Investment in America Act of 2003

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself such time as I may consume from the time under the control of the Democratic side.

Let me say to those who may be listening in the offices of Members who want to come over and wish to be heard on this matter, I will be prepared to yield some time. I am here to discuss an amendment that will come up after 3:30. I thought I would move things along while we have this dead time, while we are waiting for this vote to occur, to discuss upcoming amendments and encourage those who may want to participate in some of those debates to come to the floor and share some of their thoughts.

I will be offering at the appropriate time, sometime after 3:30, an amendment that deals with the outsourcing of jobs. I note the presence of the Presiding Officer who comes from the same region of the country I do. We have all been feeling it in our States, not just in the Northeast, but across the country, the tremendous pinch that is occurring as a result of job loss and the growing number of jobs that are being outsourced. I am told by those who cover these issues that the coalition opposed to any legislative efforts to stop outsourcing is coming up with some new language. They don't like the word, ``outsourcing,'' so they are calling it worldwide sourcing, to take some of the sting out of the language. They may succeed in taking the sting out of the language by changing the vocabulary, but you cannot take the sting out of finding out that your job has been lost and that others offshore are taking those jobs because it enhances the bottom line in a quarterly report someplace. We need to address that.

I fully understand that outsourcing to some degree is going to go on. I expect that to be the case. But I don't think the Federal Government ought to be subsidizing that effort. I am one who has believed in and supported free and fair trade agreements over the years. I take great pride in that. In a global economy, you have to do that. But I also understand if we don't have the services or provide the manufactured goods with which to trade globally because we have given up a significant part of our manufacturing base or given up a critical area of technology in the service areas, for instance, we are necessarily going to be great competitors in a global marketplace in the 21st century.

You may say we are nowhere near that yet. The rest of the world doesn't even come close to producing the quality and high value goods we do in the United States. They can't come close to providing the high technology we do.

I think we have all learned over the last number of years that technology and productivity is highly portable, and it is moving at warp speed. What was true a year ago, 5 years ago, certainly 10 years ago, is no longer the case. I suspect this rate of speed of change is going to continue to grow.

At this particular juncture, I think it is important that we speak to this issue and that we try to find some balance on how we maintain our global leadership role, continue to provide opportunities for American workers, while simultaneously not allowing the exportation of jobs overseas.

I was terribly disheartened to read a report, the Economic Report of the President, February 2004, just last month, this publication that comes out. It is designed to give an overall economic report of the Nation, with various suggestions and ideas. I am not making up these quotes from some news article or some demagogue or pundit out there when talking about these issues. These are actual conclusions reached by the top economic advisers to the President of the United States when it comes to the issue of manufacturing and outsourcing.

First on outsourcing, chapter 12, on page 229 of this economic report of President Bush and his economic team, it says:

When a good or a service is produced more cheaply abroad,

it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it

domestically.

I would suggest that is a conclusion with which some economists may agree. Some have drawn the conclusion that that is inherently a far better idea, just thinking in terms of quarters or yearly reports, I suppose, and the bottom line. That may be OK. But if you are worried about generational change, if you are worried about trying to establish a bedrock of job opportunities, stability, and security in the 21st century, then it absolutely makes no sense to export that job rather than to provide it domestically.

I note in this morning's Wall Street Journal--so you don't think these ideas are merely being spouted by a Democrat in disagreement with the President's economic report--a March 3, 2004, article, ``Lesson in India.'' I ask unanimous consent to print the full article in the Record.

This is a story written by Scott Thurm. It is about a company, ValiCert, that learned key roles must remain in the U.S. for outsourcing to work. And the thrust of the article is this company rushed, like everybody else. Forty percent of the top 1,000 companies in America are now outsourcing their jobs, sort of like chasing into Mexico back in the 1980s when the financial service sector thought that was the place to be, without much thought. Once these trends begin, they are sort of like sheep following one after another without much thought involved.

This company ValiCert went racing off to outsource its jobs, reduced its employment, saved a lot of money, according to the article, expected to save millions annually while cranking out new software for banks.

I am quoting from the article now:

When sales of their securities software slowed in 2001,

executives at ValiCert began laying off engineers in Silicon

Valley to hire replacements in India for $7,000 a year.

ValiCert expected to save millions while cranking out new

software for banks and insurers and government agencies.

Senior Vice President David Jevans recalls optimistic

predictions that the company would ``cut the budget by half

here and hire twice as many people there [in India].''

Colleagues would swap work across the globe every 12 hours,

helping ValiCert ``put more people on it and get it done

sooner,'' he says.

The reality was different. The Indian engineers, who knew

little about ValiCert's software or how it was used, omitted

features Americans considered intuitive. U.S. programmers,

accustomed to quick chats over cubicle walls, spent months

writing detailed instructions for overseas assignments,

delaying new products. Fear and distrust thrived, and

ValiCert's finances deteriorated and co-workers, 14 time

zones apart, traded curt e-mails. In the fall of 2002,

executives brought back to the U.S. a key project that had

been assigned to India, irritating some Indian employees.

``At times we were thinking, what have we done here?'' . .

.

The article goes on; I won't read all of it; the point being sort of buyer beware. This notion that you might be hiring people for a fraction of what it would cost to hire someone in the Silicon Valley and it is going to allow you to make millions because of laid-off American workers and you hire someone 8 or 10 time zones away, has been, certainly in the case of this particular company, proven to be untrue.

So to the point that when a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to provide it domestically, I would suggest that the people who wrote the economic report for the President may want to talk to the people at ValiCert. I don't suspect that is one company. I suspect that is true of many companies. So it is not Biblical.

I agree that in certain cases you will make a lot more money by firing people in the United States and getting rid of them. Why should you worry about that? Your job is to provide a bottom line. That is your job.

My job is a little different than your job. My job, as a Senator, is to not only watch out for you and your company, to make sure you live in an environment where you can make a profit, I have an obligation to those people who work for you as well. I didn't get elected to the Senate just to guarantee you a bottom line. My job is setting public policy, not quarter by quarter, not just bottom line and yearly report to yearly report, but longer than that. That is what we are supposed to do in a Chamber such as this, to think a little longer, to worry about this country, those who are the children of the 21st century and what kind of a Nation are they going to inherit after you and I have left. They are going to ask us about what we did at the beginning of the 21st century when we saw the trend lines reaching out to cause literally millions of people to lose their jobs.

One report indicates that in the next 10 years or so we may lose as many as 4 million jobs, a loss of $140 billion in wages, just by outsourcing alone.

That number may be low, according to those who have done this. I will get to the charts in a minute and identify the source of that. I will get to the amendment at an appropriate time and talk about the specifics of it. I know I am going to hear that your amendment goes too far, it is too heavyhanded, because I am going to suggest that maybe the use of Federal tax dollars--we ought to have second thoughts about subsidizing this rushing to go overseas to outsource. I cannot stop a private company with its own dollars deciding to do that. You can make it less of an attractive thing through the Tax Code or more attractive for people to stay here, but I certainly cannot stop you from doing it.

But I ought to be able to say something about how American taxpayer money is being used. If their money is being used to cause somebody to lose their job and to hire someone for the attraction of the salary someplace else, maybe taxpayers have a right to be heard on this issue. This amendment says Federal tax, for the purpose of outsourcing--with the exceptions of national security and other provisional

waivers, which I will explain--ought not to be something we are supporting. If you want to do it as a private company, that is your business. I don't think you ought to necessarily have a right to Uncle Sam's taxpayer money to do that at the expense of critical jobs that are important for this Nation's future.

I will go on in this economic report because I may not have time, when we get to the amendment, to talk about it. I cited chapter 12, page 229, where you have this emphatic statement that it automatically, in every case, as I read this, makes more sense to import. They don't talk about outsourcing. They act as if it were a good or a service. I know economists like to suggest that is all it is. But I think people in Ohio, Connecticut, or Pennsylvania are more than a good or a service. They may have a family, a home mortgage they are trying to pay, and they may have other obligations; and they worry about their future retirement and health care. So to have the cold eye of an economist saying a person out there who has a job in America may find it gone because the quarterly report would look a lot better if we can hire that person for $7,000 a year rather than paying you $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, or $70,000 a year, and you are really nothing more than a good or a service--I think many of us here believe otherwise.

These are not just goods or services; these are human beings who help to strengthen this country, provide us the kinds of liberties and opportunities we enjoy as Americans. I think it is about time we stood up for them and what their interests may be--not at the expense of others, but to merely strike a balance. This is not about being against trade, being an isolationist at all. It is merely saying strike some balance before this sort of giddy trend, where company after company is sort of playing follow the leader and runs amuck as they send these jobs willy-nilly offshore; we ought to say let's look at what we are doing and at what ultimate price we may pay.

The second point I want to make out of this economic report is a reference with regard to what is manufacturing. I don't have the page number, unfortunately, on this, but I will get it before I finish my remarks. It is a highlighted box, and the title of the box that is framed out here is ``What Is Manufacturing?'' This economic report says the definition of a manufactured product, however, is not straightforward. When a fast food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a service or manufacturing a product? You may say that is only a question. You know, if this is your question and the example you would cite in your question, what are you thinking of? Do you think it is a debatable item as to whether or not producing a hamburger or a hot dog involves manufacturing? This is not some op-ed piece; this is the official economic report of this administration's economic policy. In bold print in this economic report they suggest there is a legitimate question over whether or not working at McDonald's or Burger King flipping hamburgers ought to be classified as a manufacturing job. If you don't think we are in trouble on these issues, just read that.

That is an example of the kind of terribly naive at best, at worst rather callous, thinking when it comes to talking about the importance of manufacturing. I don't belittle a job somebody holds down working in a fast food restaurant. For many people out there, that is the only job they can get to provide for themselves and their families. They would be the first to tell you that they hardly think of themselves as being in the manufacturing business. Yet, in the administration's official report, it raises the question of whether or not it is a manufacturing job. At least this Member gets a sense they are lost on this issue, when they raise questions as foolish as that.

Let me go to some of these charts, if I may. Let me just give you a suggestion of what is happening on the issue of manufacturing. The first chart I raise here points to the fact that in the last 36 months, we have now lost in the United States of America 2.8 million manufacturing jobs--since January 2001, up until now, the winter of 2004. That is 2.8 million manufacturing jobs that have gone in this country. I believe that is the single largest loss of manufacturing jobs that has occurred since the Great Depression. I understand transitions in the economy. Things happen and move in different directions. But I don't think you can wash your hands of this and say I am sorry, but that is the trend line and that is the way life is--sort of a laissez-faire approach.

We ought to analyze why things are happening, where are the jobs going, and what are the implications for our country. I understand where the CEO of a company is coming from, and the board of directors or the administration of a company. Their concern is the bottom line and whether you have a profit to show the next quarter. I think Members of Congress ought to have a different set of questions from whether the quarterly report is all right--whether this trend line is going to continue, and what it means to our country. If this trend line continues and we end up losing a manufacturing sector, we will deeply regret it.

I come from a State where I have 5,400 small manufacturers--or I did--in Connecticut. Most of them are small operators, with 5, 10, 15 people, third and fourth generation, producing not just flowers or some other item but, rather, significant products, many of which are used in the aircraft engine industry of my State, the manufacture of the sophisticated submarines we produce in Connecticut, or other high value products. These manufacturers employ highly skilled people, producing very valuable pieces of equipment used in some of our most sophisticated defense and nondefense products. So when I see these jobs and these businesses going, I have to be reminded that we are not going to create this overnight. You don't reconstitute the manufacturing base overnight. Again, I accept we have to make changes and you cannot say we are going to stop this altogether. But I think we have an obligation to express our concerns and worries about where we are headed, if we don't speak up and begin to address what this may mean for our country.

I am very worried about where these trend lines are going and what it may mean. If we end up continuing to lose jobs and manufacturers, I am concerned about what it may mean for our country if we end up having to import not only the jobs but the products themselves. That is another subject matter we can discuss later. We ought to worry about it as a country. If we don't do something soon in this area, that is going to be a continuing problem.

Let me point out further, to give some idea of where this is all happening, because it is not, as I mentioned, just my State of Connecticut. I mentioned my friend and colleague, the Presiding Officer, comes from New Hampshire up in our area. Just to highlight, his small New England State as well had some 22,300 jobs in the manufacturing sector lost in New Hampshire. In my State of Connecticut, it is about 32,800, about 10,000 more. That is in the last 36 months.

The trend lines are: Pennsylvania, 132,000; Ohio, 153,000 jobs have been lost; California, 272,000 manufacturing jobs lost; the State of Washington, 59,000; Oregon, 21,000; Texas, 149,000; Florida, 52,000; Georgia, 67,000; 142,000 jobs lost in the small State of North Carolina. This is all in the last 36 months.

I won't go through State after State, but you get some sense of this. It is not isolated to our corner in Connecticut, our small State, or the area of New England: New York State, 115,000 jobs; Michigan, 121,000; Wisconsin, 168,000; Illinois, 115,000 jobs. It is a worrisome trend. It is going on all across the country.

Again, we cannot say this is transitional, I am sorry, America, you are going to have to live with this. We ought to respond in a way that acknowledges this trend and tries to offer some ideas on how we might turn this trend around.

I will be glad to share with my colleagues, if they are curious about their States--I will not go through all 50 States, but there is not a State in the country that has not lost manufacturing jobs. Some have lost very few. The State of Wyoming lost 700 jobs; North Dakota, 500. That may be the lowest. Arizona, 34,000; New Mexico, 5,000; Colorado, 37,000; Kansas, 19,000; Arkansas, 29,000; Missouri, 38,000. These job losses have been very painful.

We talk about these jobs, and I think the tendency is to talk about them in

and of themselves, the job loss in any manufacturing sector in any given State. Each manufacturing job supports three other U.S. jobs. When we end up losing these jobs in the manufacturing sector, there is a ripple effect.

I won't dwell on this, but I think most of my colleagues are aware of this already. When someone loses their source of income in the area of manufacturing, the effects are felt in retail trade, personal/business services, and other manufacturing sectors with the inability of people to purchase goods. It is not as if these jobs exist or, when they are lost, the only people paying that price are the people who lost the job. In effect, it is being felt across the economy as well.

Mr. President, 14 million additional jobs are in danger.

Now we get into the question of jobs going offshore. I want to give some indication of what is happening. Let's get back to the outsourcing question. I mentioned manufacturing because a lot of these jobs are moving in that area.

We are told--and this is from Time magazine in their February 22 issue--that by the year 2015, more than 3 million American jobs are projected to be shipped overseas. We begin to see these trend lines. In 2005, it moves up to 588,000 which will be outsourced overseas. A few years later that number of jobs goes to 1.6 million, and projections are, with no effort being made to change this direction, the number gets up to 3 million. We are worried that if we do not speak up now and do something about this trend, we are going to find a continued erosion and continued loss of these jobs overseas.

Let me point out where they are coming from because this may be helpful as well to those interested in this subject matter. There are 14 million additional jobs in danger of being shipped overseas, as I mentioned. Where are they coming from? Office support areas, some 8 million jobs; business and financial support, 2 million; in the area of computer and math professionals, close to 3 million; in the area of paralegal, legal assistance, diagnostic support, medical transcriptions and the like, the numbers are in the thousands, to give some idea where we are going with all of this.

It isn't just these low-wage jobs that are going. They are also going in the more sophisticated areas as well. I mentioned earlier the story in the Wall Street Journal talking about ValiCert. They were talking about jobs in Silicon Valley. I guarantee you we are not talking about low-wage jobs at all. Those are jobs that are fairly well paid, and they are being lost. The trend lines are not good in just raw numbers, but also in sectors of the economy where these jobs are being lost.

At the appropriate time, I will offer a very specific amendment to address the issue. Very briefly, the amendment would do the following: It will restrict anyone from using Federal tax dollars to ship jobs offshore in three different ways. First, the Federal Government may not use Federal taxpayer dollars to procure goods or services to fulfill contracts that use overseas workers at the expense of American jobs.

Second, we tell State and local governments that any Federal dollars they receive in the form of a grant or in the form of an appropriation by formula or in any other way are not to be used to promote the loss of American jobs.

I point out that today 40 States outsource jobs. I am told that in the State of Minnesota, if you lose your job and you call up the unemployment office, you are going to talk to someone in India about what your rights and benefits are. I do not need to tell you the reaction of those people in that State who lost their job and they are talking to someone offshore to tell them what their benefits are.

The third way is, any agency seeking to privatize a government contract being paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars may not enter that contract if it again displaces American workers in favor of offshore workers.

In all these cases, we have exceptions on the grounds of national security and we allow the Governor or a Federal agency head to, in effect, waive these provisions if there is bona fide lack of goods and services in the United States. There is an escape clause here.

The obvious question arises, one, on national security, or, two, if no one is producing these goods and services here, what are we supposed to do? Rather than have the President have to waive the provision, we allow a Governor or head of an agency who would be in charge of this particular area to do so.

Let me take a few minutes to explain why this is a timely amendment and why it is deserving of our support. A gentleman by the name of John Bowman dedicated 25 years of his life to becoming an information technology professional, and he was very good at it, I might add. He, like hundreds of thousands of Americans, lost his job because of outsourcing. John looked around and realized what happened to him was not an isolated incident. It was part of a massive trend, and he decided to do something about it.

John will tell you he would be the last person in the world leading a grassroots organization that has practically become a grassroots movement in this country, not just in my State but all across the Nation. These are white-collar professional people, highly trained, who are watching their jobs lost day after day, flying offshore, being outsourced.

Fortunately, John is now being joined in this fight from people of all walks of life--labor unions, small business owners, Republicans and Democrats alike. I had a meeting in my State a few days ago on this issue. I had people in the same room that I could not put in the same town in Connecticut a year ago--people from the manufacturing sector, from labor unions, and the private sector coming together. They differ on a lot of issues, but on this one they are joined in common cause. They recognize what we are experiencing is different from what we experienced before.

Today, advances in technology and fewer trade restrictions have made it far easier to move goods, information, and jobs around the globe. Foreign countries are aggressively enticing American businesses with promises of lower wages, lax worker protections, and weak environmental laws. Countries such as India and China have figured out if you want to compete in the global marketplace in the best jobs, you need to invest in the best education and training of your workers. Rather than trying to find a meaningful way to address these new circumstances, this administration would rather pretend the world is still functioning as it always did and actually that our economy is on a path to recovery. As a matter of fact, our country is hemorrhaging jobs at an alarming rate. As I mentioned already, according to one estimate, by the year 2015, 3.3 million, close to 4 million jobs and $136 billion in annual wages will have moved offshore if we do not do something about it. Four hundred of the largest 1,000 companies are already sending jobs offshore, with more planning to do so every single day.

In a short time I will get a chance to go into this in more detail as to why I think this is an important amendment and why I hope my colleagues will support it.

I realize it is a loud shout at this moment, and I know others will argue that maybe it is louder than it need be, but I do not know any other way to express my deep concern about what is happening in my State and all across this country if we do not begin to say that at least with taxpayer money you are going to have to act differently. You may decide to do it on your own dime, but you are not going to do it on the dimes of my taxpayers, to send jobs overseas when they are not necessary. You do not need to do that in order to survive.

I see my colleague from Montana in the Chamber. I yield the floor and at an appropriate time I will come back to this discussion.

Mr. President, may I inquire what is the business before the Senate?

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Coleman of Minnesota, Senator Kennedy, Senator Corzine, Senator Mikulski, and others.

Let me say to the floor managers, if I may, I know they are interested in the time. I am prepared to agree to a 1-hour time agreement. I do not necessarily expect to take the hour. I know there are others who may want to be heard. I know you want to move things along, so I am prepared to have a time agreement and move on my amendment, give my remarks, and then others can speak, and then vote on it, if you would like.

Mr. President, I will move forward. If, at any moment you would like to have a time agreement, let me know and I will try to accommodate you so you can move on to other matters.

I have already spoken about the amendment during the time between 2:30 and around 3:30, describing, in a sense, what the amendment would do and the rationale for the amendment. I will be glad to go back over this amendment again for my colleagues and then engage in any debate or discussion about it.

In a sense, I am preaching to the choir when I talk about this issue to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because we all painfully know what has happened in the last 36 months in our country. We have lost around 2.8 million manufacturing jobs in the United States. I have laid out on this chart I have in the Chamber how that breaks down State by State across the country.

In my home State of Connecticut, we have lost some 32,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector; California, 272,000; Ohio has lost around 153,000 jobs; in Illinois, 115,000; Texas--the Presiding Officer's State-- 150,000 jobs.

So certainly we all appreciate the fact there has been a tremendous erosion in a very critical area in our economy.

We also know there is another phenomena occurring, and at an accelerated pace; that is, the outsourcing of many jobs, including some manufacturing jobs, around the globe, and it is accelerating at warp speed.

We now know there are literally 400 of the top 1,000 companies in the United States outsourcing their jobs to India or China or other nations around the globe. Mr. President, 40 of the 50 States now outsource jobs.

My amendment simply says--and there are waivers in here and the like. I understand, although I do not like it, if a company decides on its own dime it is going to outsource a job. I disagree with that. I think they are wrong to do it, but it certainly is their right to do it. We can offer tax incentives to encourage people to stay here, tax disincentives so they do not go offshore, but ultimately a company can decide for itself.

It is another matter with taxpayer money, with the money that American taxpayers send to Washington. The idea that we would use their dollars to outsource an American job is something on which I think we ought to speak loudly and clearly. We ought to say: Look, we disagree with that. We don't think you ought to be able to do that.

So this amendment, in three different areas, very simply says: First, the Federal Government may not use Federal taxpayer money to procure goods and services to fulfill contracts that use overseas workers at the expense of American jobs. Second, we tell State and local governments that any Federal dollars they receive in the form of a grant, in the form of an appropriation, or any other way, that they are not to use those Federal dollars to promote the loss of American jobs for the creation of offshore jobs. And, third, we say any agency seeking to privatize a Government contract being paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars may not enter into that contract if it, again, displaces American workers in favor of offshore workers.

Now, very quickly, in anticipation of some of the arguments we may hear, we provide waivers and exceptions on grounds of national security, and we also allow Governors or Federal agency heads to waive these provisions if there is a bona fide lack of comparable goods or services in the United States.

In this legislation, we also, of course, make it clear that the Government procurement agreements between the United States and some 27 other nations, that are predominantly Western Europe countries, are not affected by the prohibitions contained in this bill. Those 27 nations do not include, I would point out, India or the People's Republic of China.

So the major sources of outsourcing are not affected by those provisions. Thus, we are in complete compliance with the WTO and every other formal agreement we have. We are not in violation of any of those agreements as a result of this amendment.

Now, I had a meeting in my State--and I assume my colleagues may have had similar kinds of gatherings--where people came together who you could not have put in the same county a year ago on this issue. I am talking about my chambers of commerce, my manufacturing associations, and my labor unions--all coming together saying: When is Washington going to say something about this outsourcing that is going on?

If we continue to allow these jobs to flow out of our country, then I think we run the risk, at critical junctures, of having the human talent necessary for us to provide those services and to produce those goods which will allow us to compete effectively in the 21st century. Once you lose jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, or some of the high-skilled areas, it is very difficult to go back and re- create those jobs, to re-create those manufacturing centers.

Let me point out an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning. In fact, I have already included it in the Record. But the ValiCert company--and I think this is a front-page story or nearly a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal--discovered that outsourcing was no great success for them. They did it and discovered that the value they were getting for the jobs and products being produced did not equal that produced here in the United States. They have reversed that decision.

So when you read in this economic report, prepared for the President of the United States, last month, in February-- and I will quote the report for my colleagues where they state, in absolute terms, on page 229 of this report:

When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it

makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it

domestically.

Well, tell that to the ValiCert company. They did not discover that. Certainly, while that may be true of a bottom line of a company, if you are trying to preserve jobs in this country, which is a responsibility we bear in this body, and not just to those companies but to the people who work for them--an American job is not just a good or a service. An American job has implications that go beyond just the dollar amount lost of income in wages or salaries. It means also that a family may not pay their home mortgage and may not be able to provide the goods and services that allow our economy to grow and expand. It means families are under more strain and stress because they have lost the source of income to provide for themselves.

So this ought not be a partisan issue. This ought to be something on which we stand united. This is not being an isolationist. I am a free trader. I have been so in the years I have been here. I have supported many, many free trade agreements, and I opposed some as well, but I honestly believe if you are going to be an effective trader, a free and fair trader in the 21st century, then you ought not squander and give up the very jobs that make it possible for you to compete in this global economy.

So I am deeply concerned that if we do not say something, particularly with U.S. taxpayer money that is being used to subsidize this outsourcing of jobs, then we are failing to understand what is going on across this country. In State after State after State, the trend lines are there in manufacturing. It is also occurring in other sectors in the economy.

Let me share with my colleagues, as shown on this chart, indication of where the outsourcing of these jobs is occurring. Presently, it is occurring in areas such as office support. The estimate is 14 million additional jobs, by the way, will be lost and shipped overseas over the next several years. The estimates are about 8 million will occur in office support areas; in computer and math professionals, close to 3 million jobs lost in that area; business and financial services, over 2 million jobs; paralegals, diagnostic support services, medical transcriptions, over 94,000.

So it is not just low-wage, low-salary jobs that are going but very sophisticated, high-technology jobs that could be leaving our country as well. That makes us weaker. It is not in the national security interests of the United States to be losing these critical jobs at a time when we need them most in order to provide for the economic growth of our own Nation.

So while I understand, from a business perspective, your job is to look at quarterly reports, to try to improve the bottom line, our job in the Senate and the Congress of the United States goes beyond looking at quarterly reports.

We should look generationally. I don't want my generation to be the first generation of Americans which leaves the coming generation less well off than every other succeeding generation has left their children and their grandchildren. We are at risk of doing that if we don't step up at this juncture and say we need to stop or at least discourage this outsourcing of jobs that is occurring at a rapid pace every single day.

It is hard not to pick up a U.S. newspaper in any city and read where one corporation, one business after another, is making the decision to outsource more jobs. I think we ought to say, let's slow down. Let's have some balance. Let's not use taxpayer money to allow these jobs to be lost. That is the thrust of the amendment.

I hope we will have overwhelming support for this idea. This bill is an appropriate place to be debating it. It is something that could make a huge difference for those who are worrying whether we are paying attention at all. We have just debated over the last 5 weeks medical malpractice, providing immunization for gun manufacturers. We have had a bill on pensions. But we have not spent 5 minutes debating the issue of what is happening to America's jobs. That is the big issue.

Look at any survey right now. Ask the American people what they worry

about the most. It is the loss of jobs. They are outraged we have nothing to say when it comes to outsourcing of jobs to other nations, and we are not standing up and defending our own workforce.

In this same economic report I cited earlier, to give you some idea of why people get discouraged, I mentioned earlier the quote suggesting it was an automatic thing that outsourcing of jobs was good or, as they call it, importing of jobs. That is the way they describe it. I mentioned already a company identified in a Wall Street Journal article this morning, ``Lesson in India, Not Every Job Translates Overseas.'' I encourage my colleagues to look at that article as one example of a company that discovered outsourcing was bad for business, not good.

In this same economic report prepared by the President's top economic advisors, they raised the following question:

The definition of a manufactured product, however, is not

straightforward. When a fast food restaurant sells a

hamburger, for example, is it providing a service or inputs

for manufacturing a product?

If this was some sort of cartoon in the paper, I might have laughed at it, but it is part of an official document, an economic report prepared by the President's top economic advisers which suggests through the question that flipping a hamburger or cooking a hot dog is a manufacturing job. You get some idea and sense of where the outrage of the American public is coming on why we are unable to speak to this issue.

Again, I don't care if you are a Democrat or Republican, what your politics or ideology is. We have to stand up and defend our country in a moment like this. I worry about losing these jobs.

I mentioned earlier I had some 5,400 manufacturers in my State employing well over 240,000 people. We have lost about 35,000 jobs in the last 36 months. My manufacturers produce critical components for some of the most sophisticated defense technologies in the Nation. If you lose that manufacturing base, it is not just the loss of a manufacturing job or the loss of a good little company, it is also a critical issue when it comes to national security needs. Many of these small manufacturers produce critical components and parts for some of the most sophisticated defense technologies in our Nation.

I mentioned earlier my friend and colleague from Texas. The number of jobs there, 150,000. I know this Senator has many of these small companies that are producing those parts for defense companies, defense technologies. There is a ripple effect. We know as well, beyond the implications for our national security, for every one of these jobs that are lost in the manufacturing sector, there are jobs lost in other sectors. It is not just that job that is lost or that family that is affected. Each manufacturing job supports three other U.S. jobs. So when we lose these jobs, we also feel it in the retail trade, in the professional services, and in manufacturing as well.

I apologize if I get heated about this subject, but it is painful to read some of this cold-eyed analysis that suggests somehow you just have to stomach this or weather this, that this is just one of these cyclical or structural occurrences in the national economy, and these statistics, as troublesome as they are, are nothing more than that, statistics.

Behind every one of those statistics, behind every one of those numbers I cite, is usually a head of household or people trying to keep their families together. They are not just statistics. These are American citizens. These are human beings who are doing everything they can to live by the rules and provide for their families. They want to know whether their Congress--they don't identify themselves when they get up in the morning as a Democrat or Republican; they get up in the morning and worry about their families and their future--gets it, if we understand it, and whether we are willing to do anything about it.

This is an attempt by myself and my colleague from Minnesota and others to say at least when it comes to your tax dollar, we are going to say to the States, localities, and other businesses with waiver provisions here, you are not going to use those dollars to outsource an American job, not on our watch. You may decide to do it with your own money, but you will not do it with American taxpayer money. That is why we offer this amendment.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Minnesota for any comments he would like to make.

If my colleague will yield, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his support, and my colleague from Minnesota as well.

My colleague from New Jersey is no stranger to these issues. I made note before of what is happening in Minnesota and other States. In Connecticut, we have lost 32,000 manufacturing jobs. New Jersey has lost over 55,000 manufacturing jobs.

I mentioned earlier there was an article in this morning's Wall Street Journal entitled ``Lesson in India: Not Every Job Translates Overseas.'' I want to ask my colleague a question. Because of his background in business, he understands those issues better than most of us. This reads:

When sales of their security software slowed in 2001,

executives at ValiCert Inc. began laying off engineers in

Silicon Valley to hire replacements in India for $7,000 a

year.

It says:

The reality was different. The Indian engineers, who knew

little about ValiCert's software or how it was used, omitted

features Americans considered intuitive. U.S. programmers,

accustomed to quick chats over cubicle walls, spent months

writing detailed instructions for overseas assignments,

delaying new products. Fear and distrust thrived as

ValiCert's finances deteriorated, and co-workers, 14 time

zones apart, traded curt e-mails. In the fall 2002,

executives brought back to the U.S. a key project that had

been assigned to India, irritating many Indian employees.

``At times, we are thinking, `What have we done here?' ''

recalls John Vigouroux, who joined ValiCert in July 2002 and

became chief executive three months later.

Tell me a bit about this. I think the assumption is made automatically, and certainly in this economic report prepared for the President by his administration, it makes a categorical statement that outsourcing of jobs is always a good thing because it improves the bottom line. Here is an example of a company which had a very different example. Aside from the obvious reduction in payroll by hiring people in another country to do the job, and firing Americans, are there also examples where this kind of activity has actually been bad for business and not necessarily automatically good for business, as suggested by this report?

I thank my colleague for those comments. They are very enlightening. It is further indication that these trend lines are moving forward.

There has been a report in Time magazine that indicates we are looking at, some indicate over the coming years as many as 14 million, 15 million jobs to be outsourced if we do not begin to do something about it. In the near term, I think the number is between 3 and 4 million with a loss, by the way, just looking at revenue loss, of wages lost--forget everything else, forget what happens when a person loses their job and the ripple effects that occur--just in lost wages it is about $140 billion.

We know what kind of budget deficit we are in already. I don't think this figure has been projected onto those numbers at all. We look at revenues coming in, and we look at what expenditures for which we have to account, and a loss of $136 billion to $140 billion in wages, lost because of outsourcing over the next decade or less, ought to be a matter of deep concern, even if you are not affected or moved by what happens to families or heads of households who are trying to provide for the needs of their families.

The fact that we lose that much salary and wages going out ought to be of great concern. I mention that as an additional implication of what is caused by outsourcing.

Again, I said earlier, we can offer incentives for people to stay, we can offer

disincentives in the Tax Code for them not to go, but I don't know, for the life of me, why we ought to be taking American taxpayers' money--we insult the taxpayer to say, I am going to use your money to fire someone in this company and hire someone someplace else to do the job at a fraction of the cost because it is going to improve your bottom line.

I don't know how the Senator feels, but the societal implications are profound. Our job is not only to make sure there is wealth creation in the country, but also we bear a responsibility beyond quarterly reports to see to it, from a generational standpoint, that we are going to leave this country at least as in good a shape as we inherited from our parents.

I will be happy to yield.

I thank my colleague. It is worthwhile to make the point that actually watching the buying power, the wealth of individuals being reduced, overall our country suffers from that--obviously the families do--but when you reduce that buying power, that wealth, implications are being felt throughout our economy.

These happen from a structural standpoint. But when you allow it to go on with Federal money being used--again, as I say, I would not be party, as much as I may object, to companies that want to do this. I think they are wrong to do it. They are making a mistake. It is harmful to our country. On their dime, I guess they have a right to do it. But on our dime, they ought not have the right to do it, and this is the American taxpayers' dime.

I don't think we ought to be saying to them, You can take your Federal taxpayer money and pay somebody offshore to do it, losing an American job that could be done here. I don't think that is right, and that is the purpose of this amendment. I thank my colleague.

I thank my colleague from Montana, as well, for his comments. I think they are poignant. While we do not specifically address those issues, he is absolutely correct. It is another piece of this puzzle on which we need to do a far better job. I have had some recent discussions with ambassadors from some of the Latin American countries and have suggested to them they ought to start talking to us about having labor standards and environmental standards from their perspective.

If free and fair trade is to work well, it ought to be raising the quality of life and the level of wealth accumulation by people in these countries with whom we are about to enter into trading agreements. That is good for us, and it is good for them. Instead of us having to fight for it here, they ought to be fighting for it and insisting upon it on behalf of their own constituents.

I say to my friend from Montana, it is as obvious as anything. These are the shelves--this is the marketplace you want to be. If you are any

other country in the world, you want to be able to access the greatest consumer market in the history of mankind, which is the United States of America. This is the most inviolable place to which you can sale your services and your goods.

Absolutely. The whole point of these trading agreements, because we are a high value country, obviously, and we do not want to dumb down our system, we want to see improving quality products, you need to sell them to somebody. If the countries with whom you are entering trading agreements do not have a population that can afford to buy your higher value goods and services, then the trading arrangement is going to be all one way and not the other. So it is very much in our own interest, from a larger perspective, to be able to have it.

Too often it is U.S. interests that are insisting that labor and environmental agreements not be included because they want to be able to enter those markets and hire people at those depressed wages and be able to operate plants that do not face environmental regulations. So they see it as advantageous for them. They then turn around and sell those goods back here.

They are not thinking about an American corporation that wants to sell its quality product there. It is very shortsighted and, of course, it only leads to further encourage the outsourcing of jobs, which is exactly what is going on.

And they should be more concerned about it.

My colleague would be interested to know, in my conversations, very informally at this point, but I am finding a great deal of receptivity to the point the Senator from Montana is making; that, in fact, they should be insisting upon these points. The politics of their own countries are changing and they are insisting if you are going to enter these agreements, that this be a part of it as well.

We may be looking at a new era where it is not going to be just people in this Chamber calling for these kinds of things, but, in fact, people in these other countries are going to be insisting upon it as well.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Montana. He is absolutely correct. I did not even get into the issue of what happens here. Obviously, when you fire someone, lay someone off, you hire someone offshore to do the job, there is absolutely no requirement that the fired or laid-off worker is necessarily going to be able to get any kind of health care coverage from the former employer. Even when you have retired with full benefits there is no guarantee, as we learned through the discussion of the Medicare bill that was before us only a few months ago.

So in addition to the lost jobs and wages--that is all I have been talking about today--there are benefits that are incredible, and when people lose those benefits it adds to the roles of the 44 million people in this country who have no health insurance.

They get health care. It might be showing up in an emergency room, which increases the costs of everyone else who has health care, as we all know. Fortunately, in this country if people get sick they can show up someplace and get some kind of coverage.

It is not free, and it adds tremendously to the cost of others as well. So the implications, in addition to laying someone off--as we see now the thousands of jobs that have gone--the Senator from Montana is very accurate in pointing this out when looking at this issue.

Here we are taking Federal taxpayer money. That is what my amendment addresses. It says: With Federal taxpayer money you can lay someone off and hire someone else and pay them basically with Federal dollars. So we are, in a sense, not only causing that person to lose their job in this country but also their health care benefits and other benefits they may have, not to mention what it does to a family.

Talk about keeping families together, the single largest reason why families break up is economics. Every study in the world that has been done on that institution says it is economics.

As a matter of Federal policy, in effect we are saying we are going to outsource these jobs, causing a great disruption in America and families' lives. The Senator from Montana is so right to point out that the health care implications, because we have not yet sorted this out, are huge.

Again, I come back to the point, I do not accept it, I do not like it, but if someone on their dime wants to lay someone off and hire someone else, I do not like it and I wish I could do something about it and I certainly want to support measures that I know of the Senator from Montana and the Senator from California, such as giving tax incentives to encourage people to stay here, but when someone does it with Uncle Sam's nickel, with the taxpayers' money, then I say, no. I have some control over that.

I am offering an amendment today that says when it comes to U.S. taxpayer money, you are not going to lay somebody off and hire somebody else 12 time zones away to do the job. You may do it on your dime but not on their dime.

I will mention one other subject matter that I know my colleague from Montana and my colleague from California care about, and that is privacy. That is one of the things we have not talked about at all on this issue.

I pointed out earlier--I apologize to my colleague from California because she cannot see this chart, but I was talking earlier about where these jobs are going, from what sectors of our economy they are coming from, the 14 million additional jobs in danger of being shipped overseas. One of the areas we are talking about is in the area of medical, diagnostic and medical services. This covers a little more than almost 300,000 jobs in that area.

We all know what is happening. Today, with information technology, x- rays can be transmitted at the speed of light or faster.

All sorts of medical information.

We have provisions of law in this country that say you cannot share certain private medical information with insurance companies or employers without consent. Medical information is now being processed by someone who has been hired 12 time zones away--all of a sudden that information is no longer well-protected. So as we see the increase in these diagnostic support services and medical transcriptions going offshore, then the very protections we ought to have as Americans are also being lost. I don't cover that in my amendment here, but we may offer some language on this bill at some point that would say you have to give people at least the opportunity to say I don't want my medical records being processed or handled by someone offshore. I want it kept in the United States because I don't want someone to be able to go in and find out highly sensitive information about me and my family that could be used against me.

Today the laws of the United States do not adequately protect you when this information is being processed and handled offshore. That is one of the major areas we are seeing these jobs moving.

I am happy to yield.

There were 272,000 jobs lost.

Let me say to my colleague I was not aware of it. I apologize for not being aware of it.

I know agriculture is a huge industry in the State of California, particularly in the area of rice. It is significant. So I am pleased to know we are covering this kind of activity as well.

Again, this is not being isolationist.

Every time you try to stand up for an American job you are called an isolationist. There is a new coalition. They want to change the language, by the way. There was an article this morning that says, ``Business coalition rewrites lexicon for jobs outsourcing.'' They point out, they say the coalition is now rallying around ``worldwide sourcing'' as a less provocative term.

I apologize for sounding provocative, but we didn't make this up. What ought to be provocative is the fact that people like my colleague from California have constituents who are losing their jobs because we are not doing enough to protect these jobs--not from a protectionist standpoint, but protect them when in fact there is no loss to be incurred as a result of standing up and saying we ought to be doing what we can to protect these positions in our country. I commend her for it.

I thank you for raising it. It is an important point and I am glad our amendment covers it.

My staff gave me some other information. I have mentioned others. Tax experts now say Indian-chartered accountants, the subcontinent version of certified professional accountants, will prepare somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 tax returns this year. That is up from 20,000 last year.

I am not making up these numbers. The trend lines are moving at a very rapid pace. In this case here I am not suggesting these are necessarily being paid for with Federal tax dollars. I don't know that. If it is not, obviously we are not covering the situation and these firms that want to continue doing it unfortunately will be able to continue. But if they were doing it with Federal tax money, I say no, just as my colleague from California says no.

If someone with their own dime wants to decide they are going to ship rice or whatever products and use someone else offshore, that is one thing. But when they are using taxpayer money to do that, that is when we have an obligation to stand up and say no.

I appreciate her very much for raising that issue.

Let me say I see my colleague from Iowa on the floor, and others. This Senator is prepared to vote. I talked about this. I have had colleagues come over and share some thoughts on it. I know there are other matters. I know Senators want to move on. I am certainly not engaged in any filibuster. I am prepared to ask for the yeas and nays and vote on this amendment and move on to other questions. Is there some opportunity? I don't want to go into a quorum call if other Members want to come over and discuss other matters, but if we want to vote on it, I would like to do it. What chance do we have, I ask my friend from Iowa?

I appreciate that.

I thank my colleague and the manager of this bill for his candor

on the subject matter. He will certainly understand if I share with him--I know these were not his views, he is expressing the views of others who didn't understand the impact of this amendment. Let me say to him, my good friend--and he is a good friend. We have been in Congress together for many years--the impact of not doing something here is huge, on workers losing their jobs. I know my colleague knows that and shares my concern about it as well.

It is not terribly complicated what I am suggesting here. It is straightforward. It says when it comes to taxpayer money, it can't be used to subsidize someone offshore at the cost of an American job.

I know the coalition of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers and some other groups out there don't particularly like this amendment because 400 of the top 1,000 corporations are now outsourcing jobs, and I am sorry if they are disappointed by this amendment, but there are an awful lot of people losing their jobs.

That is the only reason I raise it. I have to wait until tomorrow. We will have to wait, obviously. I am disappointed because I thought it was pretty straight forward. Nonetheless, I appreciate my friend's candor.

I see my colleague from California.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from California.

I will make two points.

I appreciate my friend from Iowa telling me what the substantive concerns are about the amendment, one which I think we have addressed.

On the second question he raised, we included language which very specifically makes clear that the government procurement agreements between the United States and 27 other predominantly western European countries would not be affected by this legislation. India and China are not part of that problem. The major culprit in all of this is outsourcing of jobs. But my colleague from Montana raised the question that we could be found in violation of World Trade Organization policies, if we didn't include this language. So I think we addressed the concerns about whether or not we are going to run afoul of some international agreements to which we are a signatory.

The second part about mandating States, if you are going to use Federal money to lay off workers in your State and hire someone 12 time zones away to do the job, I don't consider that a mandate. That is Federal money. If you want to do it with State money, I can't keep you from doing that. That is your choice. If you are going to do it with Federal money that comes from grants and so forth, I think the American taxpayer would like to know that Federal dollars are being used to lay off one person in your State and hire someone 12 time zones away. You can call that a mandate, but I call it common sense at this particular juncture.

I think we have gone as far as we can go on this issue. We have covered the ground.

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, for joining me in a bipartisan fashion on this amendment.

Today, 40 States outsource jobs. That is pretty alarming.

If you are unemployed in a State and you call up your unemployment office to find out about your rights, and you are talking to someone 14 time zones away to find out your rights, that is offensive to people in this country. They want to know what we are going to do about it. Do we understand what they are going through?

This is the first opportunity we have had since we have been back over the last 5 or 6 weeks to raise the one issue here. Night after night, Lou Dobbs on CNN, to his great credit, is talking about this issue. He is not talking about it and speaking to an audience that is not interested. The audience across this country is deeply interested in this subject matter. They want to know whether or not anybody is doing anything about it. I can't stop a private company from outsourcing with their own money. But I can stop you from using Federal taxpayer money to fire somebody here and hire somebody 14 time zones away. That I can try. I may not win, but I can try to do it. And that is what we are trying to do.

Madam President, I don't believe I yielded the floor.

My colleague from Nevada is in the Chamber. I didn't know if he wanted to speak.

For the purposes of those who don't know what a Blackberry is, we will explain that.

I do not know whether my colleague from Texas has a question of me or not. I know he would like to speak on the issue. Does he have a question for this Senator on the subject matter?

I will wrap up myself. I would like to come back, if I could.

Again, maybe I am wrong. But every survey I have seen over the last number of weeks has indicated that people--even people who have jobs-- are worried about this issue.

To give you some indication of the disconnect that occurs when it comes to this issue, I quote from the Los Angeles Times story, which appeared elsewhere, but talking about this question, it says:

``The movement of American factory jobs and other white

collar work to other countries is part of a positive

transformation that will enrich the United States economy

over time even if it causes short term pain and

dislocation,'' the Bush administration said the other day.

It goes down and says from the economic report:

``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international

trade,'' said Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the President's

Council of Economic Advisers.

They prepared the report.

More things are tradable than were tradable in the past,

and that is a good thing.

The article goes on.

I remember the statement being made; Mr. Mankiw apologizing. He said it was a bad choice of words, and we certainly accept his apology. The problem is, it was not the words. It is not a bad choice of words; it is a bad idea.

The idea of saying I am sorry I said only indicated to me they were sorry they said it out loud. They did not change their mind about the subject matter but merely said we got caught at something we should not have said because it was bad politics to say it. I misspoke politically but not substantively, and there is a fundamental disagreement on this point that outsourcing is a good thing.

These are not just goods and services to be tradable in the open marketplace. These are critical jobs which mean a huge difference to the families affected. We bear no greater responsibility in this Chamber than to do what we can to protect American families. When they are being threatened by unnecessarily shipping their job overseas, it is our obligation to speak out and try to do something about it that is responsible.

I made the point over and over again, and I will make it again, I have supported far more free trade agreements over my course of service here than not because I believe that is where you have to be in the 21st century. But they have to be fair agreements. We have to negotiate them far better.

The Senator from Montana and I have talked about how we might achieve those desired results. I don't subscribe to the notion that it is isolationist or protectionist to stand in the Senate and say I think it is wrong to use Federal taxpayer money to cause someone in this country to lose their job and hire someone 14 time zones away. I don't think that is a good idea. Others may say that is their right, but we will have a vote on whether you think it is right.

Examine it until you are blue in the face and try every cockamamie idea to undermine what we are doing, but it is a bad idea to federally subsidize the exportation of jobs that ought to be kept here, not for protectionist reasons but if we provide services and jobs in the global marketplace in the 21st century, you better have the people here who can do it.

If we give up that kind of human capital that is so critical to our long-term success of people, we are putting our Nation in jeopardy. It is not a great quarterly answer. For that company which wants to make more money next quarter, this is a dreadful idea. But if you are thinking more than quarters, if you are thinking down the road about what kind of a Nation we will be leaving the next generation who will inhabit these seats we hold today as Members--we have an obligation to them, as well. We owe an obligation, just as others who sat in these seats bore an obligation to us and left us a pretty decent country--not a perfect one, but a good one. We should see to it that coming generations have the equal opportunity to bear the fruits we have provided for two centuries.

We do not do it by remaining silent or giving phony reasons about why jobs are being outsourced unnecessarily around the globe. That is why I bring it up and that is why I hope we can have a vote and move on it. It is not that difficult to understand.

I yield the floor, as I know my friend from Texas wants to be heard.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If my colleague will yield, in chapter 2, page 73 of the Economic Report of the President--this was prepared by the President's economic advisors--they raise the issue here as if it were a legitimate question. They say: The definition of a manufactured product, however, is not straightforward. When a fast food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a service or is it manufacturing a product? They think that is a legitimate question, that manufacturing a hamburger might actually be a manufacturing job. My colleague from Nevada is absolutely right to raise this point.

These charts belong to Senator Kennedy. He feels very strongly about these charts. I wanted to make sure the record reflects we are borrowing Senator Kennedy's charts. They are very good charts.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his comments. He is absolutely right about changing the rules. I have worried about that, when all of a sudden--and I have seen it happen in the past--you don't like the numbers you have, so you come up with a whole new definition and expand the numbers. That is what it looks like when you start talking about what clearly are fast food service jobs, manufacturing jobs, and we have seen those efforts being made.

This wasn't the first administration trying games like that. We have had others in the past doing that. I appreciate his comments, and I thank him for his support as well.

I have just a couple of other points. My friend and colleague from Texas cited earlier some of the efforts in the area of job training, vocational education. I wanted to respond by saying I don't disagree. I think that is an important element. But the problem is that one of the frustrations is the outsourcing of jobs that is occurring at a rather remarkable rate now, and it seems to be accelerating and very little is being offered to try to do something about this.

In fact, even in the area of protecting manufacturing jobs and doing something about retraining, let me share with my colleagues what is going on. In the manufacturing extension partnership, which is a very important issue for the manufacturing firms of this country, this is going to mean less help to an estimated 11,000 small businesses; 28,000 workers will either lose their jobs or not be hired as a result of these cuts.

So there is cutting back in this area. Outsourcing is going to have a huge impact on the manufacturing sector.

The Small Business Administration is being cut by $79 million, hurting hundreds of thousands of small businesses struggling to create jobs for Americans. There is a cut of $316 million for vocational education. This is in addition to the more than $1.5 million in proposed cuts to job training and vocational education made over the last 3 years. We are also cutting $448 million for the Workforce Investment Act programs.

My point is, as we watch these outsourcing of jobs and the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, I would be heartened if I thought we were making an effort at least to commit additional resources to help provide training for people who find themselves under normal cyclical circumstances losing a job, but here we are in an abnormal situation where there is an extraordinary loss of manufacturing jobs occurring across the country in the last 36 months and we have an extraordinary acceleration of outsourcing of jobs occurring over the same period of time--I pointed out that now 400 of the top 1,000 businesses in America are outsourcing, 40 of the 50 States, all for a very obvious reason. You can save a lot of money right off the top by doing it. When you can hire somebody in India at $7 a day as opposed to paying someone a salary in Silicon Valley, you

do not have to have a Ph.D. in mathematics to know the outcome.

I understand the motivation behind it. The question I have is, are we going to sit back and allow this to continue at the expense of losing the kind of human investments that we ought to be making to guarantee that we have a workforce capable of doing jobs and providing the services that America ought to be providing in the coming years?

In addition to that, even if we were not doing an amendment or were not going to support language that would say that Federal taxpayer money ought not be used for this purpose, I would like to think that in the area of vocational education, small business assistance, manufacture extension partnerships, and certainly Workforce Investment Act--all of these areas--that the administration would say: Look, this is our answer to this. We don't agree with you, Senator, about not using Federal funds.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Los Angeles Times be printed in the Record.

The headline in the Los Angeles Times--it is a viewpoint-- says: ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.'' It goes on to talk about the report that I talked about all afternoon, this economic report prepared by the Council of Economic Advisers, where they conclude that the outsourcing of jobs is a good thing. The author of that language apologized for his use of those words, but he has not apologized, and I understand why, because he believes it is good economic policy to be outsourcing.

There are some of us--I do not know if it is a majority--who disagree with that conclusion, that outsourcing is necessarily good.

I cited already from the Wall Street Journal companies that painfully discovered when they outsourced, while they thought they were going to save money, it actually cost them dearly. It is not only not good, but it fails to take into account--watching somebody's job be lost because there is a cheaper labor pool that you don't have to pay health care benefits to, despite the fact the person here is going to lose them--if it is really good for America.

I am suggesting while this rush is occurring that we ought to put on the brakes and stop, look, and listen so we will not necessarily be caught up in a situation where a year or two or five from now we will look back and say: Why didn't somebody say something or do something when we knew this was happening, when we could sit, watch, and read on a daily basis the pouring of

jobs out of this country to 14 time zones away, depriving people of benefits and income they needed for their families; what did you do on your watch? What did you do?

If the answer is we thought it was a good thing for the American economy, then I think we will be suffering an indictment historically.

I see my colleague from Kentucky who wants to move on to matters of the day. I yield the floor, with the right to be recognized at the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about the JOBS bill before the Senate. With this bill, we join in the work of improving the economic well-being of Americans.

This bill is about creating good jobs in America. This bill is about improving the standard of living of all Americans.

Let me begin with the economic context for this bill. In a series of statements over the coming week, I will address particular aspects of the legislation. We begin with the dignity and importance of work. Our jobs often define who we are. They are where we spend much of our waking hours. As the preacher teaches in the book Ecclesiastes, ``A man can do nothing better than to . . . find satisfaction in his work. This . . . I see, is from the hand of God. . . .''

Job creation is fundamental to our ability to live a good life. It is through the creation of good jobs that Americans have come to enjoy remarkable advancements in income and comforts. The American job creation machine makes our shores the shores to which immigrants swarm. We don't see people heading for the door. Rather, people from around the world want to live in America.

Ours is a dynamic economy. This economic growth is the key to our Nation's success.

I point out this chart. I will raise it up so people can see it. This chart shows the picture I have just basically described. In 1900, in the wake of the industrial revolution, America already stood at the pinnacle of the world economy. Already in 1900, believe it or not, we had the highest per capita income in the world, slightly more than Britain or Australia, and almost double that of France or Germany.

But even adjusted for inflation in today's dollars, not 1900 dollars, America's per capita GDP--a rough measure of our average income--was only about $5,000 a year in today's dollars. Measured by today's standards, we lived in poverty: Walking and horseback was how one got around; electricity lit only 3 percent of homes in 1900; only one-third of Americans had running water; only 15 percent had flush toilets; life expectancy was 47 years.

In 1900, America had one of the best educated populations in the world. But 1 in 10 were illiterate. The typical adult had left school after the eighth grade. There were only 382 Ph.Ds awarded in the entire country in 1900.

Even though in 1900 our economy was at the top of the world, Americans had an average income then that the average person in Mexico has today.

If our economy had not grown, our standard of living would be unacceptable by today's measures. Economic growth made a huge difference.

Because of economic growth, inflation-adjusted, our per capita income today is roughly seven times now what it was 104 years ago.

With economic growth, electricity became available across the country, and automobiles made us a mobile nation and made much more of the Nation within reach of work.

It is incredible to see how much we have grown in real per capita GDP since 1900. You can see a dip on the chart in 1929. But we have grown at a rapid rate.

The next chart is very interesting as well. This is private sector employment. American economic growth created 108 million new jobs, net, since 1900. In 1900, the American economy employed 27 million people in its civilian labor force. By January 2004, 104 years later, the American economy employed almost 140 million Americans.

Two-thirds of Americans participate in the labor force--substantially higher rates than in Europe. That is up from 55.5 percent in 1900. Americans are hard-working people. We work.

The American economy has, on average, created more than a million net new jobs every year since 1900. Since 1935, we have done better; America has created 1.5 million jobs every year. That is a net figure.

America's economic growth springs from our people, our freedom, our unity. The American people are smart and as hard working as any in the world. Our free market has given this great people the freedom to achieve their best potential. Our unity has protected its huge internal market from robbers, foreign and domestic.

We are lucky to be Americans, very lucky. Our Nation is still a magnet for immigrants. This country is still a beacon to countries around the world.

We can pride ourselves in our independent judiciary, which helped make this country strong. We can be proud of our system of government-- this long-lived democracy. We have a dynamic, mobile society.

In a number of ways, America has it right. More times than not, Americans have struck about the right balance between government protections and private freedoms, to contribute to economic growth.

Our society provides an environment for success. Bill Gates, for example, might be a pauper in Sri Lanka. But America provides the environment and infrastructure and, of course, the political system and markets where a Bill Gates can succeed. We should not take this lesson for granted. This is not true in all countries. Our society, economy and, yes, the Government contributed to the successes of people such as Bill Gates.

Government does have a role to play, for good or evil, either to foster or to impede this economic growth.

Government can impede growth. By running large continuing budget deficits, the Government can suck vital capital out of the economy, robbing individuals and businesses of funds that can be used for investment.

Thus, the record budget deficits that the Government is now running pose a threat to our Nation's economic growth. We have to recognize that. These deficits decrease national savings, decrease private sector investment, and raise interest rates. The resulting slower economic growth and increased cost of borrowing harm businesses, large and small.

Foreign governments can impede our growth when they deny Americans access to their markets, when they don't let us sell products in their country, when they artificially depress the value of their currency, flooding our lands with their imports and denying our exports a fair opportunity to compete.

Our Government can foster growth by investing in education, by opening markets at home and abroad, and by removing barriers to our economic greatness. We can foster growth in America.

That is what this bill is about--removing barriers to economic growth and creating jobs.

It is no secret that in the past few years the engine of American job creation has ground to low gear; manufacturing has been particularly hard hit.

This next chart shows the story of private sector job creation in the American economy over the last decade. Beginning in March of 1993, here at the lower left, the American economy steadily created new jobs throughout the rest of the decade. The economy grew. People had jobs and families had more money in their pockets. In fact, from January of 1993 to January 2001, about 20 million--net jobs--were created in America.

Private sector employment peaked at 111.6 million jobs in December of 2000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since the end of the year 2000, the private sector of the American economy lost 3 million jobs. You can see that on the chart. Our peak was here in 2000 and we have lost jobs--3 million. Three million jobs were lost in the American economy since that peak in December of 2000. In January of this year-- the month for which we have the latest statistics--the American economy employed 108 million private sector workers, which means 1 out of every 40 private sector jobs have disappeared since the end of 2000.

The manufacturing sector has disproportionately borne the brunt of these job losses.

This next chart shows the story. This is manufacturing jobs from 1993 to 2004. We can see the dramatic decline in roughly 2001, since July of 2000.

Since July of 2000, the American economy has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. That is a net loss. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in January, America employed 14.3 million workers in manufacturing, and that is down from the 42nd straight month from the high of 17.3 million in July of 2000. That is a drop of 17.5 percent in manufacturing employment. More than one in every six American manufacturing jobs has disappeared since July of 2000. Again, one in every six manufacturing jobs in America has disappeared since July of 2000.

Manufacturing jobs have disappeared in all 21 industries that constitute the manufacturing sector. It is in all sectors. We lost jobs in computer and electronics products. We lost jobs in transportation equipment. We lost jobs in machinery. We lost jobs in fabricated metals. We lost jobs across the board.

My home State of Montana has suffered more than most. It has had a 19-percent reduction in manufacturing jobs since January of 2000.

This next chart also shows job losses happening all across the country; not just across all manufacturing sectors but all across America. Every State in the Nation but one has lost manufacturing jobs since July 2000. The darker the shade, the greater the job loss; the lighter the shade--orange and yellow--there is less job loss. But every State in the Nation has lost jobs, except one.

The manufacturing jobs we are losing are good jobs. This next chart shows

manufacturing jobs pay more than service jobs on the average. We all know we are moving from a manufacturing society to a service job society. Regrettably, those new jobs, service jobs, pay quite a bit less than manufacturing jobs, and that has been true from 1994 all the way up through the current date.

This next chart shows manufacturing employment is now at its lowest absolute level since July of 1950. Fewer Americans are employed in manufacturing today than at any time in more than half a century. We can see from the line from 1950 to today there is essentially the same number of jobs. Clearly, we are not doing very well.

Why do I mention all this? First, it is fact. Second, we have to deal with it. We have to do something about it, and that brings us to the bill before us, the JOBS bill. We have targeted the provisions of this bill directly at manufacturing employment. Why? Because that has been the greatest problem.

This bill will not be a complete solution. By no stretch of the imagination will this bill be a complete solution to job loss in America. To help create and keep manufacturing jobs, we also need to do many other things in addition to passing this bill. We need to open foreign markets to American goods much more aggressively than we have done in the last couple of years. We need to improve education, to preserve the comparative advantage of American workers. Clearly, we have to be the smartest--hopefully at least try to be the smartest--in the world. To do that, we have to educate our kids and keep education at all levels, and to retrain workers.

We also need to make health care more affordable. Health care costs in the United States are too high. They place a big burden on employment, on businesses. The cost of health insurance and the cost of health care is way too high and should be lowered. We also need to provide assistance to displaced workers. They need to be retrained.

This bill will do two things that will make an important contribution to creating and keeping manufacturing jobs in America. This bill will contribute to economic growth and increased demand. This bill will help reduce manufacturers' tax burdens. It will reduce the tax rate for domestic manufacturers by 3 percentage points. Basically, it is a 9- percent reduction for domestic manufacturing income, which translates to about a 3-percentage point break for corporations. The JOBS Act will thus help all manufacturers who produce goods in the United States.

Cutting taxes for domestic manufacturers will help prevent layoffs. It will help. It will not solve the entire problem, but it is going to certainly help. It will help preserve jobs, and this bill is paid for. It will not contribute to the deficit. It thus will not raise interest rates. It thus will not levy that hidden tax of higher borrowing costs for business.

This is an important bill. It comes none too soon. American manufacturing is calling out for help. This bill is part of the answer.

To ensure continued prosperity and well-being, the American economy needs to start growing again, and this bill is part of that solution.

This bill is an important first step to address the economic circumstances in which we find our country. Over the days to come, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bill. I particularly thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Grassley, who has done a terrific job in putting this bill together in a way that focuses directly on the problem.

We know we are here in large respect because of the WTO ruling which says we must repeal the so-called FSC/ETI regime because it is WTO illegal and replace it with a system that helps our domestic manufacturers in a way that is legal under WTO. There are various ways to fashion a replacement bill, and the other body has a replacement bill which gives the break to American corporations, C corporations, big corporations. We have a different bill. Our bill says if you are a C corporation, if you are an S corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership--whatever--if you manufacture products domestically in the United States of America, whether you export is irrelevant. You get the same reduction in your tax rate. That is to help small business as well as big business. So business together across the board is helped, not just big business.

We all know that is important because most new jobs are created by small businesses. There are many more small business people in this country than there are big business. Small business tends to be more creative in creating new jobs and expanding rather than big corporations.

I will stop here. There is much more to say about this bill.

One final point. I mentioned it is paid for. It is paid for by measures which in themselves should be good public policy and we should pass, anyway. What are they? They are corporate tax loophole closures. They are shelters legislation. They are post-Enron provisions that have not yet been enacted into law. There is something else called silos, to shut down another abusive international transaction.

Not only is this bill paid for, it is paid for in ways that will help restore consumer and investment confidence in American business which, in and of itself, will help create and keep jobs in America.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I have a few more comments I would like to make about this bill. I hope, though, we can get an agreement put together, a list of several amendments that would then be in order. I know various Senators and leadership are now discussing that. It would be my hope we could reach that agreement fairly soon so we can get on with this bill.

Let me just discuss for a few minutes what this JOBS bill is really all about. It is a bill which the Finance Committee reported last November. It is something we simply must pass due to the WTO decision. I hope we can get it enacted into law as soon as possible.

I think this bill is important for three reasons. First of all, it will cut taxes for domestic manufacturers. That is important. The bill will also simplify taxes for American companies operating overseas. That, too, is important. And it will bring us into compliance with an unfavorable ruling of the World Trade Organization--no small matter. The JOBS bill, the bill before us, reduces the tax rate for domestic manufacturers by 3 percentage points. So if you are in the top bracket, it is 3 percentage points. If you are a company or corporation in a lower bracket, it is still about the same. Actually, it is a 9-percent deduction for the cost of producing or manufacturing products in the United States, which translates to about a 3-point reduction. Cutting taxes for domestic manufacturers will help prevent layoffs. It will help preserve jobs. As we all know, this country has lost 3 million-- think of that, 3 million--manufacturing jobs since July of 2000. That is net loss. We have lost a lot more and gained some, but the net loss is 3 million manufacturing jobs lost since July of 2000.

When I talk to manufacturers in my home State, as I know the Presiding Officer does in her own State, they say the rising cost of doing business is one of the biggest impediments to business. It is a big problem business has. By cutting the cost of doing business, this bill will help alleviate the job loss.

This bill will help companies do their job. This bill helps small businesses as well as larger businesses. The Tax Code treats different kinds of businesses differently, as we all know. C corporations, as you well know, are companies that exist as a separate entity from their owners, thus limiting the owners' liability. The corporations can be liable for various actions, but the stockholders themselves, the owners, are not. That is the reason why companies organize themselves, very often, in that manner.

This chart shows about 26 percent of companies in the United States are organized as C corporations; that is, they limit their owners' liability, the shareholders themselves. The owners are not liable.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships are businesses where the owners of the

business are fully liable for its debts. S corporations are smaller businesses that are incorporated for liability purposes but taxed as a partnership. The S corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships are collectively known as passthrough entities. These are generally smaller businesses, while C corporations are larger concerns.

Why do I mention all of that? I mention all that because, as I earlier stated, about a quarter of companies are organized as C corporations, but about three-quarters of American companies are organized differently, either as sole proprietorships, as partnerships, or as S corporations. We want to make sure that not just standard, garden-variety C corporations get the benefit of this bill but that all companies that manufacture domestically get the benefit of this bill, so we have changed the underlying bill.

Currently, today, under the FSC/ETI regime, which has been declared illegal by the WTO, the C corporations are the ones that get the benefit of the tax break. It helps them export products overseas. But in the Finance Committee, we felt, not just big companies but all companies should get the benefit of reduced taxes.

Nearly three-fourths of the manufacturers in this country are S corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships. About three- quarters of all new jobs that are created are by these small businesses. This chart shows that. About one-half of all employees in this country are employed not by big C corporations, they are employed by the other passthrough entities I mentioned. About three-quarters of all the jobs created and held in the United States are not by the big companies but by all the other smaller companies.

That is why we have extended this bill to include so-called passthrough entities. Our smaller businesses are the backbone of my State's economy and certainly the backbone of the economy of the Presiding Officer's State. I think they deserve tax relief just as much as larger businesses do.

In addition, by including partnerships and sole proprietorships, more of our agricultural producers will become eligible for this tax relief.

The JOBS bill that is before us also includes long overdue international tax reform. We are not just talking about the domestic manufacturing reduction rate; we are also talking about international tax simplification. That is for bigger American companies that do operate overseas. We want to make sure our American companies are competing on equal ground with rivals from other countries. One way to do that is to limit double taxation. When our companies are taxed twice, that makes them less competitive. We have included international tax simplification and reform provisions that will help American companies compete with foreign companies overseas.

A number of provisions will help companies better utilize their foreign tax credits. Foreign tax credits prevent income from being taxed twice. There is a repatriation provision that encourages companies to bring back overseas profits for investments in the United States. There is also a provision that will ease the tax compliance burden for small businesses looking to gain access to overseas markets. These are worthwhile, and they are measures that will help restore fairness and integrity to our American tax system.

As I mentioned, the bill repeals the current FSC/ETI laws. Why? To bring us into compliance with WTO obligations. Our bill replaces a tax incentive that was dependent on exports with a tax incentive that is not dependent on exports. A company can utilize this tax benefit in this bill whether the product it manufacturers is exported. So long as it is manufactured in the United States, that company qualifies. We will partially offset the loss of tax benefits to U.S. exporting companies, therefore, by the repeal of the current law, which I said is inconsistent with WTO, and will also provide benefits to all American manufacturers, providing a needed boost to our economy.

Another point: This legislation is completely paid for. Repealing the old FSC/ETI regime will cover most of the cost for the new tax incentive. By repealing the current law, that almost pays for what we are doing here.

The international provisions are paid for; that is, the additional provisions of the bill are paid for with offsets that curb abusive tax shelters. We have offsets in this bill. They will not just create revenue, but they are also good provisions, good tax policy in and of themselves--clamping down on shelters, the inversions provisions, post- Enron reforms, something else called SILOs, which is a gimmick, frankly, that international American companies are using to shelter their income. All that is shut down, and that pays for the rest of the bill. Again, these shelter provisions are absolutely critical to be enacted.

Let me mention in a little bit more detail the three reasons for supporting this bill. I mentioned it is fully offset and the revenue goes to manufacturing. I think that is a principle we should maintain. We should not put incentives in this bill or change this bill in a way that deviates from that. We should also not change this bill in any way that reduces or diminishes stopping the abuses of tax shelters. That is a principle we should absolutely maintain.

I might say something about our budget deficit. Our current budget deficit is projected at about $521 billion this year. We all know that is basically an understatement. It is going to be much worse. Why? Because the administration's budget, as well as the budget resolution pending in the Senate Budget Committee, does not include several factors which more accurately reflect the true deficit our country is facing. What are those? First, both the budgets of the administration and the Budget Committee, which will be coming before the floor on Monday, will not include the cost of the war in Iraq. It will not include war costs. In fact, defense spending is going to be cut a little bit. One might wonder why, when costs are going up. My guess is the administration will come back with a supplemental next year with a big increase in Iraq costs and war costs. This budget does not include that and it should. That would be more honest.

Second, the budget does not include the cost of making expiring tax cuts permanent. That is the view of the administration, that they should be permanent. The budget does not include that.

It doesn't include providing alternative minimum tax relief. We all know this Congress is going to have to enact alternative minimum tax relief soon, and it is very expensive. That also is not included, to say nothing of the cost of paying for the baby boomers when they start to retire in the not too distant future.

Deficits are going to be a lot larger than contemplated in either the administration budget or the budget resolution that will come to the floor.

I say that because it is all the more reason why this bill must be budget neutral. I say that also because there are other Members of Congress who have a different view about that. They would not like this to be budget neutral. They would like there to be further tax cuts but not paid for. I think that is not wise. Frankly, psychologically, as well as actually, the American people will appreciate us having a budget-neutral bill and trying to work toward a balanced budget. That means people around the country are saying those guys and gals in Washington maybe have their heads screwed on straight. Maybe they are doing something right back there. Maybe they are not frittering away taxpayer money.

The more we do what is right, by keeping this budget neutral, not succumbing to the siren song of lowering taxes but not paying for them, the better off we will be in so many respects.

Another point: We have a heck of a job ahead of us, a huge challenge. What is it? It is how to create more jobs in America, how to keep jobs in America, and how to help those who have lost jobs--no easy task. It is extremely difficult. We all know the statistics. Three million manufacturing jobs lost in the last several years. We have to do something about that. The real question is, what do we do? What is the right thing to do? Some say it is OK. That is the way things are. That is international competition. That is globalization. It just happens. In the long run we are all better off. Some say that.

Essentially that was a statement of Mr. Mankiw the other day that has been bandied about so much. He said that is the way it is. There will be new

technologies. Companies will be able to compete better. They have to lower their costs, and they can lower their costs if they can compete any place in the world. If that means jobs overseas, lowering costs, that makes American companies more competitive.

I have a different view. I think we have to face up to the challenge of creating more jobs and retraining Americans so they can have jobs, and keeping those jobs in America. That is, we cannot be passive. We have two choices: try or do nothing.

I say we try to create more jobs in America; we try to keep more jobs in America; we try to retrain people and help people who have lost jobs. We have to do something about it.

The administration thus far has been passive. It has gone AWOL. It does not seem to really care. I do not see any affirmative programs to create jobs in America. We need them. It is a hugely complex problem in both the short term and long term. In the long term, it is education-- science, math, engineering. Did you know we don't graduate nearly as many engineers as does Japan, Europe? And China graduates about three times the number of engineers we do. Did you know that? How long can we continue that? In the long term, we cannot. It is unsustainable.

I must also say the amount of financial aid or the amount of support in basic research has dropped tremendously in America. The number of engineers who graduate in America is now about 30 percent less than it was not too many years ago. The figure is worse than that. We are not going to be able to compete in the long run if we continue that. It can't be done. There are lots of other long-term measures we have to undertake.

There are also in the midterm things we could be doing and we are not. What are they? No. 1, we are not opening foreign markets. Look at India, look at other countries in the world that are closed to America, particularly the country of India. We hear about all the call centers going to India. We don't hear about goods being exported to India for a very good reason: India is by and large closed. They are closed to intellectual property rights, closed to so many markets, so many products. India is closed. What are we doing about that? Not much.

The same can be said for other countries--China. Remember the WTO? They are a member of the WTO. We gave them PNTR. China has a lot more to do.

What are we doing in trade? Basically looking to countries--with no disrespect--such as Bahrain and Morocco. These smaller countries don't have huge commercial benefit to the United States. It is easier to reach trade agreements with those countries. It is much more difficult to go after where the real problem is. As I mentioned, this country is not doing that, and it should do that. It should start working more aggressively to open markets so we can sell products overseas. When we start selling products overseas, that means more jobs in America. It is pretty doggone simple, but it is not being done.

I might also add that there are other things we could be doing that we are not doing. I mentioned education. We are cutting education in this country. We are not fully financing No Child Left Behind. How are we going to compete in the world if we don't give full due to education? We have all gone overseas and visited high schools in countries worldwide. I have. The graduates in Pusan, Korea, are bright as the dickens, and they are hungry.

We have great schools and great teachers. But there is so much more we can do. In my State--and this may be true in other States--teachers are leaving because their salaries are so low. They cannot teach. A lot of schools in the country are cutting back on gifted children programs. They don't have any money. Why are we cutting back on gifted kids? That certainly helps all kids, including the underprivileged.

Madam President, I will yield the floor because I see our Democratic leader in the Chamber. He has a lot to tell us. Certainly, it will add immensely to this discussion. I urge us to think critically about the real problem. We cannot close our borders and put our heads in the sand. We have to meet this challenge head on. This is part of that effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask my friend from Wyoming how much time he has. It is my understanding that there was an agreement before I came to the floor.

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

I am very happy to be supporting the pending amendment. This is an amendment that the author of the amendment, Senator Hatch, and I have introduced many times over many years. I have been a cosponsor of this amendment for years. Senator Hatch has been a cosponsor of this amendment for years. It is critically important that we finally get a major research and development tax stimulus enacted into law. This provision has been in law for various years, but it has always been extended--on and off again. It has been a yo-yo tax provision--a yo-yo incentive. Sometimes companies get it, sometimes they don't. Sometimes we enact it--all the way back to the expiration previous times-- sometimes we don't. It is very irresponsible, in my judgment, for this Congress not to give permanent research and development tax credit to American companies. Other countries do. The Government of Canada, for example, has a R&D tax credit which is much more generous than the one we give to American companies.

There are other countries that also have stimulus incentives to research and development--more generous than we have in our country.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

I also agree with my good friend from Nevada. This provision should be permanently extended. It makes no sense not to be permanently extended. It should be a permanent fixture in the law.

I say that because the stakes are getting so high. We are losing jobs to overseas companies in lots of ways.

One way to create jobs in America is to have a very aggressive research and development tax credit for research and development in America. It is clear that jobs tend to be where the research is. The more research we have in America, the more likely it is we will have more jobs in America. It will also help to maintain jobs.

We do not want jobs to go overseas. This will help us maintain jobs in America. We should not erect barriers to our companies going overseas. We should not stick our heads in the sand. That does not work. We are facing an immense challenge, and one good way is to pass this amendment.

In addition to passing the underlying bill, this JOBS bill before the Senate is not going to be the silver bullet many would like but it will help significantly.

With respect to the R&D credit, 62 percent of total industry research and development is performed in manufacturing industries. That includes computer and electronic products, transportation, equipment, and chemicals. It is disproportionately helpful to manufacturing jobs. We clearly want more manufacturing jobs in this country. Manufacturing jobs are important to the entire economy.

The multiplier effect in manufacturing jobs is extremely high. For every 16 million manufacturing jobs in this country, another 9 million are created in retail, wholesale, finance, and other sectors. That is not as true in other sectors. Most of the R&D effect is manufacturing, and manufacturing has a very high multiplier effect, which is all the more reason to get this passed.

Workers employed in manufacturing plants with more technologies also earn 63 percent more than workers in plants using lower level technologies. It is a question not only of the number of jobs but the wages the jobs pay, the amount of income those workers will receive.

I can go on at great length as to why this is so important. I am not going to expand anymore on it because I think Senators realize how important it is. I expect this to pass by a very large margin, and well it should.

Once we pass this amendment, it is incumbent upon us to start looking for other ways we can help give stimulus and help American companies keep jobs in America. I am certainly going to be a part of this. It is something we desperately have to do.

What is the remaining time?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, with this amendment, we are moving along on this bill. I very much appreciate the Senator's generosity in suggesting a time agreement. At this point, apparently, that is not advisable. But I thank the Senator for making his generous offer and for proceeding nevertheless.

My good friend from New Jersey has to leave the floor. I compliment the Senator for what he is trying to do. This clearly is the issue, the problem that faces our country as it will certainly for the rest of the year and probably for the indefinite future.

I am wondering, in addition to the approach suggested today--and there probably are additional proposals, too. This is a complex problem and requires a complex solution. It reminds me of a quote I am fond of making. H.L. Mencken once said: For every complicated problem there is a simple solution, and it is usually wrong.

In my judgment, this administration not only is sort of laissez-faire but kind of going AWOL on this issue. I don't see a plan. I don't see a way to deal with job loss that passes the smell test. In addition, wouldn't it help to be much more aggressive in enforcing our trade laws?

One thing that bothers me, frankly, is that we are going about getting trade agreements with minuscule economies. The big bang for the buck is enforcing our trade laws, say, with respect to India or China or maybe the European Union. There are lots of examples.

We hear about all the call centers in India. We don't hear much about many products by American companies being sold in India, and the Indians are very much violating the intellectual property agreements. Billions of dollars are being lost to American companies that could be spent in America because other countries are not living up to their international obligations.

I was wondering if the Senators agree that is one of the additional ways we can take to keep more jobs in America? Let's open up markets in other countries so we can export more.

The point I am trying to make is, we Americans pride ourselves on being fair and open, but I don't know that other countries are as fair and open when it comes to trade.

We are not pure. We do not wear a white hat. Other countries are not necessarily Darth Vaders and wear black hats. But I think it is also true the shade of gray of our hat is a lot lighter shade of gray than the shade of gray of their hats. They do not agree to fair trade in the main. I am talking about the bigger countries. India is the best example, the most blatant example.

Absolutely.

Let me ask the Senator a question on that same point. Would the Senator agree that in the main, most of the countries we are talking about--we are talking about environmental standards and labor standards in these countries--generally do not most of those countries want to sign free trade agreements with the United States because it adds to their prestige; it helps them market their products and helps them gain standing in the world? Would the Senator agree with that?

Would the Senator also agree that it is the case that most of these countries probably want to enjoy the status or the prestige of having a free trade agreement with the United States? Certainly we are not going to negotiate an agreement that gives away the store. This is a bargain for an exchange. Is it not also true that it therefore is a mistake for the United States to in effect be negotiating against itself; that is, for some in the administration to say, no, we do not want those labor standards, we do not want those environmental standards, whereas in truth those countries, frankly, are the ones we should be talking with because they themselves want these agreements and would be much more willing to agree to them?

The point being that the other countries themselves are much less concerned about this.

Exactly.

I do not know how much time the Senator has, but I might ask, if the Senator does not mind, to address another subject with respect to jobs. Would the Senator agree, as we try to find a solution to this problem, that one of the issues we have to face and have to focus on is high health care costs that American companies pay and face? It is a very complex problem, clearly, but a lot of companies unfortunately are lowering their employee health benefits or their retiree health benefits because they say it is necessary in order to do business; the world is just so competitive.

The first casualty is those who lose their health benefits. They are scared to death, frankly, about lowered health benefits or no health benefits. On top of that, it is partly, it seems to me, because we do have high health care costs in America.

In fact, the last study I saw is that we pay twice as much per capita on health than does the next highest country. I do not know if we are twice as healthy as people in other countries, but we pay a lot, and that has to be the cost of doing business.

What I am getting at, is part of the solution of this some way to address efficiencies in health care and quality of health care, recognizing that employees of companies in other countries have their health covered by the government, where that is not true in our country; that that, too, is a part of the problem here? If we are honest with ourselves, we are going to have to figure out some way to get our hand on that one, too.

Usually that is true.

We are going to give you a Nobel Prize for that.

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

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

Mr. President, I am happy to be, once again, on the floor with a very important piece of legislation. With the cooperation of the Democratic leadership of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, we bring to the floor a bill that was voted out of committee 19 to 2. Senator Baucus and I always work together as much as we can--that is, most of the time--to bring to the Senate a bill that can get through the Chamber because as so many people who watch the Senate regularly know, the Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, can't function if it does not function in a bipartisan way.

So we proceed, then, with this bipartisan bill: the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act. If I refer to the acronym JOBS, it is jumpstart our business strength.

Since March 2000, long before President Bush took office, the manufacturing sector has been under significant economic pressure. Obviously, that has affected manufacturing workers. A recent CBO study estimates that going way back to March 2000, an estimated 3 million workers have lost their manufacturing jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office attributes this job decline to the recession that began in November 2000 and the weak economy in demand that followed, part of it a result of September 11 and recovery not coming as normal as recoveries do.

But we always tend to look at bad news. Bad news tends to make the front pages of the newspaper. Good news tends to make the back pages, if there is good news printed at all.

There is good news on the horizon. That is, that new manufacturing orders, just this past December, surged to their highest levels in 50 years. They haven't been that high since July of 1950. And January was the sixth consecutive month that manufacturing activity expanded. In December, the manufacturing employment index grew for the second consecutive month, but the overall economy during that month added 1,000 jobs only. That was, of course, disappointing. But it wasn't disappointing from the standpoint of the manufacturing employment index growing because it seems that is the lagging sector of this recovery.

I believe we are on the right path for a strong recovery. In fact, there has been a recovery underway since economists ruled that the last recession ended October 1, 2001. But when a recovery ends, it is not always visible. Of course, it is visible in most segments of the economy by very strong indices that are there to prove that. But one area that is not is manufacturing employment. We do now have those 2 consecutive months of increased employment.

I believe we are on the right path to strong recovery, but we must do more to ensure manufacturing stays on the path of recovery. Manufacturing is so vital to the overall health of our economy, including follow-on sectors that benefit: the service and financial sectors.

As government policymakers, which we are, we have to act to revitalize the manufacturing sector. Today we have some good news on manufacturing, and that is, the legislation we bring to the Senate, because it is going to help enhance employment in the manufacturing sector.

As I have said previously, but I cannot emphasize too much, by a vote of 19 to 2 this bill was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee. Our bill is a bipartisan balance of domestic tax relief and international tax reforms, all meant to strengthen American business. Not as an end in itself, but as business strengthens, jobs are created. We are talking about jobs for Americans.

Most importantly, this bill is revenue neutral. That is important, when we read in the newspapers about facing a budget deficit. This bill then will not add one dime to the Federal deficit. The JOBS bill will repeal the current FSC/ETI regime and use all the money from repeal to provide a 3-point tax rate cut on income from U.S.-based manufacturing. I emphasize U.S.-based manufacturing. We start those cuts phasing in next year. This 3-point rate cut is only for manufacturing and only for manufacturing in the United States. This bill will not help American manufacturers that want to manufacture offshore.

I point out how our bill would approach this effort to help create jobs in American manufacturing and do it on American soil as opposed to the way that the Ways and Means Committee of the other body, and even other bills that will be offered in the upcoming debate, would face these issues. Our bill reducing taxes applies to all that manufacture in America.

I wish to make clear to our colleagues this is a bill to help manufacturing in the United States. American companies that manufacture overseas will not get the benefit of the corporate rate reduction. Foreign corporations that want to come over here to America and build plants and employ people in this country would get the benefit. But this bill is about helping American manufacturing that takes place in the United States of America.

I wish to differentiate the approach we use from the approach the Ways and Means Committee uses.

Unlike the pending Ways and Means bill, and other bills that will be offered during the upcoming debate, these cuts apply to all who manufacture in America, regardless of size. So this is going to include sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, and foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the United States. All of these enterprises will benefit as long as they manufacture.

So the objectives of this bill are pretty simple. Three: Jobs, jobs, jobs, meaning jobs that pay money because of manufacturing in America.

Manufacturing is important to all States, and I want to point out some benefits. For my State of Iowa--the figures I have are for 2001-- Iowa's gross State product was $91 billion. Of that, $19 billion or 21 percent of the State's wealth was created by manufacturing. From 2001 to 2002, Iowa's exports grew by nearly 15 percent. We shipped nearly $5 billion of goods out of Iowa, and that was during the year 2002.

In Iowa, we have 222,000 jobs in manufacturing. So that shows how important it is for the United States to be competitive in manufacturing both home and abroad because of 222,000 jobs just in my State. Those kinds of export numbers translate into very good and lasting jobs at home. Many of our country's manufacturing jobs are dependent upon the current FSC/ETI international taxing regime.

I have a map behind me that makes this very clear. It shows by State the jobs that are existing today because of the current FSC/ETI provision: South Carolina, 47,000 jobs; my State of Iowa, 35,000 jobs; California, 429,000 jobs; Texas, 262,000; New York, 215,000; Illinois, 156,000; Washington State, 107,000 jobs generated by FSC/ETI.

As my colleagues probably know, FSC/ETI stands for Foreign Sales Corporation, extraterritorial income. This is what was determined to be contrary to our international trade agreements, and that is why we have this legislation before us because if we do not do something about this issue, these numbers of jobs that are dependent upon this legislation are in jeopardy because our manufacturing will not be competitive with our foreign competition.

Of course, what this is all about is passing legislation that will be in agreement with our trade agreements and, consequently, still protect American manufacturing as the FSC/ETI has done over the last 25 to 30 years.

FSC/ETI reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and sold overseas. FSC/ETI is critical to the manufacturing sector. It can reduce taxes on exports by as much as 3 to 8 tax rate percentage points.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says that 89 percent of the Foreign Sales Corporation benefits go to manufacturing companies. Many of those companies are the largest manufacturing employers in the Nation. This reduced rate of tax on exports of U.S.-manufactured goods keeps our companies competitive in the international marketplace. It allows our companies to compete with the European Union countries, which happen to have a taxing system where they get a rebate on their value-added tax on exports.

If we did not have the Foreign Sales Corporation, we would be exporting more of our taxes, making us uncompetitive with the European Community that has a different taxing system, value-added tax, that they do not export.

Several years ago, the European Union filed a claim with the World Trade Organization challenging FSC/ETI as an illegal export subsidy. Hence, we are here repealing such an important provision because under trading rules, according to the decision, we cannot have a subsidy if it is contingent upon the act of exporting. The World Trade Organization ruled that the FSC/ETI is an illegal export subsidy and has authorized the European Union to impose up to $4 billion a year of sanctions against U.S. exports.

The European Union has already started this because March 1, this year, was the date to do it. The sanctions start at 5 percent of the $4 billion, and they are going to increase 1 percent for each month if we do not repeal the FSC/ETI provisions. They are going to cap out at 17 percent. So by November, these sanctions will be 12 percent. How are we going to compete when the tax benefits that were supposed to level the playing field are not only used, but the European Union, in a legal way under our trade agreements, is levying sanctions. Just as the United States when the European Union lost a case on our beef--they did not take our beef--we leveled sanctions against European products that are coming into this country, all in a legal way but not necessarily in the best way to conduct international trade.

So eventually, these sanctions are going to get up to 17 percent, and at that point the European Union will review the effectiveness of the sanctions, and further increases are possible.

The European Union has been consistent in its message, that the FSC/ ETI must be repealed; the same way that we were insistent upon Europe and we won a case in the World Trade Organization that they take our beef.

This is a serious threat against American manufacturing, and Europe knows where to hit us. One of those is agricultural products, plus paper products, and also a number of important manufacturing industries, and they are hitting us right now in our soft underbelly.

These sanctions are going to undermine the economic recovery that is underway, as I indicated before--underway with 2 months in a row of a positive upturn in the manufacturing index. So I believe it is important for the United States to fulfill its obligations under our trading rules.

Now, it so happens that we win a lot more cases than we lose, and it also is true that the United States has been a leader--in fact, the entire world recognizes us as a leader, and they wait for us sometimes--in reducing trade barriers around the world. We have shown leadership for the last 60 or 70 years in this area going back to the reciprocity agreements of the 1930s of reducing trade barriers.

As we expect Europe to import our beef when we win a case, it seems to me that we must show leadership in complying with these rules. What the World Trade Organization is all about is to bring the rule of law to what would otherwise be a jungle of international trade. That is because we get more business activity when there is predictability and understanding of how we are going to do business. Just as that is true in our domestic policy for business expansion, it is true in international trade; if there is predictability, we will get more business expansion around the world.

Domestic law has made that possible within the United States. We need to support a regime that does the same thing in international trade because we have seen under that regime of rule of law in international trade for the last 50 or 60 years the expansion of the world economic pie.

We are not talking about something that is just good for the United States. It is good for the United States. But we are talking about something that is good for the entire world.

We have a growing world population. If you don't have a growing world economic pie, there will be less for more people and less for more people means political, economic, and social instability, and chaos.

So we have seen under this regime of rule of law in international trade that the world economic pie has grown tremendously, and to a great extent because of international trade.

The United States has led the way. We need to continue leading the way. There are some lobbyists who are suggesting this is no big deal, this doesn't have to be done now, it can be done tomorrow, it can be done next year, and somehow these sanctions don't mean anything. They do mean something because they are going to make our products uncompetitive and then we can't sell. If these were put on John Deere tractors in Waterloo, IA, one-fourth of the jobs could go.

One-fourth of the jobs at John Deere tractor in my home State are related to trade. But we do have to abide by the rule of law in international trade unless we want chaos, unless we want the jungle.

These lobbyists say sanctions don't matter. They argue: After all, sanctions only start at 5 percent. They would say: There has been a decline in the dollar. That is going to take care of that problem. With a decline in the dollar, add on 5 percent, no difference.

But I will bet these lobbyists who are spreading this word that Congress doesn't have to act don't represent anybody--any workers or any firms--on this retaliation list. But for those industries that I have already talked about, and there are a lot more, sanctions do matter because they will not be able to export if they can't compete. Five percent right now, and for sure 17 percent a year from now, is going to make a big difference.

In regard to the lower value of the dollar against the euro, that somehow merely restores the status quo of the 1990s for a lot of American companies so they can export more. The recent decline in the dollar helped these companies regain lost market share in Europe, and we have lobbyists saying they ought to be back in that position that they were in just a year ago, not being able to sell because of the high cost of the dollar?

Why would Congress want to deprive these companies and their employees, where these are good American jobs, of the opportunity to export? That is beyond me. These are good jobs, because

statistics show conclusively that jobs connected with exports pay 15 percent above the national average.

Besides, there is no guarantee that the value of the dollar will not go up tomorrow because our official policy is a strong dollar policy. Our official policy is also to let the marketplace decide the value of the dollar. But if it does go up, it is going to leave American exporters in even a worse situation than they are today with that 5 percent and next month 6 percent.

It is plain wrong for us in Congress, when we can do something about it--and this bill does something about it--to gamble the future of these American working men and women on the volatile international currency market.

There is another fancy suggestion from these high-paid lobbyists, that all we have to do is cut a Government check to these U.S. exporters that are hurt by the sanctions.

That suggestion is just as stupid as the previous one. First, it is likely that the World Trade Organization would find such a scheme to be a prohibited export subsidy anyway, just as they originally did. That would continue the cycle of noncompliance and retaliation.

These birds don't believe in the rule of law on international trade. They like the jungle of international trade. In fact, most lobbyists like a jungle because they are the ones who think they are smart enough to sort it out. We are not going to allow that jungle to grow just so lobbyists can prosper.

But this scheme, as the original suggestions, is unworkable. It would probably require a new government bureaucracy to administer. You know what. This JOBS bill is about creating manufacturing jobs, not jobs in a government bureaucracy.

It has also been suggested that the U.S. Government could simply pay compensation to some foreign government rather than comply with our international trade obligations. I suppose, in the era of foreign aid, you might say that suggestion is theoretically possible. But it is not very realistic.

Under the World Trade Organization dispute settlement system, there is only one way, just one way, a nation can bring itself into compliance with an adverse ruling, conforming with the WTO-inconsistent measure, and that is with a report adopted by the dispute settlement body. That would dictate that as long as FSC/ETI is not repealed, the United States remains in violation of these international trade commitments. So paying compensation to some government, in my reading of the obligations under the trade commitments, is not going to bring the United States into compliance.

Furthermore, it has to be remembered that compensation in lieu of retaliation is only a viable option if the prevailing parties agree.

I think that is something the European Union is not inclined to do.

Even if it were possible, I am not going to suggest on the Senate floor that the United States taxpayers ought to be writing a check to the country of France. I, for one, don't think Congress is going to buy these arguments that we don't have to deal with this now and there are other ways around. These proposals are shell games expounded by Washington lobbyists trying to confuse Congress, confuse the public, and thus avoiding a real permanent solution to a longstanding FSC/ETI dispute with the European Union. This is not realistic. They will not stop the imposition of European sanctions.

People suggesting these alternatives ought to face facts. Gambling America's exports on the volatile currency market won't work. Cutting government checks to U.S. exporters won't work. Transferring taxpayers' money to foreign governments such as France won't work. These are shell games. There is only one real solution for American workers. This is something that has been worked out in a bipartisan way for the Senate to consider by the Senator from Montana and this Senator. This is the JOBS Act that is before us, and the best solution is to pass the JOBS Act now. I hope my Senate colleagues and our counterparts in the House of Representatives will act on the Finance Committee's FSC/ETI legislation. It is all of our responsibility--Democrat and Republican alike--to pass this bipartisan legislation.

If we, as a body, fail to act, American workers will suffer with fewer jobs, and the United States will lose an opportunity to rejuvenate and remain globally competitive in the mainstay of its economy--the manufacturing sector of our economy.

Our majority leader, Senator Frist, should be commended for bringing this bill to the floor so that the Senate can act now to end sanctions before they seriously damage the economy and before they damage our transatlantic relations. The bill needs to be passed so we can end the sanctions as soon as possible.

Repealing FSC/ETI raises around $55 billion over 10 years. Eighty- nine percent of it comes from jobs in the manufacturing industry. If that money is not sent back to help the manufacturing sector to be competitive with Europe, FSC/ETI repeal will be a $50 billion tax increase on manufacturing. The old rule of economics is if you tax something more, you get less of it. So there is going to be less jobs in manufacturing.

I think we can all agree that a $50 billion tax increase on manufacturing will not stimulate job growth in that sector. That is why the JOBS bill passed by the Finance Committee uses every penny from the FSC/ETI bill repeal. To give this 3-percentage tax rate cut on all income derived from manufacturing--that is done in the United States-- there is no benefit to American companies manufacturing overseas. There would be a benefit to international companies that come here to create jobs in America in manufacturing. Our 3-point rate reduction is not export contingent under the World Trade Organization rules. Unlike the FSC/ETI regime, this 3-point rate reduction applies to goods manufactured in the United States and which are sold domestically in the United States, or if they are exported for sale outside the United States. If you make it here, we cut your taxes regardless of whether you are a U.S. or foreign corporation--bringing those manufacturing jobs, then, to the United States of America. The JOBS bill starts phasing in the 3-point percentage tax rate reduction immediately in 2004.

If you look at this next chart behind me, you see on average, European Union manufacturing income is taxed at 21 percent but U.S. manufacturing income is taxed at 24 percent. As you can see, the 3- point rate cut on manufacturing income in the JOBS bill keeps us even with the European Union on manufacturing tax burdens.

We included in the JOBS bill several international tax reforms that are aimed specifically to help manufacturing. The whole JOBS bill is slanted towards manufacturing. Flaws in our international tax rules seriously undermine America's ability to compete in the global marketplace. International tax reform, like doing something with FSC/ ETI, is long overdue.

Our current system is built upon a framework dating back to President Kennedy in the early 1960s. We clean up problems that cause foreign earnings to be double taxed by the United States and the foreign countries where those profits are earned. We reform subpart (f) to ensure that active foreign businesses are taxed when the money is brought home and not when the United States companies are locked in battle with foreign companies that do not pay taxes.

You will hear a lot of noise in the upcoming debate about these international provisions. But let me tell you right now that the international provisions in our bipartisan JOBS bill are targeted to benefit U.S. manufacturing companies. Members may be surprised to learn our international provisions can actually harm a company's expansion in the United States of America where we want companies to expand so that jobs are created here and so that those jobs are not exported. It is a simple thing to do. Just fix our tax laws so that jobs are created in America as opposed to overseas.

We will have plenty of opportunity to talk about that issue in the upcoming debate.

In an era of expanding global markets, in an era of falling trade barriers, and in an era of technological innovations that melt away traditional notions of national borders, it is critical that our international tax laws keep pace with these new business realities.

We also include a provision for manufacturing that is not making money

right now. We allow a 3-year net operating loss carryback. This will allow companies to reclaim prior taxes paid. This will give them cash liquidity to weather the current storm.

I understand there may be some effort to expand this 3-year carryback to a 5-year carryback.

The JOBS bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act sponsored by Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Ensign of Nevada, and Senator Boxer of California. That is a bipartisan group to which anybody ought to be drawn.

This subpart of our JOBS bill, which is sponsored by Senators Smith, Ensign, and Boxer, is intended to encourage companies to bring their foreign earnings back to the United States by temporarily providing the reduced rate of tax. This bill will tax foreign earnings at 5\1/4\ percentage points instead of the 35 percent that would normally apply.

Advocates of this Homeland Investment Act claim that those moneys will be invested overseas instead of the United States, if we don't tax them at a lower rate than the 35 percent.

These colleagues view this measure as I do, very much stimulative to the economy and helping with our unemployment problem.

One last point I will make is that our bipartisan manufacturing tax bill is revenue neutral. I don't think it does harm to emphasize, sometimes we pass a tax bill and less money comes into the Federal Treasury and we might have a bigger deficit. This bill does not do that. Not one dime is added to the current deficit.

Thank God, the President has been in the forefront of this, asking for a bill that would be revenue neutral. We have delivered for our colleagues who believe in revenue neutrality of tax bills. We have delivered for the President.

The JOBS bill provides over $112 billion in business tax relief which is paid for by shutting down tax shelters and by closing abusive loopholes. Let me emphasize that because people are reading about this every day in the newspaper, companies setting up shell corporations overseas, with nothing but a cabinet and maybe an address, a post office box, for the sole purpose of avoiding taxation. They dash and stash the cash, whereas we have all these other patriotic companies staying in America.

There are other schemes I will not go into, but we deal with those schemes in this legislation, bringing in additional revenue that can be used, then, to make our international taxing regime more fair and do it in a way that creates jobs in the United States of America, not overseas.

It is a fact of life with most bills that come to the Senate, there is never complete agreement on an approach. There is always 20 percent on the right and 20 percent on the left that might disagree with something that comes to this Senate. What this Senate is all about is moving things to the center, to get a consensus to get something passed. In the process, there is never complete agreement.

For instance, some Members did not favor including this Homeland Reinvestment Act which Senators Smith, Ensign, and Boxer have written. We have included it in this bill. So we may have votes on that.

Our bill contains a temporary haircut on the rate reduction some Members would like to remove and others would like to retain. We will probably have that divisive issue before the Senate. Some Members prefer a reduction in the top corporate rate in place of all these international tax reforms and manufacturing rate cut deductions. Now, that is a more simple approach than we have, but this approach misses a couple of factors.

First, the top level rate cut would only go to the biggest corporations of America. It would not go to the local family-held S corporation or partnership as our finance bill does. We think we ought to help small business in the process.

Second, FSC/ETI repeal will not create a large tax increase on the service industry. That repeal will be a $50 billion tax increase on manufacturing. If we redirect the FSC/ETI repeal money to an across- the-board corporate cut, as a couple of my colleagues will offer an amendment to do, then the manufacturing sector will be the revenue offset for the services sector of tax cuts. It is a fact that we have a struggling manufacturing sector and I don't think a sector of our economy that is slowly recovering ought to be hit with this sort of a revenue offset for the benefit of the service industry. We have to face what is the current crisis in manufacturing.

Working families are living in financial fear. We owe a secure future to these hard-working men and women. For them, we have a secure future. Their employers must be able to compete and thrive both at home and abroad. Then their future is secure. Their employers cannot thrive if these companies are burdened with excessive tax rates at home and international tax barriers abroad.

Our bipartisan JOBS bill presents the best opportunity to end that burden and to make a downpayment on putting Americans back to work. Let's hope the Senate gets to work, puts American manufacturing back in the game. That is why I am here, urging my colleagues to support a bipartisan JOBS Act and cooperate to get this bill on the President's desk.

In closing, I have one message for the 39 Democrats who are not on the Finance Committee and may not see this, other than just a piece of legislation voted out of the Senate Finance Committee. I say to the 39 Democrats who are not on the committee, they have an opportunity to help us very quickly move a bill to the other body, very quickly help us pass a bill to help manufacturing, help us pass a bill to create jobs for American men and women in manufacturing, which is slow to recover. They have an opportunity to help with bipartisanship in the other body because there are bills in the other body, but they are short of the number of votes they need. Part of the reason is maybe the other body does not see the need to pass a bipartisan bill as we do in the Senate. There are Republicans and Democrats in the other body who are working on a way to do this, a way that is not far removed from our legislation.

If we have a real strong vote over here and we get this done quickly, we might be able to help the House of Representatives pass some legislation and to do it in a bipartisan way. Helping to pass legislation in a bipartisan way is not a bad goal for Senators, since we practice that.

Also, those 39 Democrats will have an opportunity to help the Senate Finance Committee do something we want to do because we can get it done in this bipartisan way and it is not exactly the way the White House wants us to get it done. Here again, we share governing responsibilities with the President and with the House of Representatives, and so Democrats working with Senator Baucus and myself, Democrats who are not on the committee, can help get a bill to the President, help the President to see maybe the aspects about this bill they do not like, they ought to take a second look at to see the good work, and help get a bipartisan bill through the House of Representatives.

I don't say that in a defensive way because I don't know of any reason the other 39 Democrats do not want to help us accomplish what we want to accomplish. What I have just said is not for that purpose, but only said for the purpose of those Democrats who are not on this committee, there is a larger aspect than just the language of the legislation that is before the Senate. It benefits them for a lot of goals they want to accomplish that sometimes cannot be accomplished as a minority part of this body.

Madam President, I ask the following unanimous consent request. We have perfecting amendments that have been cleared on both sides. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the first-degree and second-degree perfecting amendments that are at the desk be considered and agreed to en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided further that the committee substitute be agreed to and considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that the next first-degree amendments in order be the following: a Senator Hatch and Senator Murray amendment on R&D, with a Bingaman second-degree amendment which is relevant to the first degree; then Senator Dodd dealing with outsourcing; then Senator Bunning and Senator Stabenow dealing with accelerating manufacturers' tax cut; and then the fourth amendment will be Senator Daschle or his designee.

Madam President, I feel as if I owe that to the Senator from West Virginia because I already made arrangements for him to speak before we completed this agreement.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and that it come off of our time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I will be glad to respond to that. Some Members on our side have not studied the amendment as much as they felt they should and have some questions about it. I would say there are two things. One is understanding completely the impact of your amendment, which obviously is a legitimate concern. The other is that kind of makes a determination whether some Members on our side would want to take some action, maybe with an amendment to the amendment. That decision has not been made. My guess is that decision is not going to be made today. That decision will be made tomorrow.

Maybe I am being more candid than a Republican ought to be, but that is the way it looks to me. You have always been transparent with me. I think I ought to be transparent with you.

Mr. President, I think maybe I answered too casually when I answered the Senator's question--that maybe I have a feeling there were not legitimate concerns by people on my side. There are a couple legitimate concerns. No. 1, the Senator's amendment does have some mandate on States. That creates a lot of concern--I will bet not only on my side but on his side as well. That is a very philosophical point of view of the impact which we make in the Senate on 50 States, and how many subdivisions I don't know. The other one is the extent to which this might lead to legitimate legal retaliation as a result of the Senator's amendment. That seems to me to be a reasonable, free, and fair trade consideration in any action this body takes.

I want to make clear that it is not strictly political. There are some concerns about his amendment. I enunciated at least two.

Madam President, first of all, the Senator from Connecticut has been right in the sense that we have raised some concerns, and we are working with him. He has made some modifications. We are still hearing about some more concerns. I have expressed two of those already. I would like to express another concern that I have heard.

Yes, it preserves jobs in America if there is not outsourcing of service jobs that are involved. But this is a legitimate concern on our side: The extent to which there might be retaliation by countries that outsource some things to the United States. That goes on as well. We want to make sure if we are losing jobs, we don't have a greater loss of jobs in retaliation for Americans who are already employed by a company outside the United States which is using the services of American people in America.

These are concerns that need to be addressed. These are things that will be brought out in debate, and it may be possible to work on continuing modifications of the Dodd amendment so that hopefully we can get it passed without a great deal of opposition.

At this point, we are not prepared to vote.

That is what my Blackberry said 5 minutes ago.

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

Mr. President, just a parliamentary inquiry: I understand we are on the FSC bill, and we are on an amendment that has been laid down; is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

America is stuck in a jobless recovery and this jobless recovery is not an accident. It is in large measure the result of failed economic policies, policies that the administration stubbornly clings to despite the loss of nearly 3 million private sector jobs over the last 3 years.

This administration has embraced outsourcing. It is against extending unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed. It is adamant against raising the minimum wage. And it is determined--any day now--to eliminate time-and-a-half overtime pay for millions of American workers.

It is time for Congress to step in and chart a new course. It is time for Washington to listen to ordinary working Americans. They are telling us loudly and clearly that their No. 1 issue is economic security. They are telling us that they fear losing their jobs, health care, and retirement.

Now they also fear losing their right, which has been their right since 1938, to time-and-a-half compensation for work over 40 hours a week. They fear, with good reason, that under the Department of Labor's new rules, they will be obligated to work a 50-, 55-, 60-hour week with zero additional compensation. For millions of working Americans and their families, this is unacceptable. It is, indeed, the last straw.

Accordingly, at the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to this bill that will stop the administration from implementing its proposed new rules to eliminate overtime pay protection for millions of American workers.

This amendment will be very familiar to my colleagues. Late last year a similar amendment I offered passed the Senate by a vote of 54 to 45. It was endorsed in the House by a vote of 226 to 203. It also won the overwhelming support of the American public. Yet despite this clear expression of the will of Congress and of the public, my overtime amendment was stripped from the omnibus appropriations bill in conference.

Today this overtime amendment is back by popular demand. It amazes me that wherever I travel, anywhere in the country, people come up to me to talk about this overtime issue. They know now what the administration is trying to do. They are upset. Working families are angry and they want action. They want us to take action to stop the implementation of these new rules that will take away their protection so that they can get time and a half when they work overtime.

Frankly, at this point the administration has zero credibility on this issue. The Department of Labor claims that it simply wants to give employers clear guidance as to who is eligible for overtime pay. But ordinary Americans are not buying this happy talk. They know that the administration is proposing a radical rewrite of the Nation's overtime rules. They know these new rules will strip millions of workers of their right to fair compensation.

The people are right. They are correct. Plain and simply, the new overtime rules are a frontal attack on the 40-hour workweek, pushed aggressively by the administration without a single public hearing. Yes, that is correct. Last year these proposed rules came out, drastically changing our overtime pay protections, the rules that had been implemented since 1938, without one public hearing anywhere in the United States.

These new proposed rules could effectively end overtime pay in dozens of occupations, including nursing, police officers, firefighters, clerical workers, air traffic controllers, social workers, journalists. Indeed, the new criteria for excluding employees from overtime are deliberately vague and elastic so as to stretch across vast swaths of the workforce.

Listen to Mary Schlichte, a nurse in Cedar Rapids, IA:

Many nurses just like me work long hours in a field with

very stressful working conditions and little compensation. .

. . Our patients rely on us. Our families depend on us. We

need overtime pay so we can stay in the profession we love

and still make our ends meet.

Ms. Schlichte told me about her Cedar Rapids nurse colleagues who also rely on overtime pay. One nurse is married to a struggling farmer. She relies on her overtime pay to cover their insurance premiums. They already fear losing their farm, and now they fear losing their health care coverage also.

Dixie Harms is a longtime trainer of nurses in Des Moines. Ms. Harms told me:

If overtime is changed for hospital nurses, we will see a

mass exodus of registered nurses from the hospital setting

because they will get fed up and refuse to volunteer so many

hours to what they really love doing.

Two and a half years ago, after the terrible September 11 attacks, many in this body spoke eloquently about the heroism of our firefighters, police officers, public safety workers. Ever since, America's first responders have worked long hours to protect us from terrorists threats. But now the administration apparently wants to deny them time-

and-a-half compensation for those longer hours. Simply put, this is wrong.

Since passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, overtime rights and the 40-hour workweek have been sacrosanct, respected by Presidents of both parties. But nothing, it seems, is sacred to this administration when it comes to workers' rights.

For 65 years, the 40-hour workweek has allowed workers to spend time with their families instead of toiling past dark and on weekends. At a time when the family dinner is becoming an oxymoron, this standard is more important than ever.

These radical revisions are antiworker and antifamily. Given the fact we are stuck in a jobless recovery, the timing of this attack on overtime could not be worse. It is yet another instance of this administration's economic malpractice.

Bear in mind that time-and-a-half pay accounts for some 25 percent of the total income of Americans who work overtime. With average U.S. incomes declining, the proposed changes would slash the paychecks of millions of American workers.

Moreover, the proposed new rules are all but guaranteed to hurt job creation in the United States. This is basic logic. If employers can more easily deny overtime pay, they will push their current employees to work longer hours without compensation.

With 9 million Americans currently out of work, these proposed regulations will give employers yet another disincentive to hire new workers. Why hire a new worker if you can get your present workers to work overtime and not have to pay them time and a half? That would be cheaper than hiring a new worker.

It is bad enough to deny 8 million workers their overtime rights, but what is really striking about these proposed rules is the mean- spiritedness of the language included in these proposed rules from the Department of Labor.

For example, the department is offering employers what amounts to kind of a cheat sheet--helpful hints on how to avoid paying overtime to the lowest paid workers, the same workers who are supposedly helped by the new rules.

Let me be clear about this. There is a part of the proposed changes that we all support, and that is raising the minimum pay level by which a worker would not be exempt from any overtime rules. For example, right now, if you make below about $7,000 a year, no matter what your job is, you cannot be exempted from overtime, from overtime rules--even if you are a professional or if you fall into one of the exempt categories. If you make below about $6,900 or $7,000 a year, you have to be paid time and a half overtime, no matter what your job is. The administration is proposing to raise that to about $21,900, close to $22,000 a year. It has not been raised for a long time, so that is all well and good. But, in so doing, the administration has put out technical advice to employers on how they can get around paying the lowest paid workers time and a half.

For example, the department suggested in writing that an employer might cut a worker's hourly wage so that any new overtime payments will not result in a net gain to the employee. It also recommends if the worker's salary is close to the threshold, you might want to raise their salary slightly to meet that threshold and then their protection for time and a half would end, and then they could be exempt.

This is kind of disgraceful. This would be like the IRS putting out advice to would-be scofflaws, or people or entities that might want to get around paying their fair share of taxes, telling them how to avoid paying their taxes, saying here is how you can effectively cheat. What would we say if the IRS started putting out advice to employers, saying here is how to get around paying your fair share of taxes?

That is what they are doing on overtime. They are putting out advice to employers, saying here is how you get around it. It is disgraceful. There is one part of this new proposed rule that I find probably more disgraceful than just about anything. I know that when I say this, people are going to say: Harkin, this cannot be right, this cannot happen.

The more I dig into the nuts and bolts and fine print of this proposed rule for changing overtime, the more astounded I am at what we are finding, in terms of who is now being exempted, or trying to be exempted from overtime pay.

Would you believe it if I told you that the administration, for the first time since 1938, is changing the rules to make it harder for veterans to get overtime pay than their counterparts who did not serve in the military? Let me repeat that. Mr. President, generally, people would not believe me if I told them this administration, in their proposed rules, is making it harder for a veteran to qualify for overtime than someone who didn't serve in the military. People say: Harkin, that cannot be right.

Read the proposed regulation. I have the old one. Here is the old rule that covers overtime pay. There is a section called ``Learned Professions,'' and it is talking about who basically would be not barred from exemption. It talks about members of the professions, such as graduates of law school and different things like that. It says here the word ``customarily'' implies that in the vast majority of cases a specific academic training is a prerequisite for entrance into the profession. It makes the exemption available to the lawyer, the chemist, and things like that. But it does not in any way mention veterans in the old rule. There is no mention of veterans.

Here is the new rule. I have it blown up on the chart. It says:

However, the word ``customarily'' means that the exemption

is also available to employees in such professions who have

substantially the same knowledge level as the degreed

employees, but who attained such knowledge through a

combination of work experience, training in the Armed Forces,

attending a technical school.

Et cetera, et cetera. These words, ``training in the Armed Forces'' have never been in the rules before. In other words, since 1938, we have gone through World War II, the Korean war, cold war, Vietnam war, the gulf war, Dominican Republic war, Grenada, and a whole bunch of other things. And our veterans--people who have served in the military, who went in there, who the Army asks to ``be all that you can be in the U.S. Army.'' How many ads do we see enticing young people to come into the military because they can get training which will increase their ability to earn more money later on in life, after they get out of the military--specialized training that will make them more desirable in the workforce?

Well, guess what. They are running those same ads to be all you can be, learn a specialized training, and be more valuable in the workforce, and at the same time the administration is promulgating a rule saying: Wait a minute, if you get training in the Armed Forces, guess what. You are now covered under this new rule that says you can be exempted from the overtime pay protection because now you fall into the same kind of category as lawyers and architects and people who went to school for a long time to receive specialized training.

Again, don't take my word for it. Read it. ``Training in the Armed Forces''--those five words have never been in the rules before, never. We said before if you get training in the Armed Forces, you can now be exempt from overtime pay. That is what is coming down the pike. That is what is in these rules. That is why so many of us feel so strongly that this proposed overtime rule should not be adopted.

According to the proposed rules, employers can consider specialized training and knowledge gained in the military as equivalent to what is learned in professional schools. This will allow employers to reclassify veterans as ineligible for overtime. I started looking at some of the comments made regarding this. I wondered where it is coming from. Here are comments on behalf of the Boeing company:

Boeing observes that many of its most skilled technical

workers received a significant portion of their knowledge and

training outside the university classroom, typically in a

branch of the military service, where through a combination

of classroom training and field experience they become

``learned experts'' on very sophisticated aerospace products

or services. Oftentimes, such experts are actually more

knowledgeable than colleagues with advanced degrees--

Master's degrees and Ph.D.s.

and are viewed by the customers as the company's experts on

the product. Boeing thus supports the Department's--

That is the Department of Labor--

focus on the knowledge used by the employee in performing her

job, rather than the source of the knowledge or skill.

What Boeing is saying is we have a lot of people who work for us who got their training in the military. They have become skilled in their profession. But because they did not go to graduate school, because they got their training in the military, we still have to pay these people overtime. We have to pay them time and a half, and we do not want to pay them time and a half. We want to treat them just like Ph.D.s and all those other people. So, therefore, they support the proposed rule change that would allow them, Boeing, to reclassify these former veterans as being exempt from overtime pay protections.

This is a letter from Thomas Corey, the national president of the Vietnam Veterans of America:

Therefore, we would like to make you aware that the

proposed modification of the rules would give employers the

ability to prohibit veterans from receiving overtime pay

based on the training they received in the military. . . .

The proposed rule changes will make these veterans and their

families unfairly economically vulnerable in comparison with

their non-veteran peers.

Let me repeat that:

The proposed rule changes will make these veterans and

their families unfairly economically vulnerable in comparison

with their non-veteran peers. We hope you will agree that the

men and women who have served our Nation so well in military

service should not be penalized for having served.

That is Thomas Corey, national president, Vietnam Veterans of America. I think that is the crux of it. You could have two people, both skilled in a certain area, let's say aerospace or whatever it might be. One got his training in the military and one got his training in some other way outside the military. So the person outside the military would be covered under overtime. The person who served in the military would not be covered by overtime.

I wish someone would make some sense out of that. It is just a slap in the face to the men and women who served in the military and were told: Be all you can be, get specialized training in the military, but what they are not telling them is once you do that, they are going to take away your right to overtime pay once you get out of the military.

This is outrageous--outrageous not just to our veterans but to most Americans. Veterans organizations are deeply disturbed by this, not just the Vietnam veterans but all veterans organizations.

Picture this: The Commander in Chief has mobilized thousand of reservists and National Guard troops from Iowa and from across America. They left their regular jobs as police officers, firefighters, nurses, clerical workers, on and on, and are deployed in Iraq for a year or more. But if the administration has its way, when these troops come back home from Iraq or wherever to resume their civilian jobs, they are going to find that if they received specialized training in the military, they have been stripped of their right to time-and-a-half overtime pay.

It is punishing veterans precisely because they were dedicated soldiers who pursued specialized instruction and training while in the military. The Department of Labor is preparing quite a welcome home present for many of the guardsmen and reservists returning from Iraq. It might read this way:

Dear Returning Veteran: While you were away we reclassified

your job so that you no longer qualify for time-and-a-half

overtime pay. Thank you for serving our country.

There is another group I talked about last year--and it is still true this year--who are disproportionately harmed by the proposed new overtime rules--women.

The fact is, women tend to dominate in retail services and sales positions which would be particularly affected by the new rules. Married women in America increased their working hours by nearly 40 percent from 1979 to 2000. As women have increased their time in the paid labor market, their contribution to family income has also risen. These contributions are especially important to lower and middle-income families--important for housing, health care, heating bills and, of course, for sending kids to school.

Yet now the administration's new rules would take away overtime protections from millions of American women. Women in the paid workforce would be forced to work longer hours for less pay and, of course, this means more time away from families, more childcare expenses with no additional compensation. Not surprising, prominent women's groups are adamantly opposed to the new overtime rules.

The American Association of University Women, the National Organization of Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the YWCA, and Nine to Five, and the National Association of Working Women are all strongly supporting my amendment to stop the administration from implementing these new overtime rules.

There is a broader context to this discussion of overtime. There is a bigger picture. As I said, the No. 1 issue for Americans today is economic security, and with good reason, because it is abundantly clear that America is stuck in a jobless recovery.

Since this administration took office, nearly 3 million private sector jobs have been lost, including one in every seven jobs in manufacturing. George W. Bush has presided over the largest job loss of any President since Herbert Hoover. Yet the President remains wedded to policies that are making the problem worse. He remains wedded to policies that are destroying jobs, driving down wages, and threatening the economic security of the American people.

A couple of weeks ago, the White House issued its annual economic report signed by the President explaining why we should welcome the ``offshoring'' of U.S. jobs. The President's top economic adviser assured us that the outsourcing of high-end, white-collar jobs to Asia is ``a plus for the economy in the long run.''

The President's economic report praises the virtues of a ``level playing field for goods and services,'' arguing that when a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically. That is from the President's report.

We have a very serious question to ask ourselves: Do we really want American workers competing on a ``level playing field,'' head to head with factory workers in China working for 20 cents an hour, with software engineers in India working for $10,000 a year, going head to head with countries that employ abusive child labor to make products?

In reality, is this not a race to the bottom, with nations competing to slash salaries and benefits in order to win more jobs? Outsourcing is not the only thing hurting job creation and suppressing wages. These new overtime rules will have the same effect. Eight million workers will be stripped of their right and their protection to overtime pay.

Of course, the employers can deny overtime pay. As I said, they simply push their current employees to work longer hours without compensation. This is a powerful disincentive to hire new workers. So as with outsourcing, the idea of sending so many of these jobs overseas, where they are paying 20 cents an hour, no health benefits, no retirement benefits, no Social Security, no environmental protections, killing overtime pay is the same thing. Just keep in mind if an employer can work an employee more than 40 hours and not pay time and a half, we can see that an employer would then say, well, why should I hire new workers? I will just work my present workers longer. If I can get 4 or 5 more hours a week out of each employee and not pay time and a half overtime, that is better than hiring somebody else.

That is exactly what this proposed overtime rule is all about. It is terrible for job creation. I do not know why this administration does not see that. Yet in the face of facts, in the face of all of the reports we have gotten, in the face of what Americans are saying, which is that they want their overtime protected, the administration is surging ahead. They are going to strip people in this country of their right to overtime pay.

Since we have had no public hearings on it, we are not certain why the administration is doing this. Why are they moving ahead with the most profound change in our overtime laws since 1938? Now, I use my words carefully. I said the ``most profound change.'' There have been changes in overtime rules and laws since 1938,

since the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, of course. Many occupations that existed then no longer exist, and they were taken off. I understand.

New occupations came in like computer software writers, computer engineers, which were not around in the late 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s. So there have been changes.

Every time we have made a change in the overtime rules, we have done it through open hearings, through open collaboration between the administration and Congress and labor, all working together to do what is right for our people and our country.

So, yes, we have made a number of changes since 1938, but as far as my research shows, this is the first time since 1938 that an administration has made this profound a change, and it is the first time since 1938 that the administration has proposed these changes without having one public hearing. It is the first time since 1938 that any administration, Republican or Democrat, has proposed changes such as this in the overtime rules without consultation and working closely with Congress to develop a consensus as to what has to be done.

I am left with, perhaps, some conclusions: The administration really does not want to create a lot of new jobs; that by driving down labor costs, perhaps we can increase corporate profitability. It allows corporations to export cheap labor overseas with outsourcing. The administration puts pressure on U.S. workers to accept lower wages, less generous benefits, longer working hours. This is true of outsourcing, and it is true of eliminating overtime.

Right now, American workers work longer than any workers in any industrialized country in the world. We now work longer than workers in Japan, Germany, Great Britain, and our neighbor to the north, Canada. Guess what we are being told. Guess what our workers are being told by this administration. That they are going to work even longer, and they will not have any right to overtime pay.

There is more. The President refuses to extend benefits for the long- time unemployed, and opposes any increase in the minimum wage. It has been frozen at $5.15 an hour for years. This is not a living wage; it is a poverty wage. It keeps downward pressure on wages all across the spectrum.

All this means, again, is fewer jobs for U.S. citizens. It means downward pressure on wages for all of our workers.

Something is missing. What is missing is ordinary, hard-working Americans are not participating in this so-called economic recovery. More and more Americans live in fear of losing their jobs, their health benefits, and losing their retirement. The truth is, we cannot build a sustainable recovery by exporting jobs, by driving down wages, and by making Americans work longer hours without compensation.

Moreover, such a recovery, if it even could take place, is not desirable. As one individual said, my time with my family in the evenings and on the weekends is premium time. Yes, I work during the week to make a living, but the time with my family is premium time. If I am going to be asked to give up my premium time with my family, do I not deserve to have premium pay, time and a half, something out of the ordinary?

As this person said to me, I get my wages, which are ordinary, for my ordinary working hours that I have agreed to work, but I should not get ordinary pay for my premium time, which is the time I spend with my family. That is why I say a recovery that means that our American workers are going to work longer, spend more time away from their families, and not get paid any more for it is not a desirable recovery.

A true recovery must include all working Americans. It can only be built on a foundation of good jobs with good wages in America, not overseas. It can only be built on a foundation that includes a minimum wage that is a living wage, not a poverty wage. It can only be built on a foundation that preserves American workers' rights to time and a half overtime pay.

Shortly, I will be offering this amendment. Obviously, this FSC bill is touted as a JOBS bill. That is all well and good. Let us have an open and good discussion about that. We have some amendments to offer that a number of us believe will help increase jobs in this country. The one I will be offering will be protecting the overtime rights of American workers. So I am hopeful we can move on to that.

On this issue, the administration ignores the pleas of the public. It has brushed aside the clear wishes of both Houses of Congress. Last year, we passed the amendment in the Senate to disallow the Bush regulations on taking away overtime pay protections. The House emphatically approved of that. Yet it was stripped out in conference. Again, this is not acceptable. I hope we can have a strong bipartisan vote in support of my amendment that would disallow taking away overtime pay protection for American workers. We can save the administration from making a terrible mistake. We can protect American workers' time-honored right to overtime compensation, and we can support an economic recovery that includes all Americans, a recovery that respects and preserves the American way.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before the distinguished Democratic leader leaves the floor, I would like, through you, to pose this to him: We have been here now for approximately 2 hours on this very important legislation. The Democratic leader has talked about how important it is, the distinguished chairman of the committee has talked about how important it is, our ranking member has talked about how important it is, and we are doing nothing. We have a gentleman's agreement that this would be for debate only, but I think the Democratic leader would agree with me, and I think everybody should be put on notice that this cannot go on all day long, that this is ridiculous; would the Senator agree to that?

Madam President, it is true also, is it not, that we have made--and I would like to hear the Democratic leader respond to this--a fair response? The majority has an amendment they want to offer, sponsored by Senator Hatch, dealing with extension of some tax credits. We then said we would like to offer an amendment to stop what--it is not a crime but it is close to it in our country today with all the outsourcing of all these contracts, and we want to make sure the U.S. Government contracts are not outsourced unless there are certain limitations placed upon them.

Then they would come back with another amendment sponsored by Senator Bunning. Then we would come back with another amendment sponsored by Senator Harkin dealing with overtime, and this is no secret; this is an issue about which we have great concern as to what the administration is doing with American workers with overtime.

Is there anything in this agreement the Democratic leader sees that should prevent us from moving forward on this critical legislation? We have even agreed to time limits; is that not true?

Madam President, reserving the right object, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee. He, in the statement he has made so far, along with the ranking member, underscored the importance of moving this legislation, and this is movement in that direction.

As we indicated in the dialog between Senator Daschle and this Senator, we will agree on time limits anytime the Senator wants to work something out in that regard. We will be happy to do that. This is a very good first step, and we do not object.

Madam President, we now have an amendment that will be offered as soon as Senator Hatch arrives. Senator Byrd saw we were not doing a lot on the floor, and he asks, through me, that he be able to speak for up to 20 minutes at this time.

Madam President, I propound that in the form of a unanimous consent request, with the understanding that the first amendment be offered as soon as he finishes. That will be good.

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

I object.

No objection.

Reserving the right to object, we have no problem with that except we now have an hour and 10 minutes. We don't want those two Senators to use the entire 70 minutes so we should have some idea how long they are going to speak.

I think it would be appropriate if my friends agree the time be equally divided between now and 3:30 between the proponents and opponents of the measure.

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

I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is absent on official business.

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

If I could make a brief statement without the Senator losing the floor----

For the minority, the majority leader has indicated there will be no votes tonight. Everyone should know that.

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

Madam President, I think the American people need to look at what has transpired in recent weeks with this administration. Senator Dodd has brought to the Senate's attention one issue; that is, a high-ranking member of this administration has said that outsourcing jobs--what does it mean? Shipping jobs overseas--is good for our economy. That is what he said. Well, if that were the end of it, you could well say, maybe that was just somebody who made a mistake.

Then we have today Tommy Thompson who says: We should not have Americans be concerned about all the money we are giving to Iraq to establish a health care system because we really have, in the United States, a universal health care system because those people who have no insurance get taken care of. That is what a Cabinet officer of this President said.

Now, should we stop there? Let's go on and talk about what another Cabinet officer said 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of Education. The Secretary of Education said, to a group of assembled Governors, that the National Education Association were terrorists. He did not say it once to the Governors but twice. I have talked to Governors who were there: The National Education Association are terrorists; the largest teacher organization in the world, based in the United States, are terrorists.

I think that is something I cannot comprehend: How the Secretary of Education can say this about teachers.

Someone I went to high school with--we played baseball together; we were on the first State championship baseball team in the history of the State of Nevada; He was a pitcher; I was a catcher--Reynaldo Martinez and I have been friends for these many years. He was my chief of staff in the Senate. He retired a few years ago. He was a longtime organizer for the National Education Association. To call Rey Martinez a terrorist because he was a member of that organization is difficult for me to comprehend.

For me personally, what is transpiring in Congress, because of the position the administration has taken regarding highway transportation--the former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the former chairman of the Finance Committee, now the ranking member of the Finance Committee, has worked, as I have worked, on a number of highway bills. There is no bill we do in the Senate, in the Congress, that is more important than a highway bill. It creates millions of jobs over a 6-year bill. We produced a bill based on the budget we passed a year ago. We have there, in the bill that we were able to report out of committee, in keeping with the budget, and as passed the Senate of the United States, a bill that is a very good bill, that does not raise one penny of taxes, that takes care of transit and highways. The President says he is going to veto the bill.

Outsourcing is good; 44 million Americans, don't worry, you have universal

coverage because if you get sick, you can go to an emergency room, if you are lucky, if there is one there; the National Education Association personnel are terrorists; and he is going to veto the transportation bill. Is there somebody in the bowels of the White House trying to destroy the President? I cannot imagine the President would come up with these ideas himself. I certainly hope not.

I commend and applaud my friend from Connecticut, the senior Senator from Connecticut. He has brought to the attention of the Senate the importance of focusing on the disastrous loss of manufacturing jobs. Since this President has been in office, our Nation has lost a total of 2.8 million jobs. Every single month, with no exception, manufacturing jobs are lost.

I guess I should be leading the cheers here because out of the 50 States, the great State of Nevada is the only one in white on this chart. We hold the record. We created 200 new jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years. That is certainly better than losing 200, and it is certainly better than the State of Texas, which has lost 150,000 jobs, or the State of New York, 115,000 jobs. Even a small State such as Wyoming lost 700 jobs. California has lost 273,000 jobs. So 200 may not look like much, but for us in Nevada, we will take it.

Two hundred manufacturing jobs in 3\1/2\ years were created in the State of Nevada--not much, until you compare it to the rest of the country. Then we are doing pretty well. We are the only State in the Union that had a net gain of manufacturing jobs during this Presidency.

Where have these jobs gone? Some are gone forever, but lots of them have gone overseas. Our country cannot remain strong if we can't manufacture steel, automobiles, airplanes, and appliances. I am very happy that we do wonderfully well with our service industry. No place represents that better than the State of Nevada, especially Las Vegas. But we cannot remain the superpower of the world by flipping hamburgers, which is something I forgot to mention.

Somebody in the administration suggested 2 weeks ago that we should create a new manufacturing category; that is, people who work in fast food restaurants. I am not making that up. They want to turn people who work in McDonald's preparing meat patties, putting the sandwiches together, into manufacturers.

Mr. President, I have only talked about what has happened in the last few weeks: Outsourcing is good, teachers are terrorists, veto the transportation bill. We have universal coverage in America because if you are one of the 44 million, you get taken care of some day somewhere. That is universal coverage. That was the Secretary of Health and Human Services who said that. And now they are trying to develop a new category of manufacturing.

This reminds me of my friend Greg Maddux. In Las Vegas we are so proud of him. He has won the Cy Young Award 4 years. He is slightly built and my size. He is one of the greatest pitchers of all size. His hands are smaller than mine. He is now going to Chicago. He needs to win 11 more games to become a 300-game winner, which is a big deal in baseball. Just a handful of people have done that. So he needs 11 more games. Based on the President's assumption of how we can create manufacturing jobs, maybe we can get him to 11 more quickly. What I suggest is having four strikes instead of three. With four strikes--he has great control--I guarantee you, even though he will be 37 years old next month, I think he could win his 11 games much more quickly.

That is what is going on with this administration. If you don't like what goes on, change the rules.

I have said before, I have two brothers older than I. One of them was working in a Standard station in a place called Ashfork, AZ. He wanted to take his little brother away from Searchlight. So we went to what I thought was the big town of Ashfork, AZ. Frankly, it was not a lot of fun for me because my brother had a girlfriend, and he didn't spend a lot of time with me. So I was pushed off on his girlfriend's brother. I could not beat him at anything. It didn't matter what it was. I never beat him at anything because he always changed the rules in the middle of the game. That is what is going on here with the administration. We are going to change the definition of manufacturing.

The loss of jobs in our country is very bad. If it were only manufacturing jobs that were going overseas, I would not like it, I would complain about it. But this has been compounded because the loss of manufacturing jobs is not the only problem. The Senator from Connecticut and I were looking earlier today at a chart. I am sure he has shown it. This chart talked about some of the diagnostic procedures that were going overseas. Look at some of these things: 14 million jobs in danger of being shipped overseas.

As I was saying, Senator Dodd and I were looking at this earlier today. We don't need to go through all of this, about the 14 million jobs, some of which have already been shipped overseas and some going overseas. Diagnostic support services, we already know what these are. They are actually shipping medical records to other countries and having them catalogued. But they are also having some of these medical records reviewed. Take, for example, a CAT scan. Ship it overseas. They can have somebody there review it very quickly. Take, for example, an X-ray, a simple X-ray, ship it overseas. They can do it quickly. You will get the results back soon. I don't feel very good about that. I go to my doctor in Las Vegas or Reno, Boulder City, Elko in Nevada. They are shipping the X-rays they take of my body to India or some foreign country to have somebody over there call my doctor or the hospital staff and tell them what is wrong with me? I don't think so.

The additional problem with that, just from a basic fairness standpoint, I won't disclose the Senator's name, but a Senator told me she had two complaints from constituents in that State that privacy was being violated, people had information that came from overseas about her health condition. I hope the people making these decisions for our President were not trained during the Reagan years.

Reagan, for whom I have the highest respect, didn't continue this. He learned early on it was not a good idea when someone in his administration said, let's have ketchup considered a vegetable for the school lunch programs. Maybe that person is still around here someplace and giving these great recommendations to this administration. I hope not. Or if it is true that that person is around, maybe they should put a stop to it. We do not want people who are being X-rayed, medical records, lawyers who research cases and write briefs, technological specialists to keep virtually every company running--all these jobs are fleeing America in a mad global case for cheap labor.

Every time a job goes overseas, it hurts an American family.

It used to be that if you lost a job, you would find one pretty quickly. Now the average time for getting a new job after losing a job in America is almost 1 year. Losing the job is bad enough because you lose self-esteem, you lose a sense of pride, you believe you have not been appreciated, even though you were doing the best job you could, but also that family probably loses their health insurance because they cannot pay for the COBRA; they don't have money to do so.

My son left to go to Vegas, and he needed coverage of insurance for 2 weeks. It cost him $2,200. He is married, has two little girls, his wife was pregnant. He had no choice. He had the money to pay for it. If he had not had it, I would have helped him. That is not

the way it is with everybody. Many people are not able to buy insurance for periods of time when they don't have it. Maybe they are buying a home or were going to buy one and they lose the sense of a dream of owning a home.

What about college? College is so expensive. It used to be that when I was growing up, I could work in the summers and during the school year to pay for my education. My parents were not in a position to help me, and I basically educated myself with a few little scholarships I had. You cannot do that anymore. You cannot work during the off- season--unless you rob banks--to pay for a college education. It is too expensive. So that is another thing a family would lose--the ability to prepare for their children to attend college. That is why the loss of American jobs is a crisis in our country. We need a real plan to address that issue. We cannot afford to wait until the next business cycle because the flight of jobs overseas is a result of powerful economic forces.

American workers are not afraid of fair competition. I am not against that, but I am against the mentality of chasing cheap labor around the globe with no regard to long-term implications. When American companies choose cheap labor, they are saying our environment doesn't matter. They are saying conditions for their own workers do not matter, and they are forgetting the great lesson learned from Henry Ford. Henry Ford was not a person I liked everything he did or said, but he was a good businessman. He realized in order for his company to sell cars, the people who build them should be able to also buy those cars. In other words, workers are also customers. A worker who earns a decent living can afford to buy the products and services American companies are selling. So every time a so-called American company chases cheap labor by moving jobs overseas, we are all diminished. The market for goods and services in our country is damaged.

As I have said, the President's top economic advisers said the outsourcing of jobs is a good thing. Every day someone in the administration says the economy is getting better. It might be looking up to those who have the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times delivered to their homes but not to middle class Americans. They feel that inside something is happening that goes beyond the normal business cycle.

Middle class Americans are deeper in debt than ever. Consumer debt is at an all-time high. Middle class Americans are afraid the Social Security benefits will be swallowed in the sink hole of a half- trillion-dollar deficit. And they are right. The debt would be much bigger for the 3 years that this President has been in office but for the fact that the debt is being disguised by the Social Security surplus. Middle class Americans are worried their jobs might be outsourced. They are being hit hard by the skyrocketing cost of health care. Their deductibles and copayments keep going up, and they wonder whether they are going to lose coverage entirely.

There are 77,000 people on strike in California who work in grocery stores. They are not on strike because of working conditions, not because of wages or hours; they are striking for one simple reason, health benefits. They could not make ends meet by having to pay what they were going to be told by their employer they had to pay for health costs, so they went on strike--one of the longest strikes in modern history.

All these problems are deeper than the business cycle. They all demand a real economic plan, and part of that plan is the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. It is not everything. If we had the opportunity, we could come up with a better plan. This is a step in the right direction. What we have to do in Congress today is understand that we are not going to completely rewrite Superfund, endangered species, clean air and clean water, or the economic situation this country faces. But we have the ability to do things to improve Superfund and endangered species. We can do a little here and a little there to help the economic situation in this country.

The amendment by the Senator from Connecticut is a good amendment. It is a step in the right direction. That is why we chose this as our first amendment. It sends a message to the American people that we want to do something to stop the outflow of these jobs. Focusing on Federal Government outsourcing is one of the things at which we need to take a closer look.

We can start trying to improve our economy now, today, by cutting off Government contracts to companies that plan to outsource their work. Two years ago, the State of Florida ordered a $280 million contract to a company that outsources its work to India. If Florida wants to do that, it is their business. But when the American taxpayers hire somebody to do a job, it should be done by an American worker who is also a taxpayer.

For the fourth time in the last few minutes, I commend Senator Dodd for this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it. I also say this to the majority: If tomorrow, when we come back in session, there is an effort made to prevent the Senator from Connecticut from having a vote on this, we are going to keep offering it and offering it until we get a vote on it. If we don't get it done on this bill, we will get it done on the next bill. If we don't get it done on the next bill, it will be offered on the next bill. This is our No. 1 amendment, and we are going to continue pushing it.