department of Labor's economic analysis shows these regulations do cut overtime. That is a fact. That is reality.

Another one of the myths floating around here that has been stated on a number of occasions: The Department of Labor's plan would not cut overtime for police officers.

That statement is false. In reality, the true facts are, if you talk to anyone outside the Department of Labor who has studied this issue, you will find a consensus that these regulations will hit police officers in their pockets. Police sergeants and low-level supervisors will lose their overtime pay under these proposed rules. The fact that a sergeant spends 90 percent of his time walking a beat will not matter if he performs any office or nonmanual work. This could mean supervising officers or filling out a shift schedule causes you to lose your overtime.

To confirm this, the International Union of Police Associations and the National Organization of Police Organizations agree this proposal will hurt their members. The Fraternal Order of Police submitted comments to the Department of Labor last year arguing that many public safety officers currently considered as nonexempt would be reclassified as exempt employees. This is under the proposed regulations. Secretary Chao has assured the Fraternal Order of Police that the Department does not intend to cut overtime pay for police officers. One thing we know for sure, the Department of Labor will keep that promise if the Harkin amendment is adopted.

Another myth: The Department of Labor has not proposed any changes that would harm nurses or medical technicians.

This statement is categorically false. In reality, the fact is, registered nurses and limited practical nurses who do not have 4-year college degrees cannot be denied overtime protection under a professional exemption. However, the Department of Labor has proposed changes in the criteria for a professional exemption. The Department of Labor's own analysis said, and I quote directly from the Department of Labor:

The proposed rule allows work to be substituted for all or

part of the educational requirement for exemption of learned

professionals.

In other words, a nurse with a few years on the job would be reclassified as an exempt professional, in effect saying you do not have a degree but we will consider you having a degree. The nurse--he or she--would lose their overtime pay.

Another myth: This administration is not trying to take away the overtime of blue-collar workers.

That is false. In reality, the fact is, if a worker earns $65,000 a year, that worker could be considered a highly compensated employee. In fact, $65,000 is still a lot of money, but today it is the mean annual income of a white male worker in this country. So it is not really highly compensated in the true sense of the word. It is the person who makes an average living. Should not that person making an average living be able to be compensated for his hard work? Should he not be able to be rewarded for hard work?

If that highly compensated employee has any say-so whatsoever in the employment status of coworkers or has any supervisory duties, that worker could be exempt, that highly compensated employee who is also an administrator or an executive. So it does not matter if you do not wear a suit or pack your dinner in a lunch pail; if you earn the mean annual income and have any kind of supervisory responsibilities, you lose your overtime pay. That is a fact.

Another myth promulgated: The regulations would not affect carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, operating engineers, longshoremen, or construction workers because section 541 301(f) specifically protects them.

Wrong again. In reality, the fact is the proposed section 541 301(f) states the obvious--that these occupations are not recognized professionals, but these workers could still be exempt as highly compensated employees or an executive or an administrator.

The fact is, this regulation does apply to carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, operating engineers, longshoremen, and construction workers.

Another myth: The Department of Labor has nothing to hide.

In fact, no public hearings were held on these proposed new regulations. When Members of Congress found out about them, we immediately began fighting to block these regulations to protect the rights of 8 million workers to be fairly compensated for working overtime.

If there is a reason this most important legislation that we, the minority, think should pass doesn't pass, it is all in the hands of those people who, for reasons I do not understand fully--although partially--are unwilling to vote on overtime. They are unwilling to vote because they know the vote will show that the administration is doing something that is harmful, hurtful, and really bad for 8 million people who work in America. It is wrong. We need to send a message to this White House that what they are doing is wrong.

Mr. President, we know the administration has said they do not want to cut anyone's overtime. If that is the case, then we should adopt the Harkin amendment because that certainly would put into law what the administration is talking about doing.

As I said earlier, police are concerned about losing their right to overtime, and we are told the Department of

Labor, through Secretary Chao, has assured the Fraternal Order of Police that the Department does not intend to cut overtime for police officers. I repeat, the one thing we know for sure is the Department of Labor will keep that promise made by the Secretary of Labor if the Harkin amendment is adopted. I hope it is adopted. I hope we have an opportunity to vote on it.

If this bill is pulled down, it is not our fault. We have indicated that this legislation could have been finished easily by today. We have wasted 3 days on this legislation. Three days have been wasted. We have voted on one amendment, and that is all.

I hope reality, in the sense of what we need to accomplish, will be the focus of the majority leader in the next 24 hours, and we can work something out and move forward on this most important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to wish the town of Gardnerville, NV, a happy 125th birthday.

Gardnerville was founded by Lawrence Gilman in 1879. Mr. Gilman had found a nice 7-acre tract of land on the East Fork of the Carson River, and he thought it would make a beautiful location for a town. So he decided to move his hotel, then named the Kent House, from Genoa, NV, to the new spot. John M. Gardner sold the 7 acres to Mr. Gil man for $1,250. In gratitude, Mr. Gilman named the town after Mr. Gardner.

The Kent House was later named the Gardnerville Hotel and became a symbol for the town of Gardnerville--a new endeavor in an ever-changing world. Although the hotel no longer stands, you can still visit the humble beginnings of Gardnerville near the J & T Bar.

Mr. Gilman recognized that if he wanted to create a real town around his hotel, he needed to offer business amenities and leisure activities that would attract the ranchers in the area. So he added a blacksmith shop and saloon to his hotel. It wasn't long before local ranchers started coming into town, relaxing and visiting in the saloon while their horses were shod next door. Thus did Gardnerville begin its voyage down the path to prosperity.

By 1899, Gardnerville had blossomed into a thriving city. Almost everything a person might need could be found right on Main Street--two livery stables, a boarding house, three general merchandising stores, four saloons, one meat market, and two hotels, including the original Gardnerville Hotel that had started it all.

Gardnerville's emergence as an important social and commercial center was aided by the formation of the Valhalla Society in 1885. The purpose of the Valhalla Society was to provide information to immigrants, mainly those of Dutch descent. Gardnerville also

served as a feed stop for the 24-horse freight teams that regularly traveled between Carson City and Bodie--in other words, it was the 19th century equivalent of a filling station.

Today Gardnerville remains an active town. With five parks, three schools and an enviable location just minutes from Lake Tahoe, Gardnerville offers a wonderful quality of life. It has kept pace with progress, but it maintains the feel of a one-stop town, where a person feels at home even if they are just passing through.

As the people of Gardnerville prepare to celebrate their town's 125th birthday, in between baking cakes, decorating Main Street and organizing the numerous events that are planned, I hope they pause for a moment to remember that their beautiful city was started on just 7 acres of land. Today Gardnerville has outgrown that original tract, and it continues to fulfill Mr. Gilman's dream.

Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate a remarkable woman and the exceptional life she led.

The great Nevadan I wish to honor is Sarah Winnemucca. Born in 1844 as the granddaughter of the great Chief Truckee and the daughter of Chief Winnemucca, Sarah lived during a time of enormous change for the United States, the American West, and especially for the Paiute Nation.

Originally known as Thocmetony, meaning ``shell flower,'' Sarah lived her life as an advocate for the Paiute people. She was also a committed educator. Today one of the most important artifacts we have of Sarah's life is her autobiography, ``Life Among the Piutes.'' The first book published by a Native American woman, Sarah's writings convey a powerful account of life in the West from the perspective of Native Americans.

For many years Sarah lived with her tribe and witnessed the displacement that was forced on the Nevada Paiute. While some were confined to the Pyramid Lake Reservation in western Nevada, others were moved to the Malheur Reservation in Oregon, and still others were exiled to a reservation near Yakima, WA.

Seeking redress for the many hardships that her people suffered, in 1880 Sarah made the long trip to Washington, DC, where she was given an audience with Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz and President Rutherford B. Hayes.

While that meeting and subsequent negotiations brought no substantive improvements for the Paiutes, Sarah remained committed to her work. Over the next decade she gave more than 300 public speeches to highlight the plight of the Paiute Nation. Sarah eventually returned to Nevada where she established a school for Native Americans near Lovelock.

Through all the challenges she faced, Sarah Winnemucca remained stubbornly committed to the promotion of equality for all Americans. She demanded respect for Native Americans in a time when that idea was nothing short of revolutionary.

For these reasons, I am honored to announce that in 2005 the State of Nevada will dedicate a statue of Sarah Winnemucca here in the U.S. Capitol. More than 100 years after her passing, Sarah Winnemucca will join 99 other great Americans whose likenesses stand proudly in the Old Chamber of the House of Representatives, or as we call it today, Statuary Hall.

As a pioneer and a tremendous leader in her own right, it is fitting that Sarah Winnemucca take her place next to the likes of George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, John Winthrop, Sacajawea and Nevada Senator Patrick McCarran.

In addition to commemorating the life of Sarah Winnemucca, I would like to acknowledge Sara Jones, the administrator of the Nevada State Library and Archives, for her enthusiasm and commitment to this effort. Additionally, I extend my sincere thanks to former assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Nevada First Lady Dema Guinn, Carrie Townley Porter, Debbie Allen, Richard Hooker, Mary Lee Fulkerson, Steven High, Mary Anne Convis, and Sally Zanjani, who all have worked hard to bring this project to fruition. The support of the Nevada Women's History Project and the Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs was also essential to this effort.

Mr. President, if the distinguished majority leader will yield for a brief comment, we recognize, as has been stated by this Senator and other Senators on this side of the aisle, this is a bill which we have been on for 3 days. As the distinguished majority leader has stated, he wants Members to reconsider having cast their vote against cloture. We would also ask that

the majority through the distinguished majority leader reconsider allowing us to have a vote on the overtime matter. As I have stated, we can dispose of that with 10 minutes of debate on our side. There are some other amendments. We had 75. But we have told managers of the bill if we can work that down significantly, we would do that with each amendment; we could have a short time agreement. And we think we can dispose of this bill very quickly, which I hope through the intercession of the distinguished majority leader we can do.

I would simply refer to the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley. This is a quote from him where he said:

I prefer to vote on things up or down and move on. My

feeling is sometime we have to face this issue. So we might

as well face it now.

Added Grassley:

If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had his druthers, it

might be to give Democrats a straight vote on the amendment

to allow the corporate tax bill to proceed.

I think Senator Grassley, who is the sage farmer of the Senate, speaks as always with a lot of wisdom. I think those two sentences speak volumes. We need to vote on overtime and move on to this most important tax bill.

Mr. President, last night there was an exchange between the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and myself, pleasant as it always is between the two of us, regarding the overtime vote that we believe is essential to moving forward on this legislation that will be before the Senate at 11 o'clock today. My friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, said we had voted on this once before.

I wanted to make sure what the facts were. There is no question that I was right. We did vote on it once before. We voted on it in the Senate and it passed by a nice margin. It was voted on in the House and passed by a nice margin. It was on the Omnibus appropriations bill.

Magically, when it came back after the conference, it was stricken, even though it had passed both Houses of the legislature by a large margin.

The point is, having had a vote on the overtime bill should not take away the fact that it was stripped in conference with Democrats not participating in the conference. We believe that overtime is important.

On my trip home last week, I visited fire stations and police stations. The first thing they talk about is: What is happening to our overtime? People in America are concerned by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. That is why we demand a vote on overtime.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the time Senator Daschle used was under leader's time. We have some speakers on our side. We know you have speakers on your side. I think it is pretty clear, based on the conversation on the floor last evening and today between Senator McConnell and this Senator, that not much is going to happen on the bill today.

I ask if the Senator from Alaska wishes to have morning business in addition to what is now left? We would be happy to agree to that. We have three Senators on our side who wish to speak in morning business.

I am confident that if there is some problem at a subsequent time we will be happy to take that time away, because I am confident it would not be. So I ask there be--let's make it 11:15, an extra 2 minutes, and the time be equally divided?

If the Senator would just yield for one other unanimous consent request, on our side we have three speakers. We have Senators Schumer, Dorgan, and Carper on our side--I am sorry, Senators Schumer, Wyden, Dorgan--and Senator Carper also wishes to speak. I ask the time be equally divided among those four Senators on our side, in the order I have just announced.

Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent agreement that has been made, an order dividing the time on the Democratic side. Senator Carper is not going to come, so that being the case, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be given 10 minutes, Senator Wyden be given 10 minutes, and Senator Dorgan be given 10 minutes--in that order, changing the order now in effect.

Senator Schumer is on his way.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the matter before the Senate is what?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, wishes to speak for 15 minutes. I ask following that, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last week, I was in Nevada and I visited a number of police stations and fire stations. Let me direct our attention to the Henderson Police Department that I met with. The chief, the deputy chief, and a number of police officers were there. It was time for a shift change. A number of hard-working police officers were there. I expected them to talk about homeland security and their obligations as first responders. They wanted to talk about that, of course, about the unfunded mandate passed on to police departments in Nevada and all over the country. Henderson, NV, is the second largest city in Nevada. By most standards, it is not really large--about 250,000 people. It is a suburb of Las Vegas, where I went to high school.

They didn't want to talk about homeland security and first responders initially; they wanted to know what is happening to their overtime. That is what is on the minds of firefighters and police officers all over America. As has been established on the Senate floor in the last 2 days during the pendency of the Harkin amendment and efforts to deprive us of a vote on that, people in our country are very concerned about what this administration is doing regarding overtime. This affects about 8 million working men and women in this country. Specifically, it is directed to police officers, who I talked about; firefighters, who I have talked about; and nurses.

A group of young people visited me today in my office upstairs. They were here representing a group of young Jewish leaders from Las Vegas. I asked them what they were going to do and what they were doing. One young lady said she was a student studying to be a nurse. She had less than 2 years to go to complete her degree. I didn't say anything, but what I wanted to say is, Do you know what has happened with this administration? They are trying to take away your overtime. They are trying to make it so that if you are working in a hospital and there is work that needs to be done, you can do it, but you won't get paid for it. I didn't say that to her, but that is what I felt like saying.

Being a chef now is very in vogue. When I was younger, to have somebody say they were going to go to school to be a cook, you didn't hear much about that. Now there are a lot of young men and women who go to school to learn to be a chef. That is the thing to do; it is one of the things to do. They work very hard. People don't realize how hard they work. As their jobs require, especially when big things are going on in the restaurants and they get a convention or some kind of a wedding or anniversary, they are required, because they have a lot of work to do, to work more than 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. Under the proposal we have from the President, they won't be able to get their overtime. Anyone making more than $22,000 a year is, in effect, prevented from getting overtime.

Clerical workers: Why would you want to take the ability of somebody required by virtue of their work to put in extra time and not be paid for it?

Mr. President, the Fair Labor Standards Act, more than 50 years ago, said if a person works more than 8 hours a day, more than 40 hours a week, except under contractor situations, and some other exemptions-- few in number--they are to be paid extra, time and a half, and for working holidays, double time, meaning they work 1 day and get paid as if they worked 2.

Physical therapists, reporters--that is a strange way to punish reporters, but I guess you can do it that way. If you are in the middle of something big, you can just say ``stop'' because you are not going to get paid.

Paralegals, dental hygienists, graphic artists, bookkeepers, lab technicians, and social workers--these are the people included in the 8 million Americans who would lose overtime protection under the proposal of President Bush. That is a shame. It is too bad and it is not fair.

When these police officers and firefighters ask me about overtime-- when you go to these kinds of meetings, you don't want to be partisan. That takes away the purpose of your being there. What was I to say? I could only respond that our President has suggested--I should not say suggested--he has directed this. There is now, of course, a rule in effect, which is working its way through the process, to take away the ability of people who make more than $21,000 a year to make overtime pay. I told them that.

They are worried about their overtime pay. Families depend on overtime. It is not just the firefighters I saw in Reno or the police officers I met at Henderson whom I spoke about. It is families all over the country who depend on overtime.

As I have indicated, it is not only the firefighters, not only the police officers, nurses, flight attendants, preschool teachers, cooks, secretaries, fast-food shift managers, but 8 million others will lose their right to overtime pay under the new rules the administration wants to adopt.

We hear speeches on this floor, we hear speeches at high school graduations, we hear lectures given to us from the time we are kids until the time we pass on that this country is built upon hard work, that hard work has enabled generations of Americans to own a home, buy a car, do things to make a stronger community and give their children a good education. They say if one works hard in America, that is all it takes.

Americans have been willing to work hard and reach their goals. We are working longer now than we ever have before. Almost one-third of the labor force in our country regularly works longer than a 40-hour week. Twenty percent, 2 out of every 10 workers in America, work up to 50 hours a week. The Fair Labor Standards Act recognized employers would take advantage of employees if they were not required to pay overtime. That is why the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed.

The principle of overtime pay for those who work more than 40 hours a week was part of that act. It was the main purpose of that act. This legislation recognized hard work rewarded those who worked the hardest. Families who work hard depend on overtime pay. In fact, families that work overtime earn 25 percent of their pay in overtime. The administration's proposal would cut their pay by 25 percent.

It would also mean fewer jobs. Why? Of course it would be fewer jobs, because why would an employer bother hiring somebody else when they can just have whoever is working--a nurse, a clerical worker, a reporter, a graphic artist, a social worker--why hire another one? Just make them work more hours. They may not have to work a full shift, just have them work 2 or 3 hours a day. That way they will not have to hire a new person.

Of course, it would mean fewer jobs because companies would simply force their employees to work longer hours instead of hiring new workers. In the current economic condition, when millions of Americans are out of work during this administration, the last 3 years, there have been almost 3 million jobs lost. It does not make sense to do something that will stifle the creation of new jobs when in the private sector we have already lost almost 3 million jobs. Even for the workers who would still qualify for overtime, this is a bad rule, because some by contract would allow people to be paid overtime. Why? Because big companies would force overtime-exempt workers to put in longer hours and cut the hours of those qualified for overtime.

This rule is bad for so many reasons. It punishes working families by cutting their pay. It prevents the creation of new jobs and dishonors hard work, which is one of the things I have talked about, one of those things that has made this country great. Well, these are strong, convincing arguments, not because I made them, but because they are common sense. That is what has been said on this floor during the last 2 days.

Last night, I asked, why are my colleagues going to try to invoke cloture? I heard they were going to file a petition for cloture. I asked that question when we were doing our closing, when the distinguished majority whip said he was sending a petition to the desk to invoke cloture. I asked, why would he do that?

I cannot understand why he would do that. I asked why, because the House overwhelmingly said they wanted to have this overtime rule rescinded, and

in the Senate we voted to rescind this rule.

My distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, said we voted on it once. Why do we need to vote on it again?

Let me show my colleagues what we are talking about. The majorities in the Senate and in the House voted against the Bush overtime proposal on September 10 of last year. Yes, we had a vote on it once before. My distinguished friend is right, September, October, November, December, January, February, March--yes, we had one. I counted it on my fingers. It was more than 6 months ago when we had a vote in the Senate, 54 to 45. It did not go party-line votes, but it was close. There were some courageous Republicans who voted against the party line, one of whom is sitting in the chair. They voted against this issue, and it passed.

Not long after that, less than a month after that, the House, by a party-line vote said, no, we do not want to rescind it, they knew they were wrong because of what I have said today, that it punishes working families, it prevents the creation of new jobs, it dishonors hard work, and they recognized that. So by a vote of 221 to 203, the House voted to have the instruction go to the conferees to take what happened in the Senate and rescind what the President had done.

In the middle of the night, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, without a single Democrat being present, took the Harkin- Kennedy amendment--that is this amendment right here, passed by a vote of 54 to 45--out of the omnibus bill. It comes to the floor and it is not in the bill. Surprise, surprise. Even though it passed, they took it out.

Yes, my friend from Kentucky is right; we had a vote on it over 6 months ago, and by some phantom-like work in the middle of the night, contrary to what I think are rules of fairness, and just brute power, they stripped this from the bill.

By recorded votes, the House and the Senate said they wanted this rule changed, but in spite of our constitutional framework, in spite of the rules we have in the Senate and House and the rules that work to keep the two bodies working together, they were abrogated and we came up with this strange situation.

No, the conferees did not follow these heavy votes. When this bill was rolled into the omnibus, the conference committee struck it. I repeat, the conference committee, which excluded Democrats, ignored the votes of Congress and in doing so ignored the voice of the American people.

I respect the opinions and views of every Member of the Senate, whether or not I agree with those views, because I know every Senator was elected by the citizens of their State. Every Member's opinion carries weight with me because I believe every person in America has a right to be heard. In order for the people to be heard, the votes of those who represent them must count for something in Congress. Unfortunately, the conference committee that stripped Senator Harkin's overtime amendment out of the Omnibus appropriations bill said our votes do not count; the voice of the people does not count; the voice of the people does not matter. Meeting behind closed doors, the committee disregarded the will of Congress and ignored the voice of the American people. So we have to have another vote on this.

We have had those on the other side of the aisle say this is an important bill. Why are we doing this?

Senator Harkin has said he would take a time agreement. What does this mean? We have unlimited debate in the Senate. I think Senator Harkin would take 15 minutes, give the majority 15 minutes, and then vote, an up-or-down vote on whether we want to have a rule in the United States that police officers, nurses, cooks, clerical workers, firefighters, physical therapists, reporters, paralegals, dental hygienists, graphic artists, bookkeepers, lab technicians, and social workers and on and on--8 million people are not going to be able to get overtime. I want a vote here. We want a vote. We are entitled to a vote. The only vote we had, the voice of the people, was stricken in the middle of the night. If this is an important bill, can't we afford 15 minutes to vote on this amendment?

The reason they don't want a vote on this amendment is because they know this amendment of Senator Harkin will pass and the Secretary of Labor will have to issue new directions.

The purpose of the underlying amendment is to protect the jobs of American workers. It is a measure that protects the overtime pay of 8 million people, 8 million people who have families. Remember, 20 percent of these people work up to 50 hours a week; 25 percent of them depend on this overtime pay to make car payments, house payments, furniture payments, to send their kids to school. The voices of the American people are clear, just as the voices of the police officers and firefighters I met in Nevada last week were clear. They want us to protect the overtime pay their families depend on. We have a duty as legislators, national legislators, to stand and speak for the people we represent.

This bill, which is an important tax bill, the majority is willing to take down. The majority is willing to take down this important tax bill that we support on our side. They are willing to take it down, to have it go into limbo as so many other things do, like the gun legislation, like other bills. We can't seem to have closure on much of anything around here because the majority is unwilling to take tough votes. If it is something they disagree with, procedurally they just block us from voting on it.

This matter, that is, overtime pay for 8 million people, is going to be something we are going to vote on. The responsibility for this bill being taken down is not at the hands of the Democrats. It is at the hands of the majority party, the Republican Party, which refuses to have a vote on repealing a decision made by the President of the United States that takes away overtime pay for people who make more than $22,000 a year, as I have listed on this chart. It is wrong.

I told people twice yesterday that seeking to do away with this amendment by a parliamentary maneuver is not going to accomplish anything. We are wasting time. I can just see it now. The majority leader is going to come here and say we don't have time to do these important pieces of legislation; we are so busy.

We are busy wasting time. That is what we are doing. We wasted yesterday. We wasted all day today. We are having a cloture vote tomorrow. Cloture will be defeated. But to even show the complicity of what is happening here by my friends on the other side of the aisle, they were unwilling--they didn't have the nerve to file cloture on the underlying bill. Why? Because it would show directly what they were doing with the Harkin amendment. So they have developed this very interesting procedure where they have a motion here to recommit. The only reason they are doing it this way is so they do not have a direct attack on the FSC/ETI bill, the underlying bill here, and the Harkin amendment. They are going around that and saying we have this motion to recommit. If cloture is invoked, the bill comes back in its regular form.

Say whatever you want to say in however many ways you want to say it, this is an attempt to stop Senator Harkin from having a vote on this overtime issue. It is wrong. No matter how many times people say we are going to be able to vote on it some other time, the record is replete with our cooperating in the first few months of this legislative session.

We have said to Senator Harkin on many occasions, Let us go ahead and do this legislation. Let us work on this legislation. You can offer it on the next piece of legislation. And then the next piece of legislation.

We are at the end of the rope. The American people will no longer let us avoid this issue. This is an issue that must be addressed and we are going to address the issue because it is the right thing to do. Eight million Americans are depending on us, and $22,000--it is as if somebody who makes $22,000 a year and then gets overtime pay is committing some type of crime. Is that ruining our country? As I established here statistically, no, it is not. It is good for our country. Overtime pay creates more jobs. It rewards hard work. It allows people to maintain their standard of living--which isn't very high. Remember the starting point is $22,000 a year.

I hope in the days and weeks to come and the few months we have left in this

legislative session, where we have 13 appropriations bills to pass and many other items, people remember the wasted time this week. All we want is a simple vote on overtime. Fifteen minutes of debate and vote. They will not let us do that because they know it would show the President of the United States is wrong, wrong in trying to take away overtime pay from people who make $22,000 a year or more. It is wrong.

They will not let us vote on this. We are going to continue coming back as often as we have the opportunity. They will not be able to escape this. I feel really bad about this bill, which is important to our country. The majority is willing to take down a bill that is important to the competitive nature of our country. They are willing to take this bill down because they don't want a vote on overtime pay because it makes the President look bad. I should tell them the President looks bad anyway on this issue. They are not going to take away the damage done here. Why not let us vote and get rid of that ridiculous rule he has issued and get back to allowing people to be rewarded for working hard and creating new jobs? It is an issue we need, to make sure people are honored for hard work, rewarded for hard work, not punished.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the junior Senator from Arizona is someone for whom I have the highest regard. He is articulate. He always makes a good presentation. I am glad he is a neighbor of the great State of Nevada.

But I have to say the one question he didn't answer is, Why don't we just vote on this? Why don't we just have a vote on this overtime issue? We have agreed to have Senator Harkin spend 15 or 20 minutes summarizing his arguments, the majority can take whatever time they believe appropriate, and then we can vote on this issue and move on to this most important underlying bill.

My friend from Arizona, who is the first person who has come to try to defend the overtime proposal of the President, says the study is faulty, that it is really not 8 million people, and some are part-time.

Let's say it is faulty, which I don't think it is, but let's say it is only 6 million people.

I would also say, of course, more people would qualify for overtime pay because whatever they are doing is allowing people who now are not entitled to overtime pay, people who really don't make much money--we would allow them to have overtime pay under the proposed rule.

Let them do it. Let them have overtime. No one is trying to stop them from having overtime. What we criticize is why would we want to make one group of workers disadvantaged to try to advantage another group of workers? Let's let them all be entitled to overtime, time and a half. That seems to be the fair thing to do. I see nothing wrong with giving people who are not making much money now the ability to get overtime. We support that. But why disadvantage others?

Of course, we are told it is in the definition of ``white collar.'' Can you imagine the litigation and problems it is going to cause in the workforce--who is a chef, who is a cook, who is a physical therapist?

This is an issue that is important to millions and millions of working men and women in this country. We believe the rule is not right for the American people. We believe people should be rewarded for hard work. We believe we should create more jobs, not take away jobs. This proposal will not reward hard work, and it will take away people's honest efforts to be rewarded for hard work.

We are willing to vote, as had been done last September when we voted in this body by a large margin to rescind the rule. The House of Representatives, by more than 220 Members, said they wanted to do what the Senate did, the same thing. We voted on it twice. It was taken out in the middle of the night in a secret conference, with no Democrats present. Why can't we vote on it again? We believe that is what we should do. Let's vote on whether the President and his people are right or wrong.

We are willing to debate this issue in public, not secretly. We are willing to state our position and simply go forward as the Senate and the House have already spoken and get rid of this rule, which is unfair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I think this is tremendous progress. I commend the two managers of the bill. They do work well together, as everyone knows. But I have heard--and I certainly do not know if this is valid or not--there is going to be an effort made later tonight to try to invoke cloture on this bill. I want everyone within the sound of my voice to know we have spent time here this afternoon with our manager, and we have indicated that we believe we could whittle down significantly the number of amendments that are pending on this very important piece of legislation.

The amendment Senator Harkin is going to offer is his amendment. We have worked with the majority on other occasions to have him not offer this amendment in an effort to get important legislation passed. We can no longer do that. It is long overdue that the Senate speaks on this issue. I can say, as I have indicated, to anyone listening, if there is an attempt to invoke cloture on this legislation without an up-or-down vote on the overtime amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, there are no guarantees, but I think it is going to be extremely difficult to have cloture invoked on this bill.

We want an up-or-down vote on this overtime amendment. If there are efforts made later tonight to file a motion to invoke cloture, I think the majority leader should know that I think it is extremely doubtful that he would get cloture on this bill.

Senator Harkin has been talking about offering this amendment on several occasions, and we are going to go forward. As I said, I want the majority leader to know that I think it would be extremely doubtful, without an up-or-down vote on overtime, that he would be able to get cloture on this bill. I could be wrong, but I really kind of doubt it.

I also want everyone to understand that the reason for taking this bill down is the inability of the minority to get a vote on this overtime amendment. It seems somewhat foolish to pull down this very important bill for this amendment. I cannot imagine why the other side won't let us vote. It has passed before. It will pass again. The overtime amendment will pass.

So having said that, I withdraw my reservation.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, on this side we believe we are entitled to an up-or-down vote regarding the most important issue facing many Americans; that is, overtime. I just returned from our recess when I met with the fire and police personnel in the State of Nevada. They all brought this up. We know there is an effort not to have a vote, the reason being this amendment will pass. When the Harkin amendment is offered and there is a vote on it, it will pass. The majority doesn't want to vote on this because it is embarrassing to the President who has no support from the American people on this overtime issue.

Also, we have other amendments--not many but a few amendments--one dealing with China. Senator Schumer has wanted to offer an amendment for a long time on this bill dealing with international trade, among other things.

Also, there is an amendment my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, is going to speak on dealing with a tax credit for insurance premiums and medical malpractice. I support my friend from Illinois on this issue. It would not solve the medical malpractice issue, but it is something the physicians in this country approved, and it is the right thing to do. It would help alleviate some of the medical malpractice pressure we have around the country.

I say to my friend through the Chair, I can't guarantee cloture will not be invoked, but I think it is very doubtful cloture will be invoked.

I want the Record to reflect that on this side we are not trying to amend this bill to death. We have a handful of amendments, and we will agree to a list of finite amendments. That has been explained to the two managers.

The way things are headed, this bill is going to go down, and it is not good for the country.

No objection.

Mr. President, if my friend will allow me to make one brief statement, we understand the importance of the underlying bill. That is the reason we have agreed to have a list of finite amendments. It is not often we have tax bills come across the floor. This is a tax bill. We have been told on many occasions: do the overtime vote later. This bill is important. As I explained earlier today, the Senator from Iowa has withheld on a number of important pieces of legislation in an effort to move them through the Senate. But that time has come to an end. He is not agreeable to doing it at a later time anymore. We are going to have a vote on this legislation.

If this legislation is important to the administration--which I am hopeful and confident it is--we should have a vote on this overtime issue.

I repeat: The reason the administration doesn't want a vote on this overtime issue is it will pass. There is no question about it. Members in the majority and virtually everyone in the minority will vote for this most important amendment.

I hope this legislation is allowed to go forward. If it isn't, it will be directed back to the President of the United States for doing what he has done affecting the rights of millions of Americans, which is the overtime issue.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.