Senate Blocks Overtime Revamp
54 to 45 Vote Is Rare Victory for Democrats, Labor

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 11, 2003; Page A01

The Senate, defying a White House veto threat, voted yesterday to block the Bush administration from issuing new overtime pay rules that Democrats and their labor allies said could result in a loss of income to millions of American workers.

The planned changes would expand overtime protections for low-wage workers but make it easier for employers to exempt many better-paid workers. The proposal approved by the Senate would allow the expansion but not the curtailment of overtime coverage.

The 54 to 45 vote in favor of the proposal amounted to a rare victory for Democrats and organized labor in the Republican-controlled Congress, even though the struggle's final outcome remains in doubt.

The votes appeared to signal a growing willingness on the part of both GOP-run chambers to break with the administration on selected issues, especially those that touch people personally and are likely to resonate in next year's congressional elections. They also appeared likely to embolden Democratic challenges to the administration.

The Senate vote came a day after the House approved a larger pay raise than President Bush wanted for federal civilian workers and voted to derail his plan to provide more private-sector competition for federal work. And a few hours after the Senate voted on the overtime issue, it approved another Democratic amendment barring the administration from implementing the proposed changes in student aid rules that Democrats said would have made thousands of college students ineligible for financial assistance.

The overtime vote is "perhaps the most important victory that we have had for working families in some time," Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said.

Daschle acknowledged that obstacles remain, including Bush's veto threat. "So our victory today is only the first step," he said. But he and other Democrats vowed to continue the fight, even if it means trying to rescind the overtime rules should the Labor Department put them into effect. "We're in this for the long haul," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said.

After the vote, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao issued a statement describing her department's proposed changes as "long overdue" and pledging to "continue our efforts to strengthen overtime protections for workers."

The proposed new Labor Department rules would revamp the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to redefine eligibility for overtime pay, which is paid at the rate of time-and-a-half after a 40-hour workweek. Under the department's proposal, employers could more easily reclassify workers into the exempt categories as administrators, professionals or executives. Employees earning more than $65,000 a year could be denied overtime pay if they perform any of the exempted duties.

The administration estimates that 644,000 employees could lose overtime protection, but Democrats, citing labor and other studies, say the figure is closer to 8 million -- a disagreement that arises in part from conflicting interpretations of the proposed rules. The administration says 1.3 million low-wage workers would be made eligible for overtime, but Democrats contend that many of them are already covered.

The Senate Democrats' victory on the overtime issue was assured when six GOP moderates joined all Democrats except Zell Miller (Ga.) in voting to add the pay provision to a $138 billion spending bill for health, education and labor programs.

The six Republicans were Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.), Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Ted Stevens (Alaska) and Arlen Specter (Pa.). Stevens is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Specter heads the subcommittee with jurisdiction over labor spending. Campbell, Murkowski and Specter will be running for reelection next year and face potentially serious challenges.

The House earlier this summer narrowly rejected a proposal to bar the administration from reducing eligibility for overtime. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who led yesterday's fight to block the proposed overtime rules, said he sees "a good chance" the House will go along with the Senate in negotiating the spending bill's final version.

An aide to Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who helped lead the Democrats' fight in the House, said Democrats will try to put the House on record as being in favor of the Senate position.

But other hurdles remain. The White House last week said Bush's top advisers would recommend a veto of the spending bill if the overtime provision is included, and it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to override a veto.

Yesterday's vote followed a vigorous lobbying war between business and union interests. The administration and its business allies said overtime rules needed to be updated in line with changing work patterns. But Democrats and union leaders said the administration plan would force people to work longer hours for less pay at a time of economic stress for many families.

In an attempt to head off the administration defeat, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the committee that handles labor legislation, said the vote was premature because the Labor Department has not finished drafting the rules. "For the Congress to step forward at this time is wrong," he said.