Floor Statements

Today, on the 77th anniversary of his birth, people across America will pay tribute to a remarkable man, Cesar Estrada Chavez.

I had the honor of meeting Cesar Chavez. No one was a more powerful or more passionate advocate for the men, women, and children who work on farms throughout this country.

It's easy for Americans to forget that the food they eat doesn't magically appear on a supermarket shelf. Every bunch of grapes, every box of cereal, every can of corn represents the labor for real human beings--so many of whom come to this country in search of a better life, but instead find low wages, poor housing, and substandard working conditions.

Cesar Chavez didn't just know about this struggle. He and his family lived it. He grew up moving from town to town and from school to school while his father worked in the fields. He himself became a farm worker as soon as he finished the eighth grade. Born out of his sweat and toil was a fierce determination to give a voice to people like him and his family who labored so hard and received so little in return.

Chavez became one of America's most well-known, beloved, and effective labor leaders. As the founder and leader of United Farm Workers of America, Chavez shed light on the shameful treatment of farm workers in our country. He led boycotts and marches. He helped register voters. He went on hunger strikes. And he united workers across America with a simple, yet powerful, message: ``Si se puede''--``Yes we can.''

Ceasr Chavez represented farm workers. But the priorities he fought for are America's priorities: Better pay and benefits for workers. Better education for children. Expanded civil rights for minorities. All working Americans today owe a debt of gratitude to this outstanding individual.

Of course, Chavez's work is not done. There is still a great deal we can do to help to create a better life for working Americans, especially those who work on farms. One thing we can do right now is pass the bipartisan AgJOBS bill, which I'm proud to consponsor. This bill, sponsored by my colleagues Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy, would give many hard-working nonimmigrant farm workers a chance to obtain legal status. This bill is the right thing to for these workers. And by increasing the number of legal farm workers, it's the smart thing to do for our economy. This legislation has the support of agricultural businesses, labor unions, as well as immigrant and civil rights groups. It deserves to become law.

But there is so much more we can and should do to make America a land where each and every person receives respect and opportunity. We can extend a helping hand to the children of nonimmigrant workers--by passing the DREAM Act to help those children get a college education. We can give every child in this country a chance at success--by making a real commitment to our public schools. We can ensure that a job in America is truly a gateway to a better life--by raising the minimum wage and making it a fair and living wage. And we can make access to health care a right--not a privilege--for every man, woman, and child in America.

By perpetuating his legacy, we will truly be honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. Let us continue his commitment to achieving basic rights and dignity for all American workers. And let us use his vision as a guide as we strive to build a better tomorrow for all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may be allowed to speak for up to 12 minutes under the time under the control of the Democratic side.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for graciously allowing me to take a few minutes here to speak on the amendment I am offering along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. I thank her at the outset for her eloquent comments yesterday about the importance of this amendment and her kind comments about the Senator from Connecticut as well.

Let me also very quickly, while he is still here with us on the floor, commend my good friend from Utah. I remember with fondness, going back almost 15 or 16 years ago, when we offered the very first effort to include as part of our efforts on behalf of working families of this country a childcare proposal. That never would have happened without the tremendous leadership of the Senator from Utah, who was pretty much alone, I might say, in those days, in advocating this important initiative on the part of the Federal Government to try to do something to help these families who were trying to stay on the work rolls.

I would be remiss in any discussion about a childcare proposal not to reference the incredible work of the Senator from Utah. Again, I thank him for his leadership and I thank him as well for his cosponsorship of this amendment we are offering today.

I am happy to yield.

I thank my colleague.

The whole goal, of course, of the underlying bill before us is to move families from welfare to work. That has been the goal of those who initiated this proposal some time ago. Of course, many of us ask the question how in good conscience we could do that, turn our backs on those who are doing what we asked them to do, and that is to leave the dependency of welfare and to enter the workforce. Yet without the adoption of the Snowe-Dodd amendment, it is quite clear some 450,000 to 500,000 children who are presently receiving childcare assistance would have to be dropped from receiving childcare assistance. I don't think any of us want to be a party to that at all.

Let me further point this out to my colleagues as a backdrop of why the Snowe-Dodd amendment is so critically important. Between 1994 up to 2001, we have seen employment by families headed by single mothers soar from 61 percent to now about 75 percent of single parents with children who are in the workforce. Among low-income mothers with children under the age 6, who have the greatest childcare costs and needs, employment has risen from 44 percent in 1996 to about 60 percent in the year 2000.

Let me further point out there are 7 million children every day who go home from school alone, without any kind of afterschool or childcare assistance. These are children aged, some of them, between 6 and 7 years of age.

I don't have to say much more to make the case about the importance of doing what we can here to see to it we have the necessary childcare assistance that working families, poor working families are going to need.

What is presently occurring across the country is States cannot pick up the slack in the current bill. In the year 2003 alone, facing the worst State economies since World War II, 16 States have reduced eligibility levels so that fewer children will qualify for assistance. About 600,000 children in 24 States were put on waiting lists. Nearly every State made other changes in their childcare programs, such as reducing subsidies, increasing parent copays, cutting or eliminating afterschool programs, or shutting off assistance to families not on welfare--working poor families. States even made cuts in childcare quality investments such as reducing safety inspections.

In my own State of Connecticut, last week the State legislature recommended cutting another $20 million for the States Care4Kids childcare program. I say another $20 million because this is the most recent cut enacted in my State. The program will have gone from $121.5 million in fiscal year 2002 down to $70 million for next year.

In the meantime, of course, costs for childcare have continued to rise. Although the economy seems to be improving, not just Connecticut, but many States continue to face very tough budget decisions.

On this chart, every one of these little figures represents 2,000 children on a wait list across the country. I will not go through the entire list, but just to get some idea of what I am talking about, in Alabama, 16,700; Arizona, 8,000; California, 280,000; Florida 48,800; here in the District of Columbia, 1,400. In my State of Connecticut, 15,000 children are on wait lists; in Georgia, 30,000. It goes on. These are 24 States that keep lists. Other States don't keep waiting lists at all because frankly they don't want to know the numbers, and I don't blame them, because they are struggling across the country with the numbers of children who are qualified and would be eligible for childcare assistance but can't get it. These are

the children on the wait list who presently need it.

Imagine, if you are not a parent of a young child yourself, colleagues, you may have children who are parents. Ask them, ask people in your office, what it is like today if you are going to work, you have a young child, and you are asked to pay $4,000 to $6,000 to $8,000 to $10,000 a year for childcare assistance.

Our staffs are pretty well taken care of. We have childcare centers for Senate employees. We have childcare centers around Capitol Hill and other places. But if you are a working parent holding down a job and you don't have those kinds of incomes and revenues, you have some idea of what it must be. Data from the Child Care Bureau shows 21 percent of childcare recipients receive TANF funds. This means nearly 80 percent of childcare funds are used to help working poor families. If childcare funds are not increased, the working poor will be cast aside so States have sufficient funds to help the welfare poor.

We ought not rob Peter to pay Paul. Both need our help--those on welfare moving to work and those who have moved from welfare to work but are just barely hanging on. If we deprive them of this additional assistance they fall right back. What good is that, in the welfare reform bill, where our underlying goal is to move people from welfare to work, not only temporarily but permanently, if we can?

The level of funding in the Finance Committee bill which provides an increase of $200 million a year, in our view--Senator Snowe and myself and others who are cosponsoring this amendment--is woefully insufficient. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would cost about $1.5 billion in additional childcare money to meet the work requirements under the Senate welfare bill. But that is not the full story.

The Congressional Budget Office also estimates even if there were no increase in the work requirements in this bill--of course, there are additional work requirements--it would cost an additional $4.5 billion over the next 5 years to maintain assistance for the 2 million children who currently receive help for childcare. A subsidy provided for the family today would simply not cover the cost 5 years from now. Again, you don't have to have a Ph.D. in economics to understand that.

To do otherwise is to shift costs to States or the parents, neither of whom are in a position to pick up the slack for the Federal Government.

Let me put this chart up as well. It will give you some sense of what I am talking about. You may not be able to see this very clearly. Every single one of the X's in every one of these States all across the country indicates the State has cut back in one way or another in terms of childcare assistance.

As I mentioned earlier, 24 States have a waiting list for childcare. Other States do not have a waiting list--not because they do not need assistance, but because they do not want to keep those waiting lists.

It is good news that welfare caseloads are down, although I understand the caseloads in a number of States have actually gone up. A reduced caseload does not mean a reduction in the need for childcare for low-income working families. What we know from studies about families leaving welfare is they are leaving welfare for low-wage jobs. They have left the ranks of the welfare poor to join the ranks of the working poor. Their need for childcare assistance has not changed. In fact, it may have gone up. Many State administrators believe the availability of childcare is one of the chief reasons welfare caseloads have declined.

Nevertheless, the purpose of childcare funding is to assist low- income families regardless of whether they receive welfare. Childcare can easily cost between $4,000 and $10,000 a year for one child, more than the cost of public college tuition in nearly every State. Therefore, the fact that welfare rolls have been declining is irrelevant to whether families need childcare assistance.

Nearly one-quarter of the TANF funds used to support childcare assistance is either transferred from TANF to childcare or spent directly on childcare. But estimates show that States are expected to spend a declining percentage of TANF funds on childcare as work requirements increase and TANF reserve funds from early years of the program are exhausted. In fact, most States, including my own of Connecticut, have exhausted their TANF reserve funds, or have nearly exhausted them.

States simply are not awash in TANF money. If they were, they would not be slashing childcare funding. Yet nearly every State has made cuts in childcare assistance. Let us be very clear. The promise made in 1996 when four separate childcare programs were consolidated as part of welfare reform was this would be a simpler program to administer, and childcare assistance would no longer be tied to welfare. Childcare assistance would be available for low-wage families regardless of welfare receipt. Now it appears that lacking sufficient funds, States such as my own are shutting off assistance to the working poor.

My colleagues are telling these families: Work your way off welfare, but once you are off, that is it. They are among the working poor. They are no longer a concern to many of my colleagues here. I disagree.

I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, the chair and ranking Democrat of this committee, along with Senator Hatch and others for understanding this basic concept. Working poor families need this help or they will fall back into a dependency role.

If we do not adopt this amendment, as I mentioned, some 450,000 kids of the 2 million presently being served could lose childcare assistance.

I mentioned as well how single working mothers and their employment force has actually gone up to 75 percent and the poorest families actually have gone up almost 20 percent in the last 4 or 5 years. These mothers need childcare assistance. They don't have alternatives. They are single parents. They do not live necessarily in the old neighborhoods where there was someone next door or down the block or on the neighboring farm who would take care of them. They need this kind of help.

I know my time has expired. Let me say this is not only my view. There is a list of organizations which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record, beginning with the National Governors Association, all of whom, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, urge support for our amendment. They understand these families need our support. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record, along with letters of endorsement.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe, cosponsors of this amendment, and myself, believe the amendment deserves support. We urge adoption of it.

I thank my colleagues for listening.

I thank my Senator for his statement in support. As a former Governor, of course, he understands these issues from a State perspective, as well as cutbacks.

I am particularly grateful for the mention of the gap that exists between the poorest children in this country and those who come from the more affluent families. The slight correction I make--even his number is startling--but the average middle class child is exposed to about 500,000 words by kindergarten; an economically disadvantaged child is exposed to half as many, at best.

To put it in perspective. In a childcare setting where children, in the absence of parents who are working, can actually be in a place where they can learn, you may not close that gap entirely, but the gap of more than 100,000 words between those two children ought to startle every single American.

I thank my colleague for raising that issue.

Mr. President, very quickly, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their leadership on this issue. Once again, I am deeply pleased to be joining Senator Snowe. She has worked tirelessly on behalf of children and the issue of childcare during our joint service in the Senate. I also thank Senator Hatch and others. I go back a long way with Senator Hatch. It was almost 15 years ago, in 1990, when we passed the first Childcare and Development Block Grant, CCDBG.

In 1996, we consolidated 4 separate childcare programs and included them in the welfare reform package. I have a

couple of quick points to make. Federal funds presently have been frozen for 3 years on childcare. The costs are obviously going up. Senator Snowe pointed out we have 400,000 to 450,000 children who will be dropped from child care assistance if this amendment is not included. At least 600,000 children are on waiting lists in the 24 States that keep them. For the remaining States, obviously, there are many eligible children not receiving child care help.

The Governors want this. They have been asking for it. They are cutting back themselves. Every State has cut back in one way or another on childcare assistance programs. Seven million children every day go home from school to an empty house, with no kind of afterschool program and care. I don't think any of us want to see that perpetuated.

This amendment is paid for by extending Customs user fees which are scheduled to expire. We are not asking anyone to add to the deficit at all. This is an existing program. There is nothing new about it. It was crafted 15 years ago and part of a consolidation of child care programs in 1996, so it is not a new program. The amendment is paid for and it is absolutely critical.

The underlying bill says, let's get people off of welfare and to work. We have expanded some of the work requirements here. You must have additional childcare support, or working poor families will slip back into dependency. No Member wants to be part of a solution that would require that to happen with too many families out there making a tremendous effort to stay employed and independent.

Senator Snowe and I graciously ask for your continuing support of this very important program. We urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following legislation be introduced and printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I share the outrage of every other Member in this Senate over the heinous and violent crimes that are committed against over 300,000 women a year. These crimes are especially horrific when the perpetrator knows his victim and knows her to be pregnant.

Today, a significant number of States already allowed stricter penalties for crimes of violence committed against pregnant women. At the Federal level, I believe that it is appropriate and necessary to conform our Federal laws to the statutes of these States.

Particularly heinous crimes ought to receive particularly harsh penalties. And for that reason, I strongly supported the Feinstein amendment during today's debate. Like the underlying legislation, the Feinstein amendment would have allowed Federal prosecutors to ``double- charge'' those individuals convicted of crimes against pregnant women, and would have set forth severe and just punishments for those crimes. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated.

I also realize that punishing individuals for crimes against women, both pregnant and not, is only one step toward reducing domestic violence. We must do more as a society not only to punish but to prevent domestic violence. For this reason, I strongly supported the Murray amendment today. This amendment would have protected the economic security of women who are victims of domestic violence by allowing them to keep their jobs if and when they needed to take time off to attend court and receive medical care related to an act of domestic violence committed against them. It would have also authorized important new initiatives for the establishment of family violence research and education centers to develop, implement, disseminate, and evaluate family violence prevention and early intervention services and strategies. Again, I was disappointed when this amendment failed.

We have come a long way from the days when domestic violence was considered a private matter. Major initiatives like the Violence Against Women Act have offered protection for women while treating domestic violence for what it is--crimes committed by cowards. However, as the continued prevalence of domestic violence cases show, we have a long way to go.

Regrettably, the underlying bill that was before us today is not principally focused on curbing violence and punishing those individuals found guilty of committing these heinous crimes. Rather, the legislation was focused on advocating a cause about which its proponents feel very deeply, but a cause that a majority of Americans do not share--the cause of eroding and ultimately ending women's right to choose.

I happen to support a woman's right to choose as set forth in the Roe vs. Wade decision. And I find it regrettable and inappropriate that legislation that ought to be focused on eroding the number of heinous crimes committed against all women focuses instead on eroding a woman's right to choose. For this reason, while I supported both the Feinstein and Murray amendments, I am unable to support the underlying bill.

For those who wish to advocate a cause not related to the issue of domestic violence, I urge them to advocate it in the open and not by stealth. But for those who want to reduce further the number and severity of crimes against women to continue working with people like Senators Feinstein and Murray. Working together, I am confident we can make a substantial difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of women across the country.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for securing the time. I may not need all of that time. I want to take a few minutes to express my deep concerns about the pending amendment. I am in favor of the pending amendment. My concern is that an effort will be made to somehow avoid having to vote on this critical issue, the issue of overtime pay.

First, let me commend Senator Harkin of Iowa for being so tenacious and patient about this amendment. He has offered this proposal in the past. We carried the amendment, as I recall, in the Chamber, only to watch the matter be dispensed with and dropped in conference.

He has tried to bring up this matter before. In fact, prior to the recess period, Senator Harkin was on the floor of this Chamber for a number of hours, trying to get a vote. I think he agreed

to a simple 20 minutes or 25 minutes of debate on whether we would be able to prohibit the administration from implementing a new regulation that would take overtime away from millions of working Americans.

I have no doubt about the outcome of the vote if we can actually get a vote. I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of our colleagues, if given the chance to express themselves on the proposed regulation by the administration, would support the Harkin amendment. We have done that already. I think that is where Members are, both Democrats and Republicans.

But a determined minority here will not allow us to have this vote. We will not get the chance to express whether we believe that hard- working Americans who work beyond their 40 hours ought to get paid for the overtime work they do.

I was stunned to learn not only is the administration proposing the regulation that would prohibit overtime pay for people, but actually, within administration documents, they instruct employers on how to craft their working relationships with their employees to avoid paying overtime pay, moving people into whole new classifications they had never held.

I am baffled that the administration has unveiled such an antiworker, antifamily proposed regulation. It is simply one more bad economic policy decision that I think is indefensible, and I think we would like a chance, both Democrats and Republicans, to express ourselves on this proposal.

I am determined, along with the Senator from Iowa and many others, to stay here and do whatever we have to do to get an up-or-down vote on whether we ought to ban people from collecting overtime pay when they work those hours.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

I thank the Senator. The Senator from Massachusetts has been a Member of this Chamber for a number of years, and I have been here for almost a quarter of a century. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I was born at night but not last night.

You can use the rules of this institution for various purposes. It seems clear to this Member that the reason the Republican leadership--a determined minority within the majority--is engaging in these parliamentary sorts of gymnastics is because they know the outcome. I suspect a strong majority of us would speak with a resounding voice in saying no, you shouldn't implement a rule that would prohibit hard- working Americans from collecting overtime pay. This is particularly troublesome at a time when so many are out of work and where two incomes in a family may be necessary to keep up with the mortgage payments, or to pay college tuition, or make car payments. We cannot deprive 8 million Americans who today have the right to collect overtime. The only reason the Republican leadership is prohibiting a vote is because they know the outcome--the amendment would pass.

Again, I thank my colleague for his question. I don't know how you can draw any other conclusion than my colleague from Massachusetts has.

As I recall--again, my colleague has a wonderful sense of history, and I think my memory is not bad but correct me if I am wrong--during the Reagan administration, during the Bush administration, the President's father, extended unemployment benefits in those years when people were out of work. I think during both Republican and Democratic administrations, they said we ought to extend those unemployment benefits and raise the minimum wage. But in this administration's case, the answer is a resounding no. Not only do they not allow us to vote on those matters and extend those benefits as every administration has over time, but, of course, they are going a step further and proposing regulations.

Let me be clear so people understand. If you are among one of 250 current white-collar occupations, if you are a nurse, a firefighter, a police officer, emergency medical training personnel, health technician, clerical worker, surveyor, chef, if you are in those categories and many more, even though your work obligations don't change at all, it gives your employer the right to reclassify you as no longer someone who qualifies for overtime pay. Even though your work doesn't change, you will be deprived of overtime pay, no matter how many hours you work. I don't understand.

I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, I had heard some reports about this. I had never seen this letter before, but I find it incredible. Like many of my colleagues, I have attended various meetings with the families of guardsmen and reservists who have deployed to Afghanistan

and Iraq over the last number of months. I have also been at armories in my State as the men and women have come back from their service there. I have even visited with our troops in Iraq for a few days in December. I cannot believe that these men and women, many of whom have spent a year boots-on-the-ground overseas would be treated in this way. These men and women have already had to put their jobs and families on hold as they go over for a year--maybe getting back for a week or so. It is hard enough to do that, hard enough to be away, hard enough to go through the perils of serving in a war zone as these young men and women are doing. But I find it stunning to also be told because of the training they may receive in order to help us rebuild Iraq and defend their fellow men and women in the uniform, that the training they got now deprives them of getting as much as 25 percent of their income. I am told that as much as 25 percent of the earning power of an average worker in this country comes from overtime pay. People coming back who just served their country, who put their life on the line, and been away for a year, are now being told if they got job training over there, they will no longer be eligible for overtime pay. That is incredible.

I thank my colleague for the question. I see our friend from Illinois, as well, so I will not take much time.

I am glad the Senator pointed this out. It reinforces the argument I mentioned a moment ago that according to Labor Department studies, this elimination of overtime pay for 250 job classifications will reduce the earning power of the average working family by 25 percent. What the Senator from Massachusetts is saying is not only will you have less pay, but you will have to work longer hours, as well.

I am glad the Senator referenced the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. We went through World War II, we went through Korea, Vietnam, through economic downturns, and no administration ever suggested the kind of changes in overtime pay this Bush administration is advocating today.

I urge, as my colleague from Massachusetts has, give us a chance to vote. Give this body a chance to express its will on whether we think during these times of economic hardship people ought to be able to get overtime pay.

If you are a nurse, clerical worker, firefighter, a reporter, a paralegal, dental hygienist, graphic artist, the list goes on, those are the job classifications in which you will be denied overtime pay. Your work remains the same, you do not get the extra pay, you work longer hours.

Let's vote on the Harkin amendment. Let's have an up-or-down vote to determine whether this body believes overtime pay ought to still be the practice in this country.

Mr. President, again I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. He has in a sense answered the question himself with these numbers. It is hard to believe, given the times, the hardship, 90,000 people a week are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits.

We know of the pressures that exist on families already. We know how hard it is today economically. It is not an uncommon story to hear, whether you are in the home State of the Presiding Officer in Ohio, or Massachusetts, Illinois or Connecticut, to have families where two, three, and four jobs are held in order to make ends meet and how critically important it is to have that income coming in.

When we read about jobs being outsourced across the country, being shipped off to India and China, and the administration is saying that that is a good thing for the economy, when 2.6 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, many of which have left the country, we have to be concerned about the future of America's families. These are all pressure points on these families who are living on the margins. We are not talking about families who are necessarily in poverty but families who are struggling to provide for their basic needs, trying to prepare for children

going on to college, seeing to it they get a good education, keeping them properly clothed, and in good health.

Forty-four million Americans do not have health care. The overwhelming majority of that 44 million are working people with two incomes. That is the average. Over 80 percent of the 44 million people without health care are working families. Now you take up to 25 percent of their income away and make them work longer hours. How is that balancing work and family?

This body took 7 years to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act with the help of my good friend from Massachusetts. We tried to make it possible for people to balance their needs, but now, this administration is depriving these families and their children from receiving basic necessities.

I am glad my colleague from Massachusetts has raised the issue beyond just the numbers and statistics we cite.

These are real people and real lives out there struggling to make ends meet. And now the Republican leadership is depriving this body a chance to vote on this amendment which would prohibit the administration from moving forward with their overtime proposal. I am glad my colleague made the point about the firefighters, about the EMT services, about the police officers. These are the first responders on homeland security. This administration is not only turning their back on veterans and people in uniform who are going to be shoved into the class of not getting overtime pay, but even our first responders now are going to be asked to pay a price as well.

Let's vote on the Harkin amendment. Let's have an up-and-down vote to determine whether or not this body believes overtime pay ought to still be the law of the land and not relegated to a handful of people.

So, Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his efforts. I am glad to join with him as a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment.

Three minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague. I know there are other Members who want to be heard on these matters. I will try to be brief.

Mr. President, I will show you a chart. I have great respect for my friend from Wyoming. He is a knowledgeable and good Member of this institution, and he cares deeply about these issues.

I cannot help but note, of course, out of all the States--if I am wrong maybe someone will correct me--one of the single lowest job loss of the 50 States has been the State of Wyoming, according to the analysis we have on job losses in manufacturing.

Mr. President, 1,200 jobs have been lost in Wyoming. I am sorry about those losses, but when you compare that to States of similar size-- neighboring States--Utah has lost 15,000, Colorado has lost 38,000, Texas has lost 156,000, Maine has lost 15,000. I am not even mentioning large States. Iowa has lost 26,000, Missouri has lost 40,000, Arkansas has lost 29,000, Oklahoma has lost 26,000.

The point is, we are watching a hemorrhaging on jobs. No one likes to recite all the bad news, but reality says you have to know the facts if you are going to set policy.

Unfortunately, no matter what the conditions are in this country, the administration has one answer: cut taxes for the wealthy. When we had a surplus: cut taxes. When we are in a recession: we need to cut taxes. Job growth is weak: we need to cut taxes. It is a Johnny-one-note, no matter what the economic circumstances are.

All of us who are involved in supporting Senator Boxer's amendment are pointing out that this is maybe the critical issue at this hour. People across the country are worried deeply about job creation. They are worried about jobs leaving the country. They are worried about companies making that decision, and doing so either through tax incentives, where we actually encourage, through the Tax Code, to outsource, or actually using Federal taxpayer money.

I express my appreciation to 75 of my colleagues in this Chamber who, last week--Democrats and Republicans--joined on the amendment I offered that would prohibit the use of Federal taxpayer money to subsidize the outsourcing of jobs.

If a private company, with their money, wants to outsource, I cannot do much about that. But I do not believe you ought to incentivize that decision by offering someone a tax break to do it or providing direct Federal subsidies to do it. We think we ought to be doing everything we can to encourage job growth at home. That does not make you an isolationist. That does not make you a protectionist. It just indicates to us how serious we think this potential problem is.

It is not just us who say this. I would take note that a few days ago, in the Washington Post, in a front-page article was the story of Clintwood, VA, and the loss of 270 jobs. Does anyone think a year or 2 or 5 years ago the loss of 270 jobs in Clintwood, VA, would have merited a front-page story in the leading newspaper in this city or area? I doubt it. Yet the Washington Post, obviously, has some sensibilities about what people care about in this area. And the loss of 270 jobs in one small town in Virginia, that got sent overseas by Travelocity, is yet one more piece of evidence that people are worried about what is going on in this country, particularly when it is occurring because we encourage it through our Tax Code or through direct subsidies.

I am glad the President finally decided to suggest we have a manufacturing czar. But to fail to check to find out if the person you are apparently going to nominate is involved in exporting jobs to a facility in China indicates a lack of sensitivity about this issue. In fact, the other day I read where the administration now is going to do everything it can to fight the efforts some of us are making to slow down the outsourcing of jobs in the country, particularly when outsourcing occurs through Federal subsidies and through tax incentives.

We do not think the Federal Government ought to be in the business of promoting job exportation to another country or suggesting that somehow it is all the same, that it does not make a difference if you have the loss of a product being produced here or a service being performed here and it is now

going overseas, watching someone's job go overseas.

You cannot stop it in every case. We are realists. We understand that. But Senator Boxer has put together a very good amendment which, in part, highlights the outsourcing issue. She goes into other areas as well.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is being cut by 63 percent. I listened to the President the other day say: I am against outsourcing. What we need to be doing is investing----

Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I just would note that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is a significant program that helps U.S. manufacturers, small manufacturers with everything from plant modernization to employee training. This cut means that 11,000 small manufacturers are not going to receive services, and 28,000 employees will either be laid off or not hired.

So even if you agree with the President that we ought to not be talking about outsourcing, not be talking about manufacturing job loss, that we ought to be investing in small businesses, what is he doing when he cuts 63 percent of the budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program? That is a complete reversal of his rhetoric on these issues.

He also tries to eliminate entirely the Advanced Technology Program, which spurs cutting-edge research in solving manufacturing problems and increasing competitiveness. Here we are eliminating that program altogether and slashing by more than 50 percent the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.

That is what we do not understand. He is opposed to doing anything about outsourcing. He is opposed to doing anything to provide tax relief for small manufacturers who need help. And he is going to cut the budget in the two areas that can make a significant difference to our manufacturers.

I applaud the Senator from California for offering her amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President. I rise in support of this amendment to help the Nation's firefighters safely do their jobs.

Specifically, this amendment does three things. First, it restores funding to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which I authored in 2000 with Senators DeWine, Levin, and Warner. This law stands as the first federal grant program explicitly designed to help firefighters throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and needed personnel.

Second, this amendment provides funding for the implementation of the SAFER Act. This law, which I authored with Senator Warner and was enacted last November, authorizes a federal grant program to hire an expected 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years.

Finally, this amendment allocates much-needed funding for deficit reduction. The Senate budget resolution, which largely reflects President Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies, adds a staggering $2.86 trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years.

Mr. President, $2.86 trillion dollars! These numbers are totally mind-boggling. The Republicans have always claimed that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Under their Senate Budget resolution, however, $612 billion will be added to the gross debt from 2004 to 2005; the next year $569 billion will be added; the next year $553 billion; the next year $553 billion; the next year $563 billion; and the next year $564 billion will be added to the debt. Despite the claims of President Bush and the Budget Committee majority, I see no significant progress being made at reducing the increases to the debt. In fact, we've gone from record surpluses to record deficits in only 3 years!

The offset we are proposing to pay for this amendment is a reduction in the tax cuts benefiting individuals with annual incomes over $1 million. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Senate budget resolution calls for tax cuts which are extremely beneficial to the wealthiest Americans such as accelerating the repeal of the estate tax by 1 year, and making permanent the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. With the deficit exploding, the country still vulnerable to terrorist attack, and our Nation's firefighters in need of the resources necessary to respond to emergencies and to save lives, it is only right that the top one-tenth of one percent of the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share for homeland security.

In fact, Mr. President, homeland security is exactly what this amendment is all about. The defenders on our home front are not dressed in combat fatigues. They do not drive tanks on the streets of the Nation's cities. They wear firefighter uniforms, and they drive fire engines. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and I for one appreciate their efforts greatly.

I know that the fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to get their jobs done. We have first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequiped to deal with many emergencies that may arise.

The responsibilities of America's firefighters have changed. They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch from the town well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was extinguished.

Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. Now the fire service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to biological and radiological agents.

The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply do not have the resources--financial as well as personnel--needed to single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time.

According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. The study found that:

Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope.

Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation.

An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most of them serving smaller communities.

Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a structural fire.

These statistics are startling. The risks that firefighters are expected to respond to have far outgrown the ability of city governments to equip firefighters to do what we are asking them to do. This situation demands immediate action by the Senate to address these concerns.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to helping firefighters. Secretary Ridge of the Department of Homeland Security talks about training and equipping first responders yet the President's Budget and the Senate budget resolution cuts the FIRE Act grant program by $250 million. This amendment will restore these funds to their authorized level of $900 million for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, the FIRE Act grant program has been one of the most successful initiatives in recent years. I am currently working closely with Senator DeWine to reauthorize this program for the future. The need is certainly out there in all regions of the country urban and rural, large cities and small communities, North and South, East and West--for these competitive, merit-based grants that assist fire departments with their heaviest burdens. For Fiscal Year 2003, the program received approximately 19,950 applications from fire departments across the nation, totaling $2.5 billion in grant requests, while only $750 million in federal funding was available for such grants.

A January 31, 2003 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that 99 percent of program participants were satisfied with the program's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants reported that the program had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the nation.'' The FIRE Act grant program is truly a success story, and it deserves the Senate's full support.

It is surprising to me then that President Bush and the Senate budget resolution would slash $250 million from this very successful program. It is also surprising to me that President Bush would show images of firefighters in a campaign advertisement when his budget, as well as the Senate budget resolution, provides not one cent for the SAFER Act, which would fund 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years. It makes no sense.

The need for additional firefighters on our Nation's streets is great. According to National Fire Protection Association standards, a minimum of four firefighters is required to initiate an interior attack on a house fire. And 73 percent of departments serving populations between 10,000 and 25,000 lack such personnel.

For fire departments serving populations between 25,000 and 50,000, the number climbs to 82 percent.

For fire departments serving populations between 50,000 and 100,000, 76 percent lack the minimum of four firefighters.

And 56 percent of fire departments protecting 100,000 and 250,000 people also do not have the necessary four firefighters.

Then it is 41 percent for departments serving 250,000 and 500,000 people, 40 percent for departments protecting populations between 500,000 and one million people, and 0 percent for departments protecting at least one million people.

Just as the FIRE Act provides the equipment and training resources for firefighters to do their job, the SAFER Act complements it by also providing the human resources to meet the challenge of an extended war against terrorism. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the nation's workforce has steadily declined. Today in the United States there is one firefighter for every 280 citizens. We have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers.

We need to turn the trend around now more than ever. Understaffing is dangerous for the public and for firefighters. Chronic understaffing means that many firefighters do not have the backup and on-the-ground support they need to do their jobs safely. The sad consequence is that about every three days we lose a firefighter in the line of duty. On some days, the losses are unimaginably high. Firefighters need reinforcements, and the Congress should be prepared to give them all the help they need. This amendment therefore provides funding for the SAFER Act at its FY2005 authorized level of $1.03 billion.

In closing, it is important to recall the important role that firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from England in 1765.

Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played by those firefighters who lived and died in the line of duty on that tragic day made the Nation proud.

On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face because they know that they have a duty to fulfill.

The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well. We must ensure that there is full funding for the FIRE Act and the SAFER Act, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

One minute.

Mr. President, I heard my colleague mention the tragedy that occurred in Spain, with the tremendous loss of life there as a result of a terrorist attack, and we don't know whether it was ETA or another organization. I inform my colleagues that we drafted a resolution expressing our sense of outrage over these events.

I chair the United States-Spain Council every year and have developed strong friendships with the people there. I know the budget matters are gripping our attention, but I ask the managers at some point to find a few minutes this evening to set aside the budget and express our sense of solidarity with the people of Spain, as well as our great sense of loss of what occurred. It is in connection directly to what my colleagues are offering on this amendment on homeland security, which I support.

I hope we might express our unanimous support for the people in Spain.

I thought I had 4 or 5 minutes.

I will maybe take less than that. I associate myself with the comments of Senator Kennedy and Senator Conrad in this debate.

It was 200 years ago this year that Thomas Jefferson said that any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never possibly can be.

That was at the outset of the 19th century. Here we are, gathered in this great Chamber at the outset of the 21st century and we are arguing whether we can afford to give those who are the wealthiest in our society a little bit less of a tax cut than they otherwise might be getting in order to see to it that a significant majority of our young people get the opportunity of a higher education which they are being denied, not because they lack the drive or determination or absolute desire to acquire the skills necessary to improve the quality of their lives and the lives of all of us in this country but because they lack the means.

What I hear my colleague saying is the total amounts are going up. What has not gone up is the amount of money we provide to each student. Because of a declining economy--and we are talking about families here with incomes of $15,000 a year or less who qualify for Pell grants--we have seen a growing number of families and a growing number of students who want to go on and get a higher education.

In 1975, Pell grants paid for somewhere around 80 percent of a college education. That is a generation ago. Today, I don't need to remind people who may be listening to this discussion, $5,000, even at a public institution, doesn't necessarily cover even 50 percent of the cost of a higher education. Nevermind, the cost at private institutions. In fact, at public colleges and universities, tuition has gone up some 26 percent since President Bush took office and 77 percent of all students attend public institutions. This Pell increase, up to a little more than $5,000, really will help students and their families, students who want to get an education and want to contribute to the wealth of this Nation.

We now know, in the coming years, in the next 10 years, 80 percent of the 23 million new jobs we hope are going to be created will require that a person applying for them have more than a high school education--80 percent of the 23 million jobs. What are we doing in this year, this year, to prepare those students so they can acquire the skills necessary to get the jobs that will require that someone have additional education beyond high school?

We are asking today, in this amendment, that the most wealthy in our society take a little less of the tax cut President Bush has offered them in order to pay to see to it that more and more Black and Hispanic children in this country, those who primarily fall into Pell income categories, can get Pell grants to go on and get an education.

I don't know of many affluent people who would disagree with this request. The very beneficiaries of the tax cut, I suspect, if you polled them, would say, I'll take less of a tax cut if in fact you put those resources to seeing to it that people who come from the poorest families in our society, who have the intelligence and ability to go on and get an education, will qualify for an additional amount of money under the Pell grants.

That is what the Senator from Massachusetts is asking. We ought to be supporting that on a bipartisan basis. I can't imagine, as we talk about job creation and talk about this Nation remaining No. 1 in the 21st century, that we want to shortchange the ability of qualified young people to go on to higher education. Pell grants make a huge difference. We are unfortunately depriving these kids of the necessary dollars they need, and all because we are not asking the most affluent 1 percent income earners to take a little bit less of a tax cut than they might otherwise be getting.

I urge the adoption of the Kennedy amendment.

The Senator from Maryland is correct. This budget contains a $250 million cut in FIRE Act grants. There have been over 19,000 awarded since the program was established from 33,000 departments across the country. These fire departments absolutely need the equipment and training resources. In addition, the SAFER Act will put 75,000 new firefighters on the street over the next seven years. Recent studies by major organizations indicate there are chronic shortfalls in the numbers of people who serve in paid and volunteer and combination departments.

This is a good amendment. We are asking those who make more than $1 million a year to take a little less of a tax cut than they would ordinarily get. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, even though the Senate is extremely busy with respect to consideration of the Senate budget resolution, the recent tragedy in Spain makes it terribly important that the Senate pause from its regular business this afternoon to speak with one voice about our profound outrage and sorrow with respect to what transpired just a few short hours ago in Madrid. The resolution which has been introduced by Senators Frist, Daschle, myself, and others is an opportunity for the Senate to send its condolences to the people of Spain.

I would also like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that a book of condolences will be open at the Embassy of Spain tomorrow, March 12, and Monday, March 15. In addition, a funeral service for the victims of this heinous attack will be held at St. Matthews Cathedral on Monday, March 15, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I know I join all my colleagues when I express how deeply disturbed I am by today's bombings in the Spanish capital of Madrid, and I strongly condemn those responsible for what is a heinous crime against human life. These horrific attacks--the deadliest in Spain's history--have now left over 180 innocent people dead and more than 900 wounded. Such carnage is almost unimaginable, and I know that I join with all Americans in expressing my outrage over these acts of violence.

I also join with my fellow Americans in expressing my solidarity with the Spanish people and the families of the innocent victims. This is a time of great distress and pain for them--it is a memory that will long endure in their hearts and minds. And I know that in the difficult days ahead, America and the Congress will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Spain, just as Spain supported America through some of our darkest hours after September 11, 2001.

In so many ways, Spain's friendship has been invaluable to the United States. Spain has been a critical partner in the fight against terrorism, a true ally during the war in Iraq, and an important economic partner in the global marketplace. And indeed, through my roles as a United States Senator and Chairman of the U.S.-Spain Council, I have seen firsthand the immense depth and strength of the United States-Spain bond.

This bond continues to flourish because our countries and our peoples share the fundamental values of freedom and democracy. In today's complicated world, the United States and Spain are true friends. And I would like to say to the Spanish people--rest assured that during this time of tragedy, your nation has no greater friend than the American people.

As my colleagues are aware, these horrific terrorist attacks have occurred only days before Spain is to hold its general elections. The attacks were likely meant to disrupt Spain's strong democratic institutions. And they were surely aimed at the values of freedom and democracy that both Spain and the United States hold dear.

Although it is not yet clear who was behind these attacks, I have a message for them, wherever they are. The values that Spain and America share will not be broken by cowardly acts of terror; the friendship and cooperation between our nations will continue. And despite your efforts, elections will be held--the Spanish democracy will continue to thrive.

In times of need, we grow more united. And together, we will move forward to ensure that this world is safe for freedom-loving people everywhere.

I thank the majority leader and minority leader for putting this resolution forth this afternoon. It is a timely resolution to take a few minutes out from the budget resolution to share our collective thoughts and to express them to the people of Spain over this incredible tragedy. I associate myself with the remarks that have been given by the majority leader, the Democratic leader, and my colleague from Virginia who have spoken eloquently about our feelings.

I recall vividly the day after September 11 reading Spanish papers. The headlines in the Spanish papers in Madrid and Barcelona said the following in Spanish: Nosotros somos, Americos.

I think, tonight, all Members in the Senate would want to say to the people of Spain in this moment: Nosotros somos, Espanolas.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2762.

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

Mr. President, this amendment deals with afterschool programs. I know most of my colleagues are tremendously supportive of this program. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act 2 years ago, we insisted that we fund, to the extent possible, $2 billion for afterschool programs.

Over the last 2 years, we have only funded half of that program, serving a little more than 1 million children when the need exceeds 2 million children. I think all of us have given talks in our States about the value of afterschool programs. The President himself has talked eloquently about it, saying afterschool programs keep kids safe, help working families, and improve academic achievements. He is absolutely right. But we are leaving more than 1 million children behind as a result of not fully funding at the authorized levels afterschool programs.

I am asking, with this amendment, that we fund with an additional $1 billion to reach more than 1 million kids who could really use this critically important program. Over the years this body has overwhelmingly supported afterschool initiatives. This is an opportunity for us to live up to the requirements that we insisted upon when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act 2 years ago.

I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this effort. We pay for the $1 billion by reducing the tax cut for the most affluent Americans by $1 billion. That is a tiny fraction that can serve over 1 million children in afterschool programs.

I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, just this week the National Conference of State Legislatures released its latest Unfunded Mandates Report. Based on President Bush's budget request, and the budget resolution before us, the NCSL Report labels the $40 million in fiscal year 2005 funding for election reform under the Help America Vote Act an unfunded mandate of $560 million.

The budget resolution before us does not include sufficient funds to ensure that necessary election reforms can be achieved by the States in time for the 2006 elections. I regret that the resolution does not reflect the bipartisan recommendation of the Senate Rules Committee with regard to payments to the States for election reform under the Help America Vote Act, P.L. 107-252, HAVA.

In our letter of February 24 to the Budget Committee, Chairman Lott and I expressed our concerns that the $40 million funding level proposed by President Bush's budget for fiscal year 2005 was insufficient to fully fund the required election reforms which States must implement by the first Federal election in 2006. Based on estimates by the States, the bipartisan Carter-Ford, Commission, and numerous experts, Congress authorized a total of $3 billion over 3 fiscal years for implementing these requirements. To date, Congress has funded roughly $2.4 billion in section 257 requirements payments. It is imperative that the remaining $600 million be provided in fiscal year 2005 to ensure that the States will be able to meet the requirements of HAVA, including the replacement of punch card systems and the deployment of fully disabled-accessible voting systems, by 2006.

Folloiwng the November 2000 election debacle, Congress responded by placing new requirements on the States for the conduct of Federal elections with the promise that we would fund 95 percent of the cost of those mandates. For the first time in our Nation's history, the Federal Government will be a full partner with the States in the funding of Federal elections. To expect cash-strapped State and local governments to make up for the shortfall in promised Federal funds threatens to derail the very election reforms Congress mandated that the States implement.

Voting is the voice of a free and democratic society. I believe that Congress can, and will, find the necessary funds to fulfill our promise to the States and our commitment to the American electorate to see that every eligible voter has an equal opportunity to vote and have their vote counted. While I will not insist on offering an amendment to this budget resolution, I am serving notice that I intend to work with my colleagues to see that we fully fund HAVA in fiscal year 2005 to ensure that the bipartisan reforms we enacted are implemented by the 2006 elections.

Mr. Daschle. Mr. President, I had hoped to offer an amendment to increase funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program. I will withhold that amendment, but I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the challenges facing rural schools.

Rural schools play a very important role in educating our Nation's children. Nearly 40 percent of America's schoolchildren attend public schools in rural areas or small towns with populations of less than 25,000. Almost 50 percent of the Nation's public schools are located in rural areas and small towns, and 41 percent of public school educators teach in rural community schools.

Rural schools face formidable challenges in their efforts to provide a high-quality education to each of their students. These school districts tend to be less effective in obtaining State and Federal competitive grants, in large part because many cannot afford professional grant writers. The costs of providing a good education also tend to be higher in rural districts. Teachers, for example, are paid the same whether they are teaching 30 or 5 students in a classroom. Transportation costs are much higher in rural districts, since school buses must travel longer distances. Unfortunately, these costs can adversely affect the budgets of rural districts and make it harder for them to provide the services necessary for high achievement.

Nevertheless, and appropriately, the same level of academic results are expected of them as in urban and suburban school systems. These students certainly deserve an equal opportunity to achieve those results. The geographic isolation of rural districts will make it more difficult to achieve the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Schools found in need of improvement may not have the ability or the resources to implement provisions such as public school choice and supplemental services.

Increasing funding for the Rural Education Achievement program would provide rural school districts with additional funding and flexibility to help these students achieve proficiency. Providing additional funding to rural districts would give them more options for providing high-quality services to children, such as distance learning and more teacher training.

The President proposes to freeze funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program in his budget for fiscal year 2005, despite the major challenges facing schools in rural communities. I believe we should provide the full $300 million as promised by title VI of the No Child Left Behind Act, and I hope to work with my colleagues to achieve that goal as we work on the appropriations bills this year.

Madam President, when this President came to office he called himself the education President and called for significant reforms. When he offered these reforms he promised to provide us with the resources needed to implement them. Taking him at his word, this body took up and enacted the No Child Left Behind Act two years ago. Yet here we are, only 2 years later, and No child Left Behind is being underfunded by $8.6 billion.

When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act we pledged to expect more, and provide more, to our Nation's schools. And yet this pledge is not reflected in this budget. I have to ask, how do my Republican colleagues and the administration, expect us to raise test scores, provide high quality teachers and prepare students for the 21st century without the funds to do so? Furthermore, who is it that they expect to feel the burden of these cuts? I can tell you who it will be.

First, it will be the States. States that need every dollar possible to do more than they have ever been asked to do before. States that are experiencing the worst fiscal crisis in decades. Second, it will be the localities. With less funds to do more, hard decisions will have to be made at the local level. Should local taxes be raised? Should music and art be cut? Should after school programs be eliminated? Should physical education classes be cut in the midst of a childhood obesity epidemic? Ultimately, the students will suffer. They will not be given the teachers that they need. They may not get the tutoring that they were promised. Music, art and foreign language may no longer be a part of the curriculum. After school programs could be cut.

When we passed No Child Left Behind, we made it clear that we were expecting more from our schools--and rightfully so. We were expecting more so that American children--all American children--children in the suburbs, children in our inner cities, children in our rural areas-- would have real opportunities to reach their full potential.

This past September, some Connecticut students went back to schools that were labeled under performing by No Child Left Behind. And yet this budget is not committed to helping them overcome that label. This bill will not give them the added funds they need to fully perform.

If we fail to adequately fund No Child Left Behind, our States, our localities, our school districts, local taxpayers, and most importantly, our children, will suffer. Budgets are about priorities. What priority could be more important than ensuring the future of our children by providing them with a first-class, world-class education.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important issue that holds great meaning to me--the issue of youth suicide in our country.

Youth suicide is both a public and mental health tragedy--an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 3,000 young people take their lives each year, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides completed in 2000. In fact, more children and young adults died from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined.

Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Recent CDC figures estimate that almost three million high school students, or twenty percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. And over two million children and young adults actually attempt suicide. I find these figures to be staggering and simply unacceptable.

And, sadly, we rarely find these facts disseminated widely amongst public audiences. We rarely read them in newspapers or hear them on television. We know that youth suicide is intricately linked to mental health issues like depression and substance abuse. Yet, we also know all too well that both youth suicide and children's mental health continue to carry an unfortunate stigma--a stigma that all too often keeps these crucial issues unspoken and discourages children and young adults from seeking the help they so desperately need.

We have a societal obligation to break through the stigma attached to youth suicide and children's mental health. We have an obligation to reach out to our young people--to help them understand that whatever difficulties or illnesses they might be experiencing are only temporary and treatable in a comfortable setting. And, most importantly, we have an obligation to instill in our young people a sense of value, self- worth, and resilience. All too often, children and young adults considering suicide lose sight of themselves, their talents, and their potential in life. All too often they lose sight of the love their families, friends, and communities have for them.

I am pleased that our Nation has already taken several positive steps toward better understanding the tragedy of youth suicide and its emotional and behavioral risk factors. Several recent reports like the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, and the Surgeon General's Call to Action To Prevent Suicide have made youth suicide a top national public and mental health priority. Today, hundreds of community-based programs across the country offer a variety of early intervention and prevention services to thousands of children and young adults--services that include comprehensive screening, assessment, and individualized counseling. Nearly thirty states, including my home State of Connecticut, have developed or already implemented statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies that coordinate appropriate services in schools, juvenile justice systems, foster care systems, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, and other youth-oriented settings. Furthermore, the Federal Government has stepped up its role in both supporting these community-based activities and conducting relevant research and data collection. Several mental and public health agencies have shown a growing interest in youth suicide, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Health Resources Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

However, despite these important gains, we still face significant challenges. Today, a large number of states and localities are finding themselves with unprecedented budget deficits--making the establishment of new services and the retention of existing services increasingly more difficult. Statewide strategies are often underfunded or understaffed to be properly effective. And while a number of Federal agencies have supported youth suicide

activities, there has been no comprehensive inter-agency strategy implemented to share data, disseminate research, or evaluate the efficacy of youth suicide early intervention and prevention programs.

Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Smith. The Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Act of 2004 will further support the good work being done on the community level, the State level, and the Federal level with regards to youth suicide. This legislation will support, through new grant initiatives, the further development and expansion of statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It will encourage greater Federal support in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. And it will create a new inter-agency collaboration that will focus on research, policy development, and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide.

Finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals--doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families--who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. I feel that we have made an important first step with this legislation today. However, I also know that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively to both better understand the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country--compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important issue that holds great meaning to me--the issue of youth suicide in our country.

Youth suicide is both a public and mental health tragedy--an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 3,000 young people take their lives each year, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides completed in 2000. In fact, more children and young adults died from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined.

Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Recent CDC figures estimate that almost three million high school students, or twenty percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. And over two million children and young adults actually attempt suicide. I find these figures to be staggering and simply unacceptable.

And, sadly, we rarely find these facts disseminated widely amongst public audiences. We rarely read them in newspapers or hear them on television. We know that youth suicide is intricately linked to mental health issues like depression and substance abuse. Yet, we also know all too well that both youth suicide and children's mental health continue to carry an unfortunate stigma--a stigma that all too often keeps these crucial issues unspoken and discourages children and young adults from seeking the help they so desperately need.

We have a societal obligation to break through the stigma attached to youth suicide and children's mental health. We have an obligation to reach out to our young people--to help them understand that whatever difficulties or illnesses they might be experiencing are only temporary and treatable in a comfortable setting. And, most importantly, we have an obligation to instill in our young people a sense of value, self- worth, and resilience. All too often, children and young adults considering suicide lose sight of themselves, their talents, and their potential in life. All too often they lose sight of the love their families, friends, and communities have for them.

I am pleased that our Nation has already taken several positive steps toward better understanding the tragedy of youth suicide and its emotional and behavioral risk factors. Several recent reports like the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, and the Surgeon General's Call to Action To Prevent Suicide have made youth suicide a top national public and mental health priority. Today, hundreds of community-based programs across the country offer a variety of early intervention and prevention services to thousands of children and young adults--services that include comprehensive screening, assessment, and individualized counseling. Nearly thirty states, including my home State of Connecticut, have developed or already implemented statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies that coordinate appropriate services in schools, juvenile justice systems, foster care systems, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, and other youth-oriented settings. Furthermore, the Federal Government has stepped up its role in both supporting these community-based activities and conducting relevant research and data collection. Several mental and public health agencies have shown a growing interest in youth suicide, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Health Resources Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

However, despite these important gains, we still face significant challenges. Today, a large number of states and localities are finding themselves with unprecedented budget deficits--making the establishment of new services and the retention of existing services increasingly more difficult. Statewide strategies are often underfunded or understaffed to be properly effective. And while a number of Federal agencies have supported youth suicide

activities, there has been no comprehensive inter-agency strategy implemented to share data, disseminate research, or evaluate the efficacy of youth suicide early intervention and prevention programs.

Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Smith. The Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Act of 2004 will further support the good work being done on the community level, the State level, and the Federal level with regards to youth suicide. This legislation will support, through new grant initiatives, the further development and expansion of statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It will encourage greater Federal support in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. And it will create a new inter-agency collaboration that will focus on research, policy development, and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide.

Finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals--doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families--who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. I feel that we have made an important first step with this legislation today. However, I also know that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively to both better understand the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country--compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Will my colleague yield?

I raise an issue, because it has been raised in the last 24 hours or so, that one of the things the administration is doing is putting resources into vocational education, education and job training. I know my colleague, from his extensive work in this area, and knowing the committees we serve on together deal with some of these issues, but you might just recount what the proposals are in vocational education, job training, all of these programs that would put more resources out there to make it possible when people lose their jobs to find additional work. Isn't it a fact we are cutting back in these budgets?

I remind my colleague, and I am sure he knows these numbers, this year's budget proposal reduces worker investment programs by $400 million. So here you have 2.8 million jobs being lost in manufacturing. Those people who cannot find work are getting jobs at far less wages and salaries than they had in their previous job. Yet we find when it comes to worker education and investment issues the budget actually reduces the amount we are going to commit to those programs by almost a half a billion dollars. I wonder if my colleague has something to say about that.

I thank my colleague. I was prepared to vote. We offered the amendment at about 3:30 yesterday afternoon. This is a very simple proposal.

There are those who are for outsourcing. The administration has indicated that it is a good thing for the economy to outsource jobs. I presume there are people in the Chamber who share that view. Why not vote up or down instead of going through the gyration of trying to find some cute way of avoiding having to vote on this issue or coming up with some phony alternative believing that outsourcing is good for the economy? I think shipping jobs away, destroying the manufacturing base and human capital investment that makes it possible in the 21st century for us to be competitive in a global economy is the wrong way to proceed.

I understand there are those who disagree with me on that. If they do, come down and vote no. It is that simple, and the Senate can speak on this issue.

Will the Senator yield on that very point just made?

I would just like to point out----

If my colleague will yield, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for his eloquent comments. He made an opening comment and proposed that we go to any Main Street anywhere in the country and ask the simple question: Should your tax dollars be used to subsidize the exportation of an American job? To equate the outsourcing of a person's job with that of a service or a product--as if somehow someone losing a job and knowing what that means, that that individual and their family will have an inability to have the kind of health care coverage, if they had it, that they need, and it is going to be difficult to find another job, we now know--and I am sure my colleague can comment on this--that that person who loses their job as a result of outsourcing and then seeks another job, except for two States, in Nebraska and Nevada, the salaries or wages they are getting are on average some 25- percent less than the job they lost.

What we are asking to do is what any self-respecting government would do, and that is to stand up and defend people's jobs in this country. I think the question the Senator posed is an excellent one. I would point out, the Senator has the amendment correct.

I find the second-degree amendment rather amusing. It says the administration--none of this language will go into effect unless the Secretary of Commerce certifies that there is some harm occurring to the economy. So if he never certifies anything, this entire amendment falls. It is kind of a phony amendment when talking about what to do.

I appreciate immensely the Senator's comments. I wonder if he might share some additional thoughts on just what happens when people look for second jobs and how difficult that is.

I thank my colleague from Illinois very much.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for her support of this amendment and also commend her for her comments and her eloquent testimony about the 2,700 people in the small town of western Michigan of 9,000 people who are about to watch the economic vitality and livelihood of their community move on.

This has gone on, of course, across the country and is one of the problems we face every single day, too often in too many communities across our Nation. One of the aspects is the outsourcing that is going on.

Again, we can offer tax incentives to try to discourage people from making those decisions, but in the final analysis they can reject the tax incentive and decide they will outsource jobs.

We are saying with this amendment--and I appreciate the Senator's strong endorsement--you may be able to do that with your own money, but the question is, Should you be able to do it with taxpayers' money? We don't think so.

We have created all sorts of waivers and exceptions for national security. If there is no other source that would allow this work to be done except by outsourcing, I have made provisions throughout the amendment where the head of an agency--it does not require the President of the United States--can check the box. I assume someone will say this will undercut our national security because we outsource a lot of jobs in the defense contract area. Just check the box. If the Joint Strike Fighter is in trouble, check the box.

I don't want you to begin the day by saying it does not make any difference if I outsource. It does make a difference. That is what my colleague from Michigan is saying. It makes a difference. If there is a reason and rationale for purposes of national security, or because you cannot get the product anyplace else other than through outsourcing, we accept that.

We are not being difficult about this but at least draw that conclusion, not just the bottom line conclusion, that I can make a bigger profit off it because I outsource the job.

I am deeply grateful to the Senator for her comments about the underlying motivations.

I can offer incentives and disincentives which someone can take or not take, but when it comes to the taxpayers' dime, the money the taxpayers, out of their hard-earned dollars, send to this city to support various activities, the fact we are using taxpayer money to ship someone's job overseas, that I object to. I don't think that is an outrageous request at a time when we are watching the acceleration of outsourcing going on day after day after day. That is what my colleague and I object to.

I have been on the floor with my amendment for 24 hours and all I want is a vote. If you think outsourcing is a good thing, and many people do; the administration clearly does--their month-old economic report, which the Senator from Illinois again referenced a few minutes ago; I talked about it yesterday; here it is; it is not my comments, not the comments of the Senator from Michigan; this is their authority in which they conclude that outsourcing of jobs is good for the economy--then vote against my amendment.

I am not trying to be difficult. If I am defeated, I am defeated. I have offered amendments and lost before. I am not shocked when I bring up an amendment and lose, but if you think I am on the right track, vote for it. But vote.

I am happy to yield.

That is exactly the case.

Let me address the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and some comments made at the time of the introduction of that amendment which are worthy of note.

First, my friend from Kentucky went on and recited the 6 million jobs that exist in this country where people work for foreign corporations that are located in the United States and he went down each State and identified the jobs. About 90 or 95 percent of those corporations come from the 27 or 28 nations that are exempted under this amendment.

My friend from New Hampshire talked about a large employer in New Hampshire from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not covered by this amendment. Someone else talked about Japan. Japan is not covered by this amendment. As a result of an inquiry made by my friend from Montana to make sure we exempted those countries with which we have joint procurement policies under the World Trade Organization, the language of this amendment excludes those nations.

The idea somehow that these jobs in America will be in jeopardy is not based on any fact whatever. I will be happy to list them for my colleagues: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Aruba, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. There may be others. That is about 90 to 95 percent, as best we can tell, of the so-called jobs that might be in jeopardy.

I suggest if we cannot have equal access to government procurement in various other countries, then we do have a problem. Of those countries where there is not a level playing field, for those that are for fair and free trade, as I listened to my colleague from Iowa talk about it earlier, the United States cannot compete for government procurement contracts in India. We cannot compete in China. We cannot compete in those other countries. If they are willing to say we can compete for their government procurement contracts, this Senator has a different point of view. But we are being told we cannot do it. Do not tell me that is fair or free trade. It is not--by any estimation.

I will not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to trading policies. I supported many. I believe that is where we must be if we will succeed in the 21st century.

I have waivers in here on national security. I understand there is outsourcing that goes on when national security issues are involved.

I have written a specific provision, just check the box. You tell me this will jeopardize national security, the Secretary of Defense checks the box. That is it. You can go ahead and outsource.

I am not trying to make it difficult for anyone. I don't want to make it more bureaucratic. But when I hear the Pentagon talk about bureaucracy and I look at some of the requirements for even purchasing a personal computer, 38 pages, the idea is there of making a determination that something is in the national security interests and therefore you do not have to do it.

Let me offer to my colleague from Kentucky an alternative to his amendment which, if he is willing to accept, I am willing to take. I want to get answers out of these issues.

Instead of his amendment as it reads, virtually nothing has to happen, and nothing happens with this bill because he says the title of this amendment shall take effect 30 days after the Secretary of Commerce certifies that the provisions of this title will not result in the loss of more jobs or be harmful to the U.S. economy. If the Secretary never certifies then, of course, none of the provisions go into law. This amendment, if adopted, would virtually gut everything we have tried to talk about over these last 24 hours. That amendment is unacceptable.

If you are willing to say the initial certification shall be made by the Secretary of Commerce no later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, then I am willing to consider that because that requires an affirmative action for saying that outsourcing is what we want to continue doing.

I do not like amending my amendment with this kind of a provision. But if you want to go that route, I am willing to listen, even though the Secretary of Commerce is the President's campaign manager and so forth, and the administration is already on record saying they think it is a good thing.

I am willing to admit there are many good people who think outsourcing is a good thing. I am not disparaging people who believe that. All I am saying is, there are a lot of us who do not think we ought to be promoting it with U.S. taxpayer money. For those of us who do not think it is a great idea--I suspect a lot of our fellow Americans agree with that conclusion--we would like to vote up or down. If you think it is a bad idea, as apparently the Senator from Kentucky does and the Senator from New Hampshire--and I respect them immensely-- then, very simply, vote against the amendment and shoot it down. Then we will move on to the next subject matter.

But to clutter it up with amendments, suggesting somehow that you agree with what I am suggesting, or at least implicitly do, because you are not challenging the underlying amendment but, rather, offering something that, if

adopted, would make it impossible--unless the Secretary of Commerce decided to change political parties and contradict his President and decided he was going to certify something--this amendment requires nothing, no action on his part at all and, thus, obviously the entire provision dealing with outsourcing would fall.

It is kind of a cute way of not having to vote on my amendment but, in effect, killing it with the adoption of the second-degree amendment.

So I have sent over, through staff, some alternative language which I am asking them to consider as a way, instead, of wrapping this up. As I say, I was prepared to vote on this at 4:30 yesterday afternoon, or at 5:30, whenever people wanted to, but there is obviously another game going on. There is the old New England expression: I was born at night but not last night.

I think I understand the game. We are not going to deal with this issue. We are not going to vote on this, or at least we are going to try to avoid voting on it through every possible maneuver. I regret that, but I guess that is the way things are. I think it is unfortunate. I think we should be speaking. The American people care about this issue. They care about trade. I think most people believe trade is in the best interest of the United States. I agree with them on that.

I also think it is in our interest not to squander our human capital. I think we need to do everything possible to see to it that we are in a position to continue to defend ourselves by trying to do what we can to preserve the jobs that are necessary and the underlying industries for which they work so we will have the capacity to be able to build the infrastructures that we need both for our domestic products as well as our national security structure.

I have 5,400 small manufacturers in my State. They are worried they are going to be cut out because there is always a better deal someplace else. I think the short-term quarterly analysis that fails to take into consideration the long-term implications for our country are dangerous. That is one Senator's point of view. That is one of the reasons I offered this amendment, again, not because I am a protectionist, an isolationist--my 24 years here deny that kind of a label categorically--but because I honestly believe this is something we better address now. If we do not, I think we will look back and deeply regret that we did not.

Let me stop. I know the Senator from Arizona has some thoughts he would like to share. I yield the floor.

I send a modification to the Dodd amendment to the desk and ask it be so modified.

Madam President, what is the order now?

How much time do we have?

Let me take a couple of minutes and, first, explain what has transpired in the last number of seconds. It is rather a quick action on a number of hours of discussion.

First, let me thank Senator McCain and Senator McConnell for their willingness to work on some language. I thank the leader, Senator Daschle. Senator Baucus, of course, has worked tirelessly, and Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and many others have been involved in their comments.

This is a significant breakthrough occurring with the adoption, I hope we will have now, of my amendment. It says you should not be using Federal taxpayer money to subsidize the outsourcing of jobs.

The McCain amendment is something we fundamentally agreed to in the underlying amendment, but it reinforces the notion that certainly, when national security issues are involved and there is a conclusion that we, in effect, have a waiver or have an exception with that being involved, certainly we are not suggesting there should not be the outsourcing of a job if national security is in jeopardy. That was not the intention. The adoption of the McCain amendment reinforces that idea. We incorporated it anyway.

I am grateful to Senator McCain and Senator Warner who talked about that issue. There was no disagreement, even with the initial proposal I made on that issue. So we accept. It strengthens the issue for those who were concerned this may have been a vulnerability. We welcome that addition.

The language with Senator McConnell, which we worked on as well, invites the Secretary of Commerce, within 90 days of the passage of the legislation, to certify that in fact there are no job losses in the country occurring as a result of outsourcing.

So we look forward to their involvement in furthering discussion.

But we have for the first time established at least one principle and that is we believe, generally speaking with some exceptions, we ought not, with Federal taxpayer money, be subsidizing the outsourcing of jobs that could be done here at home. This is a significant accomplishment if it is adopted in the coming minutes before the conclusion of this debate.

I welcome the participation of all. I think all of us are concerned. We read about a continuing flow, accelerated flow of jobs going offshore, particularly nations that do not recognize our right to compete for government procurement. We exempted 28 countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. So when the argument was made earlier in the day by one of our colleagues that this amendment was somehow going to jeopardize American jobs in the United States for people who are working for foreign corporations located here, the fact is, most of those foreign corporations, the overwhelming majority of them, come from the 28 countries, many of which are among the European nations and Pacific rim countries, to the exclusion of Japan, with which we have reciprocal arrangements on procurement. So those nations were excluded.

We are focusing our attention on where some of the major outsourcing is going where you don't have those kinds of protections, where the level playing field does not exist in our country for our ability to compete for jobs.

For those of us who support fair and free trade, we want those options to exist. They don't today in too many places. This legislation is designed to try to address part of that.

There are other issues we need to talk about, but this is one significant piece, we think, of that puzzle. With that in mind, I am happy to yield the floor and listen to others who may want to discuss this before we actually vote on the Dodd amendment in a few minutes.

But I, again, thank all of those involved who made it possible for us to achieve what I think is a good result and one that will invite further involvement. Needless to say, in the months ahead if we find out there has been a lot more erosion in this area, we may have other ideas to address this issue, but for the time being we think this is a major step forward.

Madam President, I comment briefly again on the pending matter while he is still in the Senate. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma regarding the asbestos legislation, something I have been involved in for a number of years, as late as last evening I met with asbestos study group people. The insurance industry is deeply involved, as is organized labor, relating to a large extent to some of the victims of exposure to asbestos. I am very hopeful, still hopeful we can reach a conclusion.

There are some 700,000 pending cases. I don't know if the Senator mentioned that number specifically, but it is a staggering number of cases. Some 60,000 or 70,000 new cases are being filed each year of people claiming harm and injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. There have been at least 70 bankruptcies declared by businesses directly related to the exposure of people who have been exposed to asbestos, and claims filed against them. There is a danger of many more occurring.

This is a matter that does cry out for solution. We think we have a potential solution, not that anything is perfect, but there have been a lot of people working on this over the last number of months, most intensely the last year or so. I thank Senator Frist, the majority leader of the Senate, and his staff, for working very hard along with Senator Hatch. Senator Leahy has been terrific. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, has made strong commitments and is interested in seeing a bill we can support.

It is almost like a three-legged stool. We will have to reach an agreement between the manufacturers, the insurance industry, which will end up paying the lion's share of this, and the victims themselves or groups that represent them. No one wants a situation where we try to come up with a solution that would take the matter out of the courts, having medical criteria established so people who are really sick will get the help, and those who are not sick obviously would not be able to take advantage of this. But we do not want, at the end of the day, a Johns Manville situation, a resolution of people who have been exposed to products of Johns Manville Corporation where ultimately the amount of money set aside results in 5 cents on the dollar for victims. No one wants to see that happen at the end of the day.

The medical criteria question has been resolved. Thanks to Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and work he has done, the administration of how this would work has largely been agreed to by all the major three groups, the people involved. We are still some distance apart on what the final amount of money ought to be to put in a fund that would adequately provide for those who would meet the medical criteria laid out in the legislation.

If people are committed to this, we can get this done. While there may be a lot of bills around here people want to take credit for, as being major accomplishments, I cannot think of anything more important as an economic message than to come up with a good resolution of the asbestos problem.

I commend my colleague from Oklahoma for coming to the Senate and talking about this.

Obviously, they have a strong interest in this.

We will try to take something out of the court system and come up with an answer that would not involve--although we would not necessarily eliminate that, at the end of the day if the fund was inadequate, you could go back. But the idea would be to get compensation to victims, give some finality and certainty to everyone.

The danger for businesses and the industry is they want certainty. Tell me what I owe, what we have to do so we can move on.

My hope is in the coming weeks we can solve that matter.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 2660

If I can come back to the matter before us, I thank Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, on the asbestos issue, and Senator Leahy, among others, along with Senator Frist and Senator Hatch, who really have been doing a tremendous job in keeping everyone at the table to work at that issue. I thank several other people for their work on this proposal dealing with the outsourcing of American jobs.

Again, this is a major achievement. We never have done something like this before, but this Congress and this body is stepping to the plate and saying this continuing erosion of jobs in this country is something the Federal Government, anyway, will be far more diligent about than we have been.

I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, the floor leaders of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction of the underlying bill. I particularly thank Senator Baucus for his support of the underlying Dodd amendment yesterday. I am very grateful to him for expressing that support and Senator Grassley indicating, as well, his support. I thank Senator Coleman, who wanted to be a cosponsor of the bill very early. I thank him for that. I thank Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who is tireless in his participation on these matters all the time. He has been very helpful over the last several days, along with his staff, in getting this resolved. Senator Corzine of New Jersey spoke yesterday about this bill; Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who spoke with such great passion about the issue of jobs and what is happening to American workers and their families; Senator Durbin of Illinois, who is always eloquent on these matters; Senator Stabenow, from Michigan, who spoke very directly about conditions in her own State and what happens with job loss. Senator Boxer of California spent some time here yesterday talking about conditions in California and specifically in the agricultural sector which she cares deeply about, in watching Federal tax dollars being used to purchase agricultural products outside of the United States, thus causing job loss. She made that point very strongly yesterday and I commend her for it; Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, as well, for his remarks in support of this proposal; others who were cosponsors, including Senator Mikulski, who supported the legislation. I thank her for backing this proposal, as well.

Again, this was a very positive step. I am hoping the bill will be adopted. We will have a vote on it.

For those who think outsourcing is a good thing, then you ought to vote against this amendment. I would like your vote, but if you think outsourcing jobs in the United States with Federal taxpayer money is something we ought to continue to pursue, then you will have an opportunity to vote against this amendment. If that is an honest reflection of your views, then you ought to express them accordingly. If you feel as I and others do that we ought to be sending a message using ourselves as an example and a model and saying we ought to be trying to do better, and that is when it comes to Federal dollars here, we ought to be doing everything we can to encourage the employment of people in the United States, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that you cannot continually erode the human capital in this country and expect to reconstitute it during moments of crisis or need.

If we continually erode the human capital elements and destroy, in the process, a manufacturing base, which is occurring at an incredible rate of speed--as I pointed out earlier yesterday and today, some 2.8 million jobs have been lost in the last 36 months in the manufacturing sector alone--as those jobs leave, the ability to come back and reconstitute them in a way that we may find absolutely necessary, not only for the production of domestic products for sale at home and globally, but also in the manufacture of critical components of our defense structures--

very shortly we could find ourselves in this century ill-prepared to meet new challenges.

So there are a lot of good reasons we ought to be concerned, not the least of which is what happens to these families when they painfully discover their job has been lost, and someone, at a fraction of their wage or salary, has been hired merely because it looks better, because it increases profitability on a quarter-to-quarter basis. We ought to be thinking in the longer term. In my view, we ought to be thinking about the coming generation and what kind of country we will leave.

So while I respect the business decisions that are made to outsource--although I disagree with many of them, I understand them--I hope business understands, for those of us in the public sector who have a broader responsibility--not just to those who are engaged in the business and their bottom line but to those who work for them as well-- that we are going to try to do what we can to discourage the outsourcing of jobs where it is not necessary either for the national security needs of the Nation or because you cannot acquire these products anywhere in the United States. Certainly, we provide for exceptions in the legislation to cover those circumstances.

So, again, I think this is a major step forward. And I will be looking forward to how the administration reacts.

Let me also point out I will come back to another item in a minute as to a comment made by Senator Inhofe, but I hope the Dodd amendment will be voted on favorably.

Madam President, I do not know if the yeas and nays have been asked for on the Dodd amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, let me just say, if I may--and I will be glad to yield the floor after this--according to the official arbiters of the economy, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession that we are still in, to some extent--although we seem to be coming out of it--began in March of 2001, not in the first quarter of 2000. And I know my friend from Oklahoma made the point that the recession began in the last year of the Clinton administration, when, in fact, the objective observers about when the recession actually began say it was in March of 2001, a year later.

With that, Madam President, I am happy to yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to very briefly address two subject matters. As I understand it, we will be moving later this morning to this ETI bill, or the extraterritorial income legislation. My fervent hope is that in addition to debating the underlying bill itself, we will also have an opportunity to raise questions about a staggering set of issues that is unfolding in our country, and that is the outsourcing of jobs all across this Nation to foreign lands.

We all understand this happens from time to time, but the explosion that has occurred in the last 36 months is deeply alarming to many Americans. We now have lost some 2.6 million to 2.7 million jobs over the last 36 months in the manufacturing sector alone. Many of these jobs are showing up either offshore in places such as India, Bangladesh, the People's Republic of China, or elsewhere. There is great concern in this country that we are losing a very important strategic base in our Nation, not to mention these critically important jobs which can never be replaced.

I inform my colleagues, and I know others feel similarly as I do, when we get to this bill there will be some opportunities to offer amendments and to address the very issue of American jobs.

When we hear the administration say, as the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers did just a few days ago, that outsourcing of jobs was a good thing for America, we begin to understand the depths of concern people have when the administration fails to understand, at least through its leadership, how critically important it is that we stand up and do what we can to preserve critically important jobs, although not at the expense of international trade. We all understand the importance of trade in a global economy, but we also understand if we are going to be a vibrant participant in a global economy that we have to produce the goods or the services to compete.

If not only low-income jobs are given away but also high-technology jobs, information technology jobs, and engineering jobs, for instance, are leaving, then the ability of this country to compete in the 21st century is going to be severely disadvantaged.

I look forward to the coming hours today, tomorrow, and possibly Friday, to engage with my colleagues in some of this debate and discussion. It will be the first time since we have returned that we are going to have a real debate and discussion about jobs in this country and what we might do in this body to address those issues.

Secondly, on an unrelated matter, I was alarmed but not terribly surprised to pick up the morning newspapers and to read what I thought might happen. I did not wish it to happen, but I thought it might happen in the island nation of Haiti.

Over the past weekend, I warned, as others did, if we did not step up and try to support a democratically elected government, albeit a flawed one but a democratically elected government, we would end up reaping what we sow. And we are doing just that.

In the headlines this morning we read things such as: Haiti rebel says he is in charge and has taken over down there. The man's name is Guy Philippe. This is a person who has a dreadful human rights record. These are people who ran death squads and are involved in the drug trades. They are now taking over. Anarchy apparently is reigning in the island nation of Haiti.

Parts of this article state the country is in my hands, this so- called rebel leader says. Although American officials denounced the armed rebels and said they should have no role in ruling Haiti, the American forces did not take any action to counter them at all. They have now taken over in that country and are apparently in charge down there. Anarchy is reigning. There are bodies in the streets of Port-au- Prince.

What I feared might happen if we did not stand up and support a democratic government--and again I will say a flawed one, but when the United States decided we were going to put a foot in the back of this elected President and send him out of the country, we warned the vacuum would be filled by the worst elements. In fact, I read over last evening and this morning that Baby Doc Duvalier, the worst oppressive leader in that country, and his father, wants to come back to Haiti under this new operation that is going on down there.

I am terribly disappointed the administration failed to step to the plate. I knew it was going to be difficult, but if we cannot support democratically elected governments--and again I will repeat, whatever problems Aristide had, they were not a few; they were many. Nonetheless, he was chosen by the people of that country on two different occasions, overwhelmingly so. If we are unwilling to stand and back democratically elected governments in this hemisphere and give a wink and a nod to those who replace governments that have been duly elected, we will see a repetition of what occurred in Haiti elsewhere. We are seeing it in Caracas, Venezuela, because we are endorsing the notion that when we don't like leaders in certain countries, we will ignore the chaos that can result from changing of government other than through the normal means of elected government. That is something that can happen, and it has happened.

So I rise to express my deep disappointment that once again the administration, in this hemisphere, is just failing terribly, and Haiti is a classic example of failure. We now have a huge mess on our hands.

I pointed out the other day, 30 percent of the population of the Bahamas is now Haitian. Thirty percent of that country is now occupied by people who have fled Haiti because of the repression and economic conditions in that nation. Twenty percent of children never reach the age of 5 in Haiti. The average income is $250. It is a poor Black country, and as a result I don't think we give it the kind of support we should have been giving it.

In fact, over the last 36 months we embargoed any assistance directed to the Government of Haiti. What kind of a country do we live in today that turns to a nation only 300 or 400 miles off our shore, with people living in desperate conditions, with the highest rate of AIDS in the hemisphere, and we have virtually nothing to say to them. Here we have today, once again, these impoverished, poor people down there, who had to live under dreadful governments over the years, finally get one they elect democratically, and because we don't like it, it is a failed leadership in our view, we walk away from it, and now you have thugs running the place again. It is not all our fault but, Mr. President a large part is. I am terribly disappointed about what has happened, and I wanted to rise this morning to express those sentiments.

I yield the floor.

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.