Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to the Chamber today.

What would you call it if Americans were paying up to 300 percent more for the same product as consumers from other countries were paying? Back in Iowa, we would call that ``highway robbery.'' Yet, highway robbery is what is happening every day in this country, and it is happening over prescription drugs.

Yes, prescription drugs are being sold at prices that are 30 to 300 percent higher in the United States than in places like Canada or Europe.

Here are some examples.

The price in Canada of Nexium which is for heart burn and ulcers, is about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. Nexium would cost about $120 for 28 20-milligram capsules if you bought it here in the States. If you order the same Nexium from Canada, you'd pay about $51.

Here is another example: The price in Canada for Vioxx which is for arthritis pain, is also about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. If you purchased 30 12.5-milligram tablets in Canada, you would pay about $36 and here in a U.S. pharmacy, you would pay about $86.

And why is that, Mr. President? The reason is the importation of prescription drugs, those very same drugs that patients are using in Canada, and Australia, and Japan, is illegal in this country. So consumers in other countries get price breaks from the drug manufacturers and the American public doesn't.

One way to look at this is that by paying those higher prices, the American public is paying more than its fair share for the cost of research and development for future new drugs. That is not fair.

This means when a new drug comes on the market, the American consumer has paid for the research but consumers in other countries benefit from the new therapy.

I have supported amendments to permit Canadian drug purchases before. We have had numerous votes in this Chamber on legalizing importation. We had a vote most recently during the Medicare debate.

Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed a drug reimportation bill by a vote of 243 to 186. But, in the end, the conference report for the Medicare bill watered down the possibility of legal importation such that it was meaningless.

I was very disappointed about that. I think it was victory by subterfuge for the pharmaceutical industry.

So, I decided to roll up my sleeves and go to work on drafting my own bill that would address the problems surrounding importation. In fact, I was working very closely since the beginning of the year with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. We were working together until 3 weeks ago to create a bipartisan piece of legislation. We made a lot of progress. We still had some issues to work out but we were very close to having a final agreement.

With my leadership on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kennedy's leadership on the HELP Committee, let alone his expertise on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, I figured we had a good shot at getting something done.

Our discussions certainly created a lot of buzz around town. I had reporters and all manner of interest groups asking me and my staff about the bill and when we would introduce it. But those discussions have since evaporated. Apparently, the Democratic caucus was concerned that things were moving too quickly or that too much momentum was building behind a bipartisan effort. What I do know is that our bipartisan product was no longer the priority.

I was disappointed about that too. Senator Kennedy and I work well together. In fact, we are joining forces even now to get the Family Opportunity Act to the floor and passed out of the Senate.

You can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle had determined lowering the costs of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue.

Members can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle determined lowering the cost of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. This reminded me of what happened in the year 2002 with the Medicare prescription drug debate. There, too, Senator Daschle became concerned that the Finance Committee--then chaired by my friend, Senator Baucus--would report a bipartisan prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Senator Daschle, in 2002, as the majority leader, bypassed the Finance Committee and took the prescription drug bill straight to the floor. That is not how we get legislation passed in the Senate, and everyone around here knows it. As I say so often to my colleagues, nothing gets done in the Senate if it is not bipartisan or at least somewhat bipartisan.

In the year 2002, it resulted in a very partisan debate in the Senate over

competing Medicare drug benefit proposals. There were multiple partisan proposals by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. I had a proposal supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic caucus fought our bill, which was dubbed the tripartisan bill because one of the key authors, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, sits in the body as an Independent.

What happened in the final analysis in 2002? The Senate did not pass a Medicare drug benefit proposal that year. The debate fell apart in partisan bickering in the Senate. That happened because partisan politics intervened to prevent a bipartisan compromise.

It looks to me that this is what is happening now on the issue of the importation of drugs into the United States to help our seniors. When we go to the pharmacist to pick up a prescription, I don't remember the pharmacist asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat. When you pay your health insurance premium, I don't think the insurance company looks for an ``R'' or a ``D'' by your name before they accept your payment.

No, I don't see the importation of drugs as a partisan issue. Being forced to pay higher prescription prices because there is a lack of competition in the global pharmaceutical industry is not a partisan issue. That is why I decided to move ahead and introduce the bill I am introducing today.

This bill I am introducing today in a large degree is the bill on which I worked very closely with Senator Kennedy when our efforts got superseded by the Democratic caucus. I made a few changes, but this bill is basically what Senator Kennedy and I were working on together before partisan politics got in the way. I thought what we had was a good proposal. We were close to having all the details worked out. I am going ahead and introducing that bill today by myself.

Let me explain the bill. Quite simply, it would legalize immediately the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. After 2 years, consumers would be able to order their drugs from other countries, as well. It creates a practical and safe system to do it.

Today the law prohibits the importation of prescription drugs until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that importation can be done safely. Under current resources and under current authority, the Food and Drug Administration has not been able to provide such assurance on the safety of drugs coming in from other countries. We have had Health and Human Service Secretaries in both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. This is not Republicans protecting pharmaceuticals, if you want to look at it this way. It is both Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents making a decision that the certification and safety of drug importation was not legally permitted.

Even though the law says you can import drugs, because of the lack of certification, they cannot come into the country. More and more people have been getting prescriptions filled in Canada, regardless of what the law says. Technically, that is illegal today.

The Food and Drug Administration and our customs officials have been looking the other way. The Food and Drug Administration has said there are serious safety issues with drug importation from other countries. They say this because no public health authority is overseeing many of the prescriptions coming in from other countries. In fact, the Canadian Government has said it will not take responsibility for assuring the safety of drugs being shipped to the United States from Canada. They have basically told the U.S. consumer: You are on your own from the standpoint of safety--I suppose, as far as the Food and Drug Administration, efficacy as well as safety.

Today, importation is no longer limited to organized bus trips across the border to pharmacies in Canada. Instead, it is becoming a booming mail-order pharmacy operation with customers all over the United States. We see press accounts on a regular basis describing Americans who log on to the Internet to purchase drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into drug importation. They found about 40,000 parcels containing prescription drugs come through JFK Airport every day. JFK Airport houses the largest international mail branch in the United States. From Miami, 30,000 packages of drugs come into the United States; 20,000 packages come into Chicago each day of the year. About 28 percent of the drugs coming in are controlled substances. These are addictive drugs that require close supervision from physicians.

From where are most of these drugs coming? I was surprised to hear it was not only Canada, but also Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Romania.

My bill immediately halts unsafe importation from rogue operators but permits individuals to obtain prescriptions from licensed Canadian pharmacies on an interim basis while the Food and Drug Administration gets a new drug importation system up and it runs well.

The American public is tired of waiting for the Federal Government to take action to legalize importation and to assure the safety of imported drugs. Under my bill, the Food and Drug Administration is required to issue final regulations for the new drug importation system within 90 days of enactment. Under the new importation system, individuals and pharmacies could purchase qualified drugs for import into the United States from foreign exporters that register with the Food and Drug Administration. To be registered, the foreign exporters must demonstrate compliance with safety measures, must submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and take other steps to assure the safety of imported drugs.

A user fee charged to registered exporters would provide the financing needed for the Food and Drug Administration to register and oversee foreign drug exporters and assure the state of imported drugs.

The drugmakers do not want to see their lower priced products from other countries coming into the United States. That is certain because the present laws do not permit this competition to them. They would say it undermines their profits here. They will want to do everything they can to stop drug importation.

Even though this bill might pass, these companies will find some way to keep these drugs out of the country. So I have to deal with that fact in this legislation.

So under my bill, drugmakers that take steps to prevent importation of their products from these registered drug importers will lose their tax deduction for their advertising costs.

Now, that is going to upset the trade associations that deal with advertising. That is going to upset TV and newspapers and magazines that get a lot of money from advertising. I have had a long history of supporting the deductibility of advertising expenses as a legitimate business expense. I have not changed my mind in regard to that, not at all. In fact, I have a history of voting against amendments that are offered on the floor of the Senate that would make advertising not deductible.

But we are not talking about not allowing the deductibility of advertising costs. Only if a company tries to do something illegal and keep drugs from coming in from out of this country, then they will pay the penalty of not having their advertising costs deducted. But I assume, when we pass this bill, these drug companies are going to abide by this law. There will not be one cent of advertising that cannot be deducted as a legitimate expense, so I do not want the advertising fraternity to get upset with this legislation, when I have been a backer of the legitimate writeoff of advertising expenses.

Now, this not only has the stick that I just described, but we have a carrot as well, to encourage companies to abide by this law and not try to keep imported drugs from coming into this country by some sort of requirement they would put on supplies outside the country not to ship drugs into this country; and that is, they will get a 20-percent benefit--a 20-percent benefit--by having an increase in their R&D tax credit.

I am going to discuss that further, but going back to the advertising costs, I do sense, from my people in Iowa--at every town meeting some person complains about the advertising of

drugs on TV. I defend the advertising of drugs on TV because that is commercial free speech. I think our citizenry ought to be as educated about drugs as they can be, so they are not beholden to their own doctor or doctors for what might be applied. I think we ought to have an educated patient group, so this advertising is very good. But I still have to say that my Iowa constituents are pretty fed up with all those drug ads they see on TV, and how they are probably adding to the cost of prescription drugs.

I am fully in favor of this free speech, and I do not, in any way, want to prohibit companies from running the ads they want to run. But if drug companies are not going to allow U.S. consumers to have access to these lower prices in other countries, then, under this legislation, they would lose the tax deduction for the cost of those advertisements.

Now, on the other hand, I said there is a carrot out there. The drugmakers complain to us that these lower prices might take money from research and development. They would rightly say: Where are we going to get the money to have the next generation of ``magic'' drugs that we have? We want that to happen, because when I buy a drug today, my mother or grandmother, when they bought pills, paid for that research for the generation of drugs I take. I want my children and grandchildren to have a new generation of drugs for the future. So we do not want to hurt research and development.

So my bill, then, creates an incentive for drug companies that do not fight this importation of drugs. Companies that do not prevent importation from registered exporters will get a 20-percent increase in their R&D tax credit. I hope everybody will think that is very fair.

I have a more detailed summary of this bill that I am going to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this summary and a question and answer document be printed in the Record following my statement.

I believe that free trade principles argue in favor of permitting the importation from Canada and perhaps from other developed countries as long as we can implement a system for safe importation.

Today, there is no assurance of safety--no one is watching the store--and products are coming in from all over the world.

My legislation has two objectives. First, it will put an immediate end to the unregulated and unsafe situations of drug imports that we have today by default. This is key because the situation today threatens the safety of our Nation's drug supply and puts patients who obtain these drugs at risk of harm.

Second, the legislation will provide the Food and Drug Administration with the resources and authority to ensure the safety of imported drugs, and importation will only be permitted by registered exporters who submit to the Food and Drug Administration authority.

Now, this bill will get referred to the Finance Committee because it has tax provisions in it, but the bulk of my bill falls under the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee, and my friend, Senator Gregg, as chairman of that committee, has announced he will hold a markup this year on a drug importation bill.

I do not intend to assert jurisdiction over this proposal, and I believe we should rely upon that regular committee process to work. That is how we get legislation passed in the Senate. Because that is where bipartisanship is formulated, at the committee level.

I hope my colleagues will look at this bill. I wanted to get these ideas out here for discussion. I hope some of my colleagues will want to cosponsor this bill. It is time we got this done, and this is the year to get it done, particularly following upon the vote that was in the House of Representatives last year.

We must not let partisan politics get in the way, and I think it is getting a little bit in the way right now. I hope we overcome that. I hope I am able to develop a relationship with Democrats, once again, to work on this bill in a bipartisan way. If we do not do this, I think there is going to be a penalty paid at the ballot box in November.

The American consumers are waiting. Let's get the job done.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to the Chamber today.

What would you call it if Americans were paying up to 300 percent more for the same product as consumers from other countries were paying? Back in Iowa, we would call that ``highway robbery.'' Yet, highway robbery is what is happening every day in this country, and it is happening over prescription drugs.

Yes, prescription drugs are being sold at prices that are 30 to 300 percent higher in the United States than in places like Canada or Europe.

Here are some examples.

The price in Canada of Nexium which is for heart burn and ulcers, is about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. Nexium would cost about $120 for 28 20-milligram capsules if you bought it here in the States. If you order the same Nexium from Canada, you'd pay about $51.

Here is another example: The price in Canada for Vioxx which is for arthritis pain, is also about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. If you purchased 30 12.5-milligram tablets in Canada, you would pay about $36 and here in a U.S. pharmacy, you would pay about $86.

And why is that, Mr. President? The reason is the importation of prescription drugs, those very same drugs that patients are using in Canada, and Australia, and Japan, is illegal in this country. So consumers in other countries get price breaks from the drug manufacturers and the American public doesn't.

One way to look at this is that by paying those higher prices, the American public is paying more than its fair share for the cost of research and development for future new drugs. That is not fair.

This means when a new drug comes on the market, the American consumer has paid for the research but consumers in other countries benefit from the new therapy.

I have supported amendments to permit Canadian drug purchases before. We have had numerous votes in this Chamber on legalizing importation. We had a vote most recently during the Medicare debate.

Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed a drug reimportation bill by a vote of 243 to 186. But, in the end, the conference report for the Medicare bill watered down the possibility of legal importation such that it was meaningless.

I was very disappointed about that. I think it was victory by subterfuge for the pharmaceutical industry.

So, I decided to roll up my sleeves and go to work on drafting my own bill that would address the problems surrounding importation. In fact, I was working very closely since the beginning of the year with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. We were working together until 3 weeks ago to create a bipartisan piece of legislation. We made a lot of progress. We still had some issues to work out but we were very close to having a final agreement.

With my leadership on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kennedy's leadership on the HELP Committee, let alone his expertise on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, I figured we had a good shot at getting something done.

Our discussions certainly created a lot of buzz around town. I had reporters and all manner of interest groups asking me and my staff about the bill and when we would introduce it. But those discussions have since evaporated. Apparently, the Democratic caucus was concerned that things were moving too quickly or that too much momentum was building behind a bipartisan effort. What I do know is that our bipartisan product was no longer the priority.

I was disappointed about that too. Senator Kennedy and I work well together. In fact, we are joining forces even now to get the Family Opportunity Act to the floor and passed out of the Senate.

You can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle had determined lowering the costs of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue.

Members can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle determined lowering the cost of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. This reminded me of what happened in the year 2002 with the Medicare prescription drug debate. There, too, Senator Daschle became concerned that the Finance Committee--then chaired by my friend, Senator Baucus--would report a bipartisan prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Senator Daschle, in 2002, as the majority leader, bypassed the Finance Committee and took the prescription drug bill straight to the floor. That is not how we get legislation passed in the Senate, and everyone around here knows it. As I say so often to my colleagues, nothing gets done in the Senate if it is not bipartisan or at least somewhat bipartisan.

In the year 2002, it resulted in a very partisan debate in the Senate over

competing Medicare drug benefit proposals. There were multiple partisan proposals by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. I had a proposal supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic caucus fought our bill, which was dubbed the tripartisan bill because one of the key authors, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, sits in the body as an Independent.

What happened in the final analysis in 2002? The Senate did not pass a Medicare drug benefit proposal that year. The debate fell apart in partisan bickering in the Senate. That happened because partisan politics intervened to prevent a bipartisan compromise.

It looks to me that this is what is happening now on the issue of the importation of drugs into the United States to help our seniors. When we go to the pharmacist to pick up a prescription, I don't remember the pharmacist asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat. When you pay your health insurance premium, I don't think the insurance company looks for an ``R'' or a ``D'' by your name before they accept your payment.

No, I don't see the importation of drugs as a partisan issue. Being forced to pay higher prescription prices because there is a lack of competition in the global pharmaceutical industry is not a partisan issue. That is why I decided to move ahead and introduce the bill I am introducing today.

This bill I am introducing today in a large degree is the bill on which I worked very closely with Senator Kennedy when our efforts got superseded by the Democratic caucus. I made a few changes, but this bill is basically what Senator Kennedy and I were working on together before partisan politics got in the way. I thought what we had was a good proposal. We were close to having all the details worked out. I am going ahead and introducing that bill today by myself.

Let me explain the bill. Quite simply, it would legalize immediately the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. After 2 years, consumers would be able to order their drugs from other countries, as well. It creates a practical and safe system to do it.

Today the law prohibits the importation of prescription drugs until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that importation can be done safely. Under current resources and under current authority, the Food and Drug Administration has not been able to provide such assurance on the safety of drugs coming in from other countries. We have had Health and Human Service Secretaries in both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. This is not Republicans protecting pharmaceuticals, if you want to look at it this way. It is both Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents making a decision that the certification and safety of drug importation was not legally permitted.

Even though the law says you can import drugs, because of the lack of certification, they cannot come into the country. More and more people have been getting prescriptions filled in Canada, regardless of what the law says. Technically, that is illegal today.

The Food and Drug Administration and our customs officials have been looking the other way. The Food and Drug Administration has said there are serious safety issues with drug importation from other countries. They say this because no public health authority is overseeing many of the prescriptions coming in from other countries. In fact, the Canadian Government has said it will not take responsibility for assuring the safety of drugs being shipped to the United States from Canada. They have basically told the U.S. consumer: You are on your own from the standpoint of safety--I suppose, as far as the Food and Drug Administration, efficacy as well as safety.

Today, importation is no longer limited to organized bus trips across the border to pharmacies in Canada. Instead, it is becoming a booming mail-order pharmacy operation with customers all over the United States. We see press accounts on a regular basis describing Americans who log on to the Internet to purchase drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into drug importation. They found about 40,000 parcels containing prescription drugs come through JFK Airport every day. JFK Airport houses the largest international mail branch in the United States. From Miami, 30,000 packages of drugs come into the United States; 20,000 packages come into Chicago each day of the year. About 28 percent of the drugs coming in are controlled substances. These are addictive drugs that require close supervision from physicians.

From where are most of these drugs coming? I was surprised to hear it was not only Canada, but also Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Romania.

My bill immediately halts unsafe importation from rogue operators but permits individuals to obtain prescriptions from licensed Canadian pharmacies on an interim basis while the Food and Drug Administration gets a new drug importation system up and it runs well.

The American public is tired of waiting for the Federal Government to take action to legalize importation and to assure the safety of imported drugs. Under my bill, the Food and Drug Administration is required to issue final regulations for the new drug importation system within 90 days of enactment. Under the new importation system, individuals and pharmacies could purchase qualified drugs for import into the United States from foreign exporters that register with the Food and Drug Administration. To be registered, the foreign exporters must demonstrate compliance with safety measures, must submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and take other steps to assure the safety of imported drugs.

A user fee charged to registered exporters would provide the financing needed for the Food and Drug Administration to register and oversee foreign drug exporters and assure the state of imported drugs.

The drugmakers do not want to see their lower priced products from other countries coming into the United States. That is certain because the present laws do not permit this competition to them. They would say it undermines their profits here. They will want to do everything they can to stop drug importation.

Even though this bill might pass, these companies will find some way to keep these drugs out of the country. So I have to deal with that fact in this legislation.

So under my bill, drugmakers that take steps to prevent importation of their products from these registered drug importers will lose their tax deduction for their advertising costs.

Now, that is going to upset the trade associations that deal with advertising. That is going to upset TV and newspapers and magazines that get a lot of money from advertising. I have had a long history of supporting the deductibility of advertising expenses as a legitimate business expense. I have not changed my mind in regard to that, not at all. In fact, I have a history of voting against amendments that are offered on the floor of the Senate that would make advertising not deductible.

But we are not talking about not allowing the deductibility of advertising costs. Only if a company tries to do something illegal and keep drugs from coming in from out of this country, then they will pay the penalty of not having their advertising costs deducted. But I assume, when we pass this bill, these drug companies are going to abide by this law. There will not be one cent of advertising that cannot be deducted as a legitimate expense, so I do not want the advertising fraternity to get upset with this legislation, when I have been a backer of the legitimate writeoff of advertising expenses.

Now, this not only has the stick that I just described, but we have a carrot as well, to encourage companies to abide by this law and not try to keep imported drugs from coming into this country by some sort of requirement they would put on supplies outside the country not to ship drugs into this country; and that is, they will get a 20-percent benefit--a 20-percent benefit--by having an increase in their R&D tax credit.

I am going to discuss that further, but going back to the advertising costs, I do sense, from my people in Iowa--at every town meeting some person complains about the advertising of

drugs on TV. I defend the advertising of drugs on TV because that is commercial free speech. I think our citizenry ought to be as educated about drugs as they can be, so they are not beholden to their own doctor or doctors for what might be applied. I think we ought to have an educated patient group, so this advertising is very good. But I still have to say that my Iowa constituents are pretty fed up with all those drug ads they see on TV, and how they are probably adding to the cost of prescription drugs.

I am fully in favor of this free speech, and I do not, in any way, want to prohibit companies from running the ads they want to run. But if drug companies are not going to allow U.S. consumers to have access to these lower prices in other countries, then, under this legislation, they would lose the tax deduction for the cost of those advertisements.

Now, on the other hand, I said there is a carrot out there. The drugmakers complain to us that these lower prices might take money from research and development. They would rightly say: Where are we going to get the money to have the next generation of ``magic'' drugs that we have? We want that to happen, because when I buy a drug today, my mother or grandmother, when they bought pills, paid for that research for the generation of drugs I take. I want my children and grandchildren to have a new generation of drugs for the future. So we do not want to hurt research and development.

So my bill, then, creates an incentive for drug companies that do not fight this importation of drugs. Companies that do not prevent importation from registered exporters will get a 20-percent increase in their R&D tax credit. I hope everybody will think that is very fair.

I have a more detailed summary of this bill that I am going to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this summary and a question and answer document be printed in the Record following my statement.

I believe that free trade principles argue in favor of permitting the importation from Canada and perhaps from other developed countries as long as we can implement a system for safe importation.

Today, there is no assurance of safety--no one is watching the store--and products are coming in from all over the world.

My legislation has two objectives. First, it will put an immediate end to the unregulated and unsafe situations of drug imports that we have today by default. This is key because the situation today threatens the safety of our Nation's drug supply and puts patients who obtain these drugs at risk of harm.

Second, the legislation will provide the Food and Drug Administration with the resources and authority to ensure the safety of imported drugs, and importation will only be permitted by registered exporters who submit to the Food and Drug Administration authority.

Now, this bill will get referred to the Finance Committee because it has tax provisions in it, but the bulk of my bill falls under the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee, and my friend, Senator Gregg, as chairman of that committee, has announced he will hold a markup this year on a drug importation bill.

I do not intend to assert jurisdiction over this proposal, and I believe we should rely upon that regular committee process to work. That is how we get legislation passed in the Senate. Because that is where bipartisanship is formulated, at the committee level.

I hope my colleagues will look at this bill. I wanted to get these ideas out here for discussion. I hope some of my colleagues will want to cosponsor this bill. It is time we got this done, and this is the year to get it done, particularly following upon the vote that was in the House of Representatives last year.

We must not let partisan politics get in the way, and I think it is getting a little bit in the way right now. I hope we overcome that. I hope I am able to develop a relationship with Democrats, once again, to work on this bill in a bipartisan way. If we do not do this, I think there is going to be a penalty paid at the ballot box in November.

The American consumers are waiting. Let's get the job done.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to make a statement and, upon the conclusion of my statement, the Senate recess until 2:15 as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that we have to be here today debating the FSC/ETI bill. The fact is, with America's economic health at risk, the bipartisan JOBS bill should have been debated and voted out of this body last month. Instead, attempts to move this jobs in manufacturing bill has been stymied. As a result, American manufacturing is not only being deprived of a competitive boost that it deserves at a time of no job creation in manufacturing but, in addition to that, U.S. exporters are stuck with a 6-percent European tax on our products going there.

This situation has festered for much too long. It has been several years since the World Trade Organization has ruled that the FSC/ETI regime did not meet our World Trade Organization obligations that this Senate and the other body agreed to a long time ago. Since then, we have known that. It is a fact. We have all known that unless we changed our current tax system, tariffs against our exports were looming.

To try to avoid these sanctions, Senator Baucus and I came together over a year ago and formed a bipartisan, bicameral working group to find a real, permanent solution to this problem.

The result is bipartisan. Remember that nothing gets done in the Senate that is not bipartisan. We have a jobs in manufacturing act before the Senate, and we will be voting on that today. This bill was passed out of my committee by a vote of 19 to 2. That means all Democrats voted for it. It provided a real and permanent solution to our FSC/ETI problems in a way which complies with our WTO obligations.

The bipartisan jobs in manufacturing act helps America's manufacturing sector. It helps us compete by giving an across-the-board 3-percentage point tax cut to all companies, large or small, that manufacture in the United States.

At a time when manufacturing is flat, this 3-percent tax cut can make a real difference to a company's bottom line perhaps bringing up enough capital and creating enough manufacturing growth to enable it or any company to hire in the manufacturing sector.

That is something every Senator would like to see. But because of political games and dilatory tactics by some in the Senate, this relief is not forthcoming.

I want Americans to understand that Senators on my side of the aisle are ready, willing, and able to provide a real shot in the arm to America's manufacturing sector. But after working so long in a bipartisan way, we are being blocked. We are blocked from providing the relief that American manufacturing deserves and needs.

In effect, this bill and the American manufacturing sector are being held hostage to Democratic demands to load this bipartisan legislation with a bunch of unrelated nongermane amendments. While some of these amendments are legitimate, others amount to nothing more than a wish list of political message amendments that have nothing to do with this very major piece of legislation. I, for one, am tired of watching us bide our time contemplating a wish list. American manufacturing needs solutions. It does not need a political wish list.

We have a good bipartisan bill before the Senate, a package that works for America's workers. But our plea for progress is met with nothing but demands for including one more item on some political wish list. You would think adults would make up their minds about what they want and that would be it.

It would be one thing if a political wish list did no harm, if it really didn't matter, or if the JOBS bill moved or not. But for manufacturing it does matter. Delay deprives American manufacturing of a much needed economic boost. Delay also inflicts real economic harm on innocent workers across the country.

The World Trade Organization has authorized the European Union to impose as much as $4 billion in tariffs in retaliation for our failure to bring our tax laws into compliance with international trade agreements that this body has already accepted--and accepted years ago.

Last month, on March 1, the European Union began implementing these sanctions by imposing an additional 5-percent tax on selected U.S. exports. This 5-percent Euro tax automatically increases by 1 percent for each month in which the United States of America remains out of compliance. Thus, when Members voted against stopping debate last month, the last time this bill was before this body, they contributed to a 20-percent increase in these tariffs because that additional 1 percent went into effect on April 1. Because of delay, then we have a 6-percent sales tax on our exports to Europe, making a lot of our businesses uncompetitive.

As you can see from this chart, these sanctions will continue to climb unless we act and act fast. In May, they rise another 1- percentage point to 7 percent and continue increasing until they reach a maximum of 17 percent in March of 2005. After that, then who knows what is going to happen. But by then we will have a lot of layoffs and people will wake up to the fact that harm is being done.

The European Union is not bound to cap retaliation at 17 percent. That is why I said: Who knows? In fact, they are scheduled to review the effectiveness of these retaliatory taxes at the end of 1 year. If the Europeans conclude that we are not in compliance, retaliation can escalate even further to a maximum of $4 billion a year.

If this sounds one sided, America wins more disputes in the World Trade Organization than we lose. We have won some major disputes against Europe. One time we won one about American beef being kept out of Europe. Europe still doesn't like to get some American beef. So we have imposed a tax on European exports coming into our country because that is the legal way of handling these disputes after it has been decided. I use that as an example. Europe has learned a lesson from the United States and they are doing to us what we have done to them. Why? Because in one case Europe did not want to abide by a decision, and in another case, we, up to now, have not abided by a decision. That is why we have the tax. It is quite obvious in most cases countries abide by these decisions. If they did not abide by these decisions, we would have chaos in international trade. We do not.

I make clear to the Members of this body: The effect of voting against stopping debate last month contributed strongly to raising tariffs on our exports by 2 percent. If cloture is not invoked this week, it is certain sanctions will escalate another percentage point, rising an overall level of 7 percent on selected U.S. exports. The core legislation should be very clear: A vote against stopping debate is a vote for higher taxes on our exports.

Which exporters will be hurt? All of them. No, not all of them, because the European Union was very careful in drawing up the sanctions list. In many cases, they chose to impose sanctions on U.S. exports that would most significantly feel the pain of the higher tax tariffs.

They are smart. Thus, highly competitive products with high profit margins are likely to find themselves on the list.

A press release from the American Forest and Paper Association dated March 2 of this year says this about European Union tariffs on wood product exports:

This is a devastating development for an industry that has

already closed more than 220 mills and laid off 120,000

workers since 1997.

Our industry works on such tight profit margins that even a

5 percent tariff will likely price many U.S. wood and paper

products out of our vital European markets. To have this

happen just as United States wood and paper products are

beginning to recover from a decade-long stump does

irreparable harm to our industry.

The European Union has chosen products they could get from other countries, hoping that the higher tariffs on U.S. exports will price our products out of the European market, to be replaced by similar products from other foreign competitors. It is important for Members of the Senate to understand the effect of pricing U.S. exports out of the European market is not just temporary. Longstanding business relationships can be permanently disrupted as European buyers scramble to replace cost-prohibited U.S. products. Even if our price may go down, those relationships that are made because of this uncompetitive atmosphere for American exporters may go on and we never gain back that market. Once a replacement from another country is found, there is no guarantee the European buyer will ever buy from the U.S. producer again. In the end, the lost European export market can be lost forever. If the Senate votes down this motion to stop debate this month, the cancer of sanctions will not only continue, it will spread.

On May 1 of this year the European Union will take in 10 more member countries. These countries will be bound by the same import-export regime as France and other European Union countries. Thus U.S. exports to those 10 countries will also face higher tariffs as they try to compete in these markets.

Now we will look at another chart that shows the list of countries that will be become part of the European Union starting May 1, 2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia. I hope Senators who vote against stopping debate today appreciate they are voting not only to raise the Euro tax on sensitive U.S. exports but are also voting to have that tax applied to an even broader array of countries.

Some people might argue these sanctions only hurt big companies. Do not be fooled. They are big, people might argue, and they can absorb a hit of higher tariffs. The fact is, approximately 90 percent of U.S. exporters in 2001 were small businesses with 100 employees or less. These small exporters can ill afford the sting of sanctions on their bottom line. Products impacted include jewelry, horses, dairy, fruit and vegetables, toys and games, glass and glassware, animal feed, leather goods and handbags, textile products, carpets, footwear, soap and candles, wood

products, and electric machinery. That is just a small list of 500 different products being hit. The American people are starting to take notice.

I read in part from a letter I received from the Carpet Rug Institute headquartered in Dalton, GA, stating:

The United States carpet industry produces 45 percent of

the world's carpet and is a $12 billion per year presence at

the mill.

The carpet industry is extremely competitive, both

domestically and worldwide, with profit margins cut razor

thin.

The potential of an increased duty in the form of a

punitive sanction may make the export of carpet and rug

products by any United States manufacturer in the European

Union market an economic impossibility. For the sake of the

collection of an excess tariff an entire industry may be made

to suffer.

And we are hearing:

Voices from across the country are asking relief from the

escalating Euro tax on our exports.

I will take a look at another letter signed by over 80 businesses and trade associations. These organizations that signed the letter want to emphasize the urgency of resolving the FSC/ETI export tax issue as soon as possible. Quick action on legislation is necessary to both comply with our WTO obligations and avoid or minimize retaliation against U.S. products.

. . . the European Union has increased the retaliatory

tariffs from 5 to 6 percent on as much as $4 billion per year

of American products.

These retaliatory tariffs are hurting the U.S. exports to

Europe at a time when they are just beginning to rebound in

the global economy and showing signs of renewed growth.

Moreover, the tariffs negatively impact American workers.

The letter continues:

We urge the Senate and House to pass FSC/ETI legislation

immediately and proceed to conference as soon as possible

thereafter.

Thank you . . . for doing your part to send FSC/ETI bill to

the President's desk without delay, thus minimizing the

economically devastating trade sanctions on U.S. products and

its impact on American workers who produce them.

These organizations span the entire Nation. This is not regional. Almost every State is going to be impacted by this vote this afternoon.

So let's go to the Northeast: the Virginia Forestry Association, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Coalition of New England Companies for Trade, and the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce.

From our part of the country, the Upper Midwest--the Presiding Officer is from Minnesota; I am from Iowa--we have the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Minnesota Timber Producers Association, the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council, the Missouri Forest Products Association, and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.

In the Pacific Northwest, we have the Pacific Coast Council of Custom Brokers and Freight Forwarders and the Softwood Export Council in the Pacific Northwest.

From the West, we have the Utah Manufacturers Association, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and the California Chamber of Commerce.

From the Plains States and the South, we have the Arkansas Forestry Association, the Louisiana Forestry Association, the Mississippi Forestry Association, and the Texas Forestry Association.

From the Southeast, we have the Alabama Forestry Association, the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the North Carolina Forestry Association.

So as you can see, the entire country is impacted by this European tax on our exports to that part of the world. Some of the nationally impacted associations include the Agriculture Retailers Association, the American Architectural Manufacturers Association, the American Cotton Shippers Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Peanut Council, the American Soybean Association, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, the Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National Cotton Council. And that is just a partial list.

What communication to Members of Congress is all about is businesses crying out for relief--not for the delay that we have already had for 1 month.

Let's be clear about what is at stake. American jobs are at stake because American competitiveness is at stake.

A vote against stopping debate is a vote against tax relief for America's beleaguered manufacturing sector--tax relief that goes beyond nullifying this European tax.

A vote against stopping debate is a vote to prolong the pain across America. A vote against stopping debate is a vote to increase the European tax on American exporters yet more than the 6 percent already there. A vote against stopping debate is a vote to deprive America's small exporters--because 90 percent of our exporters are small businesses of 100 employees or less--continued access to the European market, and access they may never regain.

If my colleagues vote against stopping debate, they might as well be telling American manufacturing that the United States is closed for business; that if you want access to the European export markets, you might as well go overseas and do your business because Members of this Congress have refused to give these manufacturers the tools they need to compete.

There is an answer. Stop--stop playing political games; stop pushing political wish lists; stop jeopardizing economic recovery. Instead, start supporting the ending of debate; start bringing this bill to finality; support stopping debate and start enhancing the economic recovery that is just around the corner in America's manufacturing sector if we do not snuff it out; support stopping debate and start the process that eliminates the European tax on our exports.

The choice is clear: Vote no, and you might make a few political points but I think just for a short period of time. As this Euro-tax goes up, people are laid off and you lose political points. Vote yes to stop debate and you are guaranteed to get economic progress.

So let's put aside our political games. Stop this debate. Move to finality. Consider legitimate amendments. That is what this place is all about--legitimate amendments, not just making political comment.

I summarize this way: This is like moving the goalposts. We have heard a lot from the Democratic leadership which claims they support this bipartisan bill. That is what we are hearing. I know that is what they are telling their constituents as well. I am afraid the actions of the Democratic leadership speak louder than their words. My sense is that there is a political priority to deny President Bush an opportunity to sign a bipartisan bill either this summer or this fall. It seems that the objective is to prevent that Rose Garden signing ceremony from occurring.

Of course, the victims of this strategy happen to be those companies and those workers who are hit by this Euro-tax as it ratchets up. I hope I am wrong. But the record gives me pause. I would hope that those on the other side would put the interests of firms and workers in their States above that of partisan Presidential campaign strategy. If you look at the record, you will see dramatic movements in terms of the demands of people on the other side of the aisle to promote their political message amendments, most often nongermane.

This chart draws from a favorite activity that we have in the Midwest, for example, every time Iowa plays Minnesota, and I am talking, obviously, about football. This jobs in manufacturing bill is near the Senate goal line. Unfortunately, it seems politics is driving the other side to move the goalposts.

When we came into session in January, Senator Frist was criticized by the Democratic leadership for not moving right away this very bill, the jobs in manufacturing bill. At that time, the goalpost was clear--just 5 yards away. Then, after we were finished with the highway bill and a couple other bills, Senator Frist attempted to go to this jobs in manufacturing bill.

Much to my surprise, we were ambushed by the leadership of the other side with unrelated amendments. I thought I had an understanding with the floor manager we were going to do amendments first that were related to the bill and then move to other amendments. That agreement was not carried out. That event caught me off guard. So a second goalpost appeared. It was the overtime amendment of my colleague from Iowa.

Now, it did not matter that we had voted on it previously. It did not matter that the amendment dealt with a proposed--not final but a proposed--Department of Labor regulation. None of that seemed to matter. That amendment was, and is still, a show-stopper to this bipartisan bill. So we are at the second goalpost, as it has been moved.

The demand of the leadership of the other side keeps changing. We were talking about just a single-digit list of amendments and, for the most part, hopefully germane amendments. We are not talking about that anymore. Now, since it looks like an overtime pay vote may be in the picture, there is a goalpost yet further away.

For the first time we are hearing of other amendments--not Finance Committee jurisdiction amendments--such as an increase in the minimum wage, that are new showstoppers.

You can't finish this bill, we are told, even though we are told the substance is great. Nobody seems to disagree on the substance of this. So why can't we get a bill to the President? Even though we don't disagree on the substance, there is still a new goalpost. Heaven help us how all that turns out.

There is a final goalpost way out there; that is, getting to conference. We may move through all the goalposts, but then we may be blocked on whether we get to conference. I hope I am proven wrong in a few minutes as we vote on this measure.

If we can't get cooperation from the other side, we have a couple alternatives: One, to go on with other business; two, to look at reconciliation in late spring. I don't want to go with either of those options because we can finish this bill now. There is always a time when the Senate has goodwill between the two parties represented. That goodwill hopefully will surface just as cream surfaces on milk.

Now it is time to get the job done. I hope we can pass this FSC/ETI legislation. It is bipartisan. That is the only way you get things done in the Senate. Consequently, because it is bipartisan, we ought to get it done. And because it is bipartisan, it deserves better treatment than it has received thus far.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota said I could speak before him. I would ask to have 10 minutes right now.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that had jurisdiction over the prescription drug bill for seniors, and as one of those who worked on the final product as a member of the conference committee, as one who is very happy we have this piece of legislation passed, as one, after having 36 town meetings in my State since the first of the year, who has come to the conclusion that seniors are beginning to look at this program and see it as something very beneficial to them, I wish to take a few minutes to respond to the exchange that was recently put on by the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Illinois--not to address the enlarged picture they just talked about but to address some misconceptions that can come from parts of their statements.

I would start, first, with the issue of the provision in the bill that deals with the Federal Government not negotiating the price of drugs. That was put in there for a very specific purpose. That specific purpose was, we know what the situation is with the Veterans' Administration negotiating drug prices. Yes, prices are lower for drugs because they are doing that, but we have found that the Veterans' Administration will not pay for every particular drug that a doctor might want to prescribe.

I had this brought home to me very clearly in my Des Moines town meeting, where the first question I had was from a constituent who was mad because her doctor prescribed a drug for which the VA was not going to pay. We do not want the Government bureaucrat in the medicine cabinet of the senior citizens of America. We do not want the Government bureaucrat coming between the doctor and the patient. We see that in the VA program.

What we have done in the legislation is to build upon a 40-year practice of the Federal Government, and all health care, but particularly for prescription drugs for Federal employees, through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. We do not pretend to duplicate that plan, but there is some good experience of those plans negotiating with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs. So we do not have to have the Federal Government negotiating drugs. In fact, as I said, we specifically do not want it negotiating it. We do not want the bureaucrat in your medicine cabinet because we have plans that have been set up in this bill to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs, exactly the same way the plans for the Federal employees bring down the price of drugs. They are very well thought out and a very good practice, but, most importantly, we do not want to duplicate the shortcomings of the Veterans' Administration program.

The second point I would give further explanation to is the exchange that went on belittling the AARP for backing this legislation. I compliment the AARP because we would not have a bill without the AARP backing this legislation, because the AARP had the capability of helping us get a bipartisan coalition. Without them, we would not have had a bipartisan coalition, and you do not get anything done in the Senate that is not done in a bipartisan way.

Now, what is odd about Democrats finding fault with the AARP backing this bipartisan bill is that the year before, in 2002, the AARP was backing Senator Kennedy's bill. So it seems to me that for Democrats the AARP is OK if they are backing a Democrat bill, but if they want to back a bipartisan bill, it is a sin for the AARP to do such a thing.

The AARP is looking at individual pieces of legislation, looking out for the greater good of their members, and helping get a product as opposed to, presumably, people on the other side of the aisle who want an issue rather than a product. So I think the AARP has done very well. I compliment them for doing that. We would not have a bill without them.

What Democrats have to get over is that the senior citizens of America are not Democrat property. They are individual Americans, and they ought to be seen as individual Americans, and they and their organizations not be denigrated because the Democrats think they have a grip on all seniors of America; they do not. But that is the resentment toward the AARP.

Another issue I want to explain is the impression that we have given the bureaucracy 2 years to institute the permanent program for the reason that we wanted to get way beyond the next election. It was said that maybe the first Medicare Program, in 1965, was implemented in 8 months. I was told it was a little over a year. So, to me, 2 years--38 years later--to do the first major improvement to Medicare in 38 years, to do it right--and it was not the President who decided it would take 2 years, as was indicated. Way back when we were dealing with the tripartisan bill, in the year 2002, I and my staff asked the bureaucracy: We want this done right. How much time should we give you to implement it? These nonpolitical people, being honest with us, said about 2 years. So we gave 2 years for the implementation of it. It had nothing to do with the President of the United States. It had nothing to do with the upcoming election. It is just our desire that if you are going to implement the first improvement in Medicare in 38 years, you ought to do it right. It was not our judgment of how much time it takes but a nonpolitical judgment of how much time it takes. That is what we were told, and that is what we did.

We do not wait for 2 years for this program to kick in. We have the temporary program that starts June 1, the discount card, and the subsidy for low-income people to get $600 this year and $600 next year to help them buy drugs while we are waiting to get the permanent program in place. Congress made that decision to take 2 years, not the President of the United States.

Now, there was also, throughout this discussion we heard, all sorts of insinuations that somehow this is a bill to benefit pharmaceuticals. Well, let me tell you, if the pharmaceutical companies had their way, there would not be any bill. But they knew there was going to be a bill. The drug companies that patent prescription drugs do not want generics out there. A very major provision of this bill to bring down the cost of drugs is that provision that does away with the legal subterfuge by which drug companies extend the life of their patent by making arrangements today with generic companies to keep their drug off the market, and they pay them to do it, so that, effectively, the patent is extended beyond 17 years. We did away with that. The pharmaceutical companies did not want that provision changed but we did that.

Another impression that is misleading has to do with the true cost of this bill. We hear the Congressional Budget Office says it is $395 billion. Then a month or two later the Center for Medicare Services says it is $535 billion.

Mr. President, is my time up?

Would the Senator from Minnesota allow me to have 2 more minutes?

I thank the Chair.

The bottom line is, we have these accusations about what the true costs are. So I want to respond to those accusations we have heard that the ``true costs'' of the Medicare bill were somewhat hidden from Congress before the final vote. This is simply political, election year hyperbole. The opponents of the drug benefit are making this claim because the final cost estimate from the CMS Office of the Actuary was not completed before the vote took place.

Let me be very clear. The cost estimate was not withheld from Congress because there wasn't a final cost estimate from CMS to withhold. Their cost estimate wasn't even completed until after December 23, long after the House and Senate vote.

Let me also be clear we did have the official cost estimate on the Medicare bill before the vote, and that is the one from the Congressional Budget Office. As I have said, as both Senators from Minnesota know, the Congressional Budget Office is God when it comes to Congress having to go by a figure of what something costs. It doesn't matter what the Treasury Department says, OMB, or even CMS. The Congressional Budget Office is what we go by. If you don't go by it, you are subject to a point of order. That point of order takes an extraordinary majority to overcome.

No government official should ever be muzzled for providing critical information to Congress. If that happened last year, that was wrong. These accusations about whether information was withheld have raised questions as to whether Congress had access to a valid and thorough cost estimate for the prescription drug bill before the final vote. It should also be made clear that while the cost analysis by the Office of Actuary is perhaps helpful, it is not the cost analysis Congress relies upon but that of the Congressional Budget Office, as I have already said. It is their cost estimate we use to determine whether legislation is within authorized budget limits.

For Congress, if there is a true cost estimate, it is by the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate is the only one that matters. When Congress approved a $400 billion reserve fund to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit, this meant $400 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, not according to the Center for Medicare Services.

With all due respect to the dedicated staff working at the Center for Medicare Services Office of the Actuary, their cost estimates were irrelevant to the process. The Congressional Budget Office worked closely with the conferees to the prescription drug bill and the staff to ensure a full analysis of the projected costs was complete. The conferees and staff regularly and constantly consulted with the CBO throughout the development of the Senate bill and in preparation of the conference agreement. The Congressional Budget Office worked nearly around the clock and on weekends for months to complete an extremely thorough and rigorous cost analysis of the prescription drug bill. That cost estimate, the official cost estimate, was available to every Member of Congress before the measure was presented to the House or Senate for a vote.

It is also pretty disingenuous for the opponents of the Medicare bill--on the other side of the aisle, especially--to suggest the price tag for the Medicare bill causes them concern. The fact is, they supported proposals that cost hundreds of billions more than what we ended up passing last year. The House Democratic proposal last year would have cost nearly $1 trillion, and the Senate Democratic proposal in 2002 cost $200 billion more than the bill that was enacted into law.

Further, there were more than 50 amendments offered on the floor of the Senate during the debate on the Senate bill that would have increased the cost of the bill by tens of billions of dollars.

The bottom line is, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind we had a true cost estimate for the prescription drug bill last year, and everyone had access to it before the vote.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we all know we are likely to pass only a few major tax bills this election year, and we know one of the most important tax bills is the jobs in manufacturing bill that comes up for a cloture vote tomorrow. We know the only way the JOBS in manufacturing bill can pass is a ``yes'' vote on the motion to stop debate or, as we call it in the Senate, cloture. That vote will be tomorrow.

Once again, we must ask, will the Democrats say no to cloture? Will they say no to stopping debate? Will they refuse to allow us to get to finality on this very important bipartisan legislation that when it comes to a final vote will overwhelmingly pass in the Senate? Will they go on record opposing the provisions that are in this bill? Democrats should not because this is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that every Democrat member of the Senate Finance Committee voted yes on to report it from committee.

Keep in mind that the jobs in manufacturing bill could be the last train out of town this year. It has to get done if we are going to end the sanctions and tariffs that have been put on U.S. exports to Europe as a result of the United States not following our own trade agreements.

Each time a Member votes against stopping debate, it lessens the chance that this bill is going to go forward. In fact, it kills off many good measures in the jobs in manufacturing bill. From the very beginning, this bill was overwhelmingly bipartisan. In fact, there was a bipartisan agreement that we need to pass this bill because there is a bipartisan agreement of long standing that the United States agrees to international trade agreements, and we have an obligation to do our part and live up to those agreements.

A ``no'' vote on this motion tomorrow is an obstruction to the bipartisanship that is expressed in the language of this bill.

I would like to briefly go through some of the measures that are in this jobs in manufacturing bill. What I am going to refer to is what a lot of Members of both political parties have asked for the consideration of by my committee and for inclusion in the language of this bill. I will go over what is in this bill and sincerely ask why the Democrat leadership is willing to tell its members to kill the bill by voting no to stopping debate.

This bill will end $4 billion a year of sanctions against the United States and our exports. As of March 1, those sanctions are being imposed against U.S. exports of grain, timber, paper, and manufactured goods.

You will later hear my comments on the products that are being hit right now by sanctions. I think each Member ought to know how this is affecting the economy of their district.

First, manufacturing jobs are good jobs in America. They pay 15 percent above the national average. If jobs are related to exports, there is a tariff on your exports in another country and we aren't competitive, those jobs aren't going to exist very long.

Think about what that would do in Waterloo, IA, for one-fifth of the tractors that come off the assembly line being exported. We couldn't afford to lose one-fifth of the jobs at John Deere in Waterloo, IA, because of these tariffs.

We can end the sanctions that are in this bill, but will the Democrats say no to cloture so we don't end sanctions?

This bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our U.S.-based manufacturing sector to promote factory hiring here in the United States. It is not going to benefit corporations for that portion of their manufacturing overseas.

Will the Democrats say no to $75 billion worth of help, and help create jobs in factories in America, particularly considering the fact that every day you hear comments about outsourcing, and they expect us to do something about outsourcing? This bill will do something about outsourcing.

The jobs in manufacturing bill extends the research and development tax credit through next year. This is a domestic tax benefit that generates research and development in the United States. That translates into good high-paying jobs for workers in the United States--not overseas. The amendment we had on research and development passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote.

Why would Democrats say no to a bipartisan provision in this bill? Will they? I hope not.

The jobs in manufacturing bill extends for 2 years many tax provisions that expired either last year or are going to expire this year. This would include items such as a work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit and make the merger of those credits permanent. Senator Bayh and Senator Santorum asked for these provisions, and we included them. Will these Senators vote for cloture? They should.

Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe asked for a provision that allows naval shipbuilders to use a method of accounting which results in more favorable income tax credit treatment. We included that provision in this bill for Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe. They each have reasons to vote for cloture to get these amendments to the President for his signature.

There are enhanced depreciation provisions to help the ailing airline industry. Senator Lincoln, Senator Brownback, and Senator Roberts asked for these provisions. I hope they will vote to stop debate tomorrow so we can get to finality on this legislation.

There are what is referred to as new homestead provisions. These were requested by Senator Dorgan, Senator Baucus, Senator Thomas, Senator Enzi, and Senator Crapo. I hope these Senators will vote to stop debate so

what they have asked me to do can get to the President for his signature.

There are rural development provisions to create businesses in counties that are losing population. For example, they provide incentives for starting or expanding rural businesses in a rural outmigration county when it hits a certain percentage of outmigration.

At the request of Senator Dorgan, we also included a new market tax credit for high outmigration counties. These credits help economic development in rural counties that have lost over 10 percent of their population.

There is only one way this homestead and the new market provisions can become law; that is, to have the Senate stop debate. That takes 60 votes.

For Senators we have tried to work with to get their provisions included, if they aren't willing to help stop debate and move this bill along, why would they even ask me to include provisions in the bill if they do not want this bill to move along?

The jobs in manufacturing bill includes brownfields revitalization which was requested by Senators Lautenberg, Dole, and Inhofe. The bill helps tax-exempt investors that invest in the cleanup and remediation of qualified brownfields sites.

I hope those Senators who asked me to include their provisions in my bill will decide they should vote to stop debate. Without getting over that hurdle, you never get to final passage.

Senators Bob Graham, Breaux, and Hatch asked us to include the mortgage bonds revenue measure. It would repeal the current rule that doesn't allow revenue bond payments to be used for issuing new mortgages.

There are 70 cosponsors of this bill. The 70 Members who took time to study this provision on mortgage revenue bonds and signed it surely want this bill to become law. Otherwise, why would they put their signature on it? That means that tomorrow those 70 Senators ought to be stopping debate so we can move on to finality.

Another provision is allowing a deduction for private mortgage insurance. This was asked for by Senator Lincoln and Senator Smith. It benefits people struggling to afford a home. I hope no one votes against their idea. Home ownership is the dream of all Americans. It is the American dream. This provision helps that along a little bit.

Some might say we have the highest percentage of home ownership this country has ever seen at 68 percent. Yes. But what about the other 32 percent? This might help some of those people who might not otherwise be able to afford a home.

In most cases, you have to buy mortgage insurance. If you buy mortgage insurance, it costs money for lower income people who are on the edge of owning a home or not owning a home. This might just help them get their loan through. But a vote against cloture would be a vote against this deduction that might bring the American dream to a few more young people.

Our bill includes the tax credit for employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called to active duty. Senator Landrieu and Senator Allen asked for this provision. I hope we will have their vote tomorrow, if they are serious about helping our guardsmen and reservists who have been called to action because of the war on terrorism. Otherwise, what is the point of asking me to put this in the bill if they are not helping us to move it to finality?

At the request of Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, we have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone bonds provided for the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. We also included $200 million in new tax credits to be used for rail infrastructure projects in the New York Liberty Zone; again, responding to the needs of the people in New York because of what happened on September 11. These two Senators came to me and asked for consideration of these provisions in this bill, and in a bipartisan way, we try to do things and we have responded accordingly.

Are they serious about getting these provisions into law for their New York constituents? If so, then they ought to vote for cloture and move this bill to finality.

We even included the renewable communities provisions requested by Senators Clinton and Schumer.

Will the Senate Democratic leadership ask their members to vote against Liberty Zone funding for meeting the needs of the people of New York by voting no on cloture? We should not deny funding for the Liberty Zone just to prove a political point on a proposed labor regulation that may never be finalized in the first place. Even if it is finalized, Congress can always overturn it under the Congressional Review Act.

Hundreds of regulations are proposed in Washington every week. Very few make it to the finish line. So why is the Democrat leadership holding up funding for the Liberty Zone over a proposed regulation? This is not responsible governance. This is not responsible opposition. There is a legitimacy in our form of government, one party being in the opposition and the other party being in the majority. They play a very important role in making people responsible. Do we hold up every piece of legislation because it is an election year and Members think next year they might be in a majority, so they can do what they want to do?

All of these requests that are made to me, why not hold them up until next year? Then I would not have to be considering them at this point. If they are important, we ought to move this legislation along. In other words, we should have responsible opposition in the process of everybody making their points.

The Liberty Zone needs our help, and we need to behave as adults and get this bill completed.

In the jobs in manufacturing act we increase small business industrial development bonds to spur economic development in rural areas. This was requested by Senator Pryor and Senator Thomas. I hope they will vote for cloture tomorrow.

We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure. These were requested by Senator Conrad.

We have included tribal bonds in the jobs in manufacturing bill, requested by Senator Campbell and Senator Johnson. I am sure this is supported by Senator Daschle, as well, because he has a record of supporting Native American projects. These bonds allow the same rules that apply to tax-exempt bonds for State and local governments to apply to Native American tribes issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance facilities on their reservations. That is just an explanation, not something new. In other words, if it is good for one State and local government, why shouldn't it be good for the governance of our tribes?

We have included tribal school bonds, again, as requested by Senator Johnson and Senator Campbell. Under current law, there is no class of bonds designated for the purpose of encouraging school construction on Indian reservations. This provision fills that void. We have a tribal new markets tax credit which was added at the request of Senator Daschle and Senator Campbell. This amendment adds $50 million a year to economic development on reservation land.

Will the Democrat leadership tell Democrats to vote against closing debate and kill these Native American measures? Again, if they do not want to get it done, why did they come to me and ask for me to include these things?

We have also included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act. This is at the request of Senator Bingaman and Senator Collins. This is very important.

We have Senator Conrad and Senator Santorum and Senator Bunning asking we add a change in section 815 of the Tax Code. The provision suspends applicable rules imposing income tax on certain distributions to shareholders from the policyholder's surplus account of a life insurance company. This is included in the bill.

We have a special dividend allocation rule that benefits farmers' cooperatives. Senator Lincoln and Senator Coleman asked it be included.

We have other farm provisions that give cattlemen tax-free treatment if they replace livestock because of something beyond their own control, such as drought, floods, or weather-related conditions. Senator Daschle and Senator Thomas asked for that.

At the request of Senator Cantwell and Senator Thomas, we included a provision that allows payments under the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program to be exempt from tax. This is an important measure to enhance the delivery of medical services in rural America.

We included the passenger rail infrastructure tax credits at the request of

Senator Carper. It provides $500 million for intercity passenger rail capital projects. We also included the short-line credits requested by Senator Smith and Senator Brownback.

At the request of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hatch, we added a provision to allow taxpayers to apply their bonus depreciation against the alternative minimum tax credits. This measure is very important to the steel mills of West Virginia; hence, Senator Rockefeller.

A provision benefiting Oldsmobile dealers was included at the request of Senator Baucus and Senator Bingaman. The proposal provides tax-free treatment for Oldsmobile dealers because their franchise is being terminated.

How many times have we heard Members talk about the need to make broadband available in rural communities? We know it is essential to the economic competitiveness of rural America, particularly since we see so many Asian companies, so far in advance of the United States in broadband. To keep our economy competitive, it ought to be here. But we also know many Democratic Senators support this. It is, likewise, in the bill.

Senator Murray and Senator Smith asked for the forest industry bond provisions in this bill. That allows nonprofits to use tax-exempt bond financing to acquire forest land, to achieve better balance between the goals of conservationists and the timber industry. Up to $1.5 billion in bonds may be issued under this program. That, sir, is a lot of conservation money.

At the request of Senator Boxer, we have included a proposal that would allow employers to take a 50-percent tax credit against the FICA taxes for wages paid to the first responders who are called to active duty. We added a second measure at Senator Boxer's request. This proposal would allow farmers and ranchers to take a 30-percent credit for the installation of irrigation equipment which reduces water use. The credit would be limited to land that has received drought assistance during the past 3 years.

Anyone who votes against cloture is voting to kill all the items I just listed. Why would people come to me as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and ask me to include provisions in the bill if they do not want to get this bill to the President for signature? Tomorrow, they have their chance.

We had debate extended on this bill 2 weeks ago, and we had a vote to stop debate. Debate was not stopped. So tomorrow we vote again. We have to get over this hurdle to get all these provisions that have been requested in this bill and to get it to the President for his signature.

I hope Members are sincere about all this legislation that is introduced. I hope Members are sincere in telling me how important their amendments are to this bill. I hope Members will show that sincerity tomorrow when we have a chance to stop debate and complete this bill.

All the beneficial provisions I have just discussed are being held hostage this minute because the Democratic leadership is pushing for a vote on an issue that is not even in this bill. The vote is an attempt to embarrass the administration in an election year about a proposed labor regulation on overtime. The Democrats said the regulation was going final, and they had to add it to the jobs in manufacturing bill; otherwise, they would block this bill. That was 2 weeks ago. The regulation is still not final. And who knows, the way bureaucracy moves, it may never be final but continue to tilt at windmills, and what will come.

But it seems to me that it is politics all the time. It is politics from the Democrat leadership, and it is obstructing an important piece of legislation. More importantly, right now, it is obstructing legislation that most of the members of the other party have asked me to include in this bill. Now, why do you ask me to include it in the bill if you are not going to vote to get the bill to the President? This sort of obstructionism is inexcusable because we have worked hard throughout this process to make sure that everyone's concerns--both Republican and Democrat--were incorporated into this bill. Why? Because I know you do not get anything done in this body that is not bipartisan.

People who want to be partisan can be partisan, but they are not going to get done what they want done either. So you bring the Senate to a standstill. We have tried, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to respond. This legislation and all these amendments included are responding to that bipartisanship. You see that effort in the amendments I just listed.

But if it were not overtime, it would be something else to obstruct this bill. It could be the minimum wage; it could be trade adjustment assistance for services; it could be some kind of health care issue-- anything to block the jobs in manufacturing bill at the very same time people on the other side of the aisle are complaining because we are not doing enough to stop outsourcing. This bill will help do that.

It is all about the Democratic leadership keeping the European Union sanctions in place to drive down the economy, because if the economy is not very good this fall, they think they have a better chance of electing their people. This is outrageous when you consider the bipartisan history of this jobs in manufacturing bill.

The JOBS bill is a completely bipartisan bill. Construction of the bill began when Senator Baucus was chairman of the Finance Committee in 2002. Senator Baucus and I have always worked with our Finance Committee colleagues on the bipartisan development of this Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income Act repeal and also the international tax reform provisions of this bill.

Let me emphasize, there is not one provision in this JOBS bill that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. I have already said, every Democrat in the committee--all 10 of them--voted for this bill to be reported out of committee. We have acted in good faith to produce a bill that protects American manufacturing jobs and to make our companies globally competitive--the same thing you hear Senator Kerry speaking about on the campaign trail, about making our corporations competitive. In fact, he even has a proposal that would reduce corporate taxes the same way we do.

Let's get on with the business at hand and finish this bill; vote for cloture tomorrow, stop debate, put this bipartisan jobs in manufacturing bill ahead of partisan politics. Then we can show the people of this country that the adults are in charge of the Senate, and we can get the JOBS bill--creating jobs in manufacturing--out of the Senate and eventually to the President.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to continue to speak about the Foreign Sales Corporation Extraterritorial Income Act that is before Congress that we call the JOBS and manufacturing act. I wish to bring the Senate up to date on the status of this not just as a jobs bill but as a major economic policy legislation.

This, of course, is bipartisan legislation. This is legislation that was designed to respond to the World Trade Organization's adverse ruling on a benefit under the old law for U.S. exporters and to bring our law into conformity with that World Trade Organization ruling, but to do it in a way that

actually creates jobs in America and emphasizes domestic manufacturing so American manufacturers are going to benefit from this legislation on what they do in the United States, not what they do overseas.

Foreign corporations that come into the United States are going to benefit under this legislation as long as they set up plants and manufacture in the United States. This bill has an acronym, J-O-B-S, and it is truly jobs-creating legislation.

We have problems with this now because some people who even support this legislation want to stall it so they can use it as a vehicle for getting some of their pet projects through the Senate. When everybody is saying, and rightly so, that we have not created enough jobs in manufacturing and we have a bill before the Senate that will do it, I do not know why anybody would want to hold this bill up, but there is a playing of politics and, in my view, then when one plays politics, the people's business is neglected.

First, there is a lot in this bill on which we all agree: The tax benefit I refer to is the foreign sales corporation extraterritorial income benefit. That benefit provides a roughly 5-percent corporate rate tax cut for U.S. exporters of manufactured products.

As everyone knows, there is a disturbing economic statistic about U.S. manufacturing and that was that there was a downturn in the manufacturing index starting March of 2000. I emphasize that because everybody thinks this recession started under President Bush, but if one looks at the manufacturing index, they would find the manufacturing index started to turn down March of 2000. It just now has bottomed out and it is just now that it looks as if there is going to be an increase in hiring in manufacturing.

Fortunately, with the tax relief in place in this bill and with other stimulative measures that have been passed last year, manufacturing has come back. Unfortunately, manufacturing employment has not come back to previous levels, and that is what this bill deals with. Both sides, meaning both Democrat and Republican, agree there is a problem with the loss of manufacturing jobs. Both sides also agree that the loss of this previous benefit will result in a tax increase on U.S. manufacturers. Following the simple rules of Economics 101, if something is taxed higher, there is less of it.

There is some dissent on my side of the aisle, the Republican side, which I want to mention so that I am candid in not everybody who opposes this bill is on the Democrat side.

We have Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles, as an example. They are Republicans. They question the wisdom of the current law benefit.

I was also surprised to hear last week that one Member from the other side--quite a liberal Member, as a matter of fact--in effect agreed with Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles. That Member questioned the wisdom of the foundation of this bill--the tax deduction for domestic manufacturers. That Member took to task, as he said, the authors of the legislation.

I wonder if that Member bothered to check to see the authors were also Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. In fact, every member of the Senate Finance Committee who is a Democrat voted for this bill to come out of committee.

In any event, with the exceptions noted--meaning one Democrat plus Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles, also--there is general agreement on both sides that we need to replace current law with a manufacturing benefit which will agree with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the international agreement that decides the rules of trade.

Conversely, I have not heard anyone say it is wise to sit idly by while our exports get hit with tariffs put on our products in a legal way by Europe, causing our products to be uncompetitive.

In general, both sides agree we need to deal with this tariff problem. We need to deal with this adverse World Trade Organization ruling. Both sides agree we have a responsibility to remove the tariffs against our exports. But yet there doesn't seem to be agreement it should have been done yesterday. It is OK if it is done down the road in another 6 months when we have another 6 percent tariff put on. At least that appears to me to be the way some people are acting.

If we agree on the problem and on the substance of this bill, why can't the job be done? Why can't this bill get to the President? It appears to me the two sides disagree on the outcome for this bill.

I think dealing with this bill goes to the heart of our responsibility as a Senate. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides Senators with a unique power somewhat different than in the House of Representatives. That unique power also carries unique responsibilities. Where there is a compelling public policy problem and there is a consensus around the legislation that solves that problem, it is our responsibility as Senators to do everything in our power to make it happen.

Said another way: If we have a bill before the Senate that is going to pass the Senate 90-10, or by a wider margin than that, and there is an agreement it ought to be done, why doesn't it get done?

We all know the Senate is an institution that renders easily to gridlock and to delay. I suppose we would have to blame our Founding Fathers because they contemplated a Senate where the majority would set the agenda and the minority defines its agenda with amendments and debate. Those powers of delay and obstruction are properly resorted to when the majority is ramming something through on a partisan agenda. There is, however, a reflective responsibility on the part of the minority leadership and its members where the legislative item is a bipartisan product. That seems to me to be a responsibility to be constructive. It is irresponsible then for minority leadership and members of the minority to obstruct a consensus item.

It is the height of irresponsibility to obstruct and delay when the item is a bipartisan compelling matter such as this bill is. It is simple. Is the United States going to abide by international agreements we have already approved in this Senate?

It is our responsibility to set an example for the rest of the world because we are outstanding in exemplifying the rule of law and the protection of individual freedoms. Some people might say we ought to give that notoriety to England because our law comes from England. But I think you would all agree when it comes to individual freedom we have even advanced beyond England.

Are we going to have a constructive approach to this legislation? I have to say to my fellow Senators: It is in our hands. Either we can continue to play these political games or we can do the job we were elected to do.

Some have said something such as we will take a limited time on amendments. That misses the point. The point is the majority is led by Senator Frist. We have all played this game straight. The majority amendments to this bill have improved the bill in ways that will get even more votes for it. All those amendments we have offered have been bipartisan.

For example, the Hatch-Murray amendment on research and development credit and the Bunning-Stabenow amendment on accelerating the manufacturing deduction--you recognize those Senators' names immediately and know there is one Democrat and one Republican. That is the way things get done in the Senate.

The Democratic leadership has taken this bipartisan bill and turned it into a political football.

We have an amendment on overtime that was previously voted on and that is a sticking point.

There are other showstoppers planned by the Democratic leadership. In this case, you have one side--the majority--using the power of setting the agenda in a constructive way. I define that constructive way as bipartisan because nothing gets done in the Senate that is not bipartisan.

Then you have the other side--the Democratic side--using its power of amendments and the power of delay solely for politically destructive purposes.

That imbalance can't last for long. If it does last for long, the Senate is brought to a halt. It is kind of like the law of physics. For every action there is a reaction.

There shouldn't be this kind of tension on a must-do--in other words, a

must-pass--bipartisan bill. When it is this way on a must-pass bipartisan bill, something is out of whack. Republicans will eventually be fed up with the gamesmanship on the other side. It will mean the Republican political amendments--those which the Democrats do not like--are going to be brought up because for every action there is a reaction. That is going to lead to a vicious circle and this bipartisan bill will be more bogged down than it is presently.

Another route Republicans could take is to switch to an agenda item that is not like this one. It would be a bill that has heavy political overtones. It would not be as compelling as this bill. It probably wouldn't necessarily be a must-pass bill.

Again, if we were to do that, the victim would be this very good must-pass bipartisan bill.

From the Republican side, let me say to every Democrat, we don't want to go that way. We will do everything we can to avoid going that way.

Maybe the Democratic leadership thinks a designed plan to deter us from taking care of the people's business is good politics. Blame the Republicans, they may be thinking. They may be thinking: We have a liberal press, we can get away with it. They will protect us. They do all the time, anyway. It is kind of an encouragement. Maybe they think it is more important than actually helping the workers which this bill will help; and the U.S. businesses that are at risk because of this Euro tax; in other words, the European tariff on our products going from the United States to Europe.

It isn't that simple. There will be accountability. There has always been in the case of cloture votes. We don't want to go the route of a cloture vote. None of us want to go there again. But we could go there again. There is a petition on file. The American people expect us to do our jobs and not play politics.

I have talked about our responsibility as Senators. Let me put it in the context in my role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Thanks to the good people of Iowa, I have seniority to chair the oldest standing committee in the Senate, the Finance Committee. I am pleased to work with my friend, our ranking Democratic member, Senator Baucus. Not to toot our horns too much, but I am proud of our committee. We respond to big, tough issues in a businesslike, professional manner. We do not always agree, but most of the time we do agree.

From my view, this foreign sales corporation replacement bill has been handled in the best bipartisan tradition of our Finance Committee. Senator Baucus and I developed this bill as partners. All Democrats, even Senators Daschle and Kerry, participated in and supported this bill out of the Finance Committee. They are Members of this committee. All of the amendments I put up for this bill have been bipartisan amendments. They are amendments that have improved the bill.

Who can argue with the domestic job benefit extended by the research and development credit? That was a bipartisan bill. Who can argue with enhancing the manufacturing deduction? That was a bipartisan amendment. Democratic Members were accommodated in the committee and on the floor with a managers' package. Senator Baucus and I developed that package shoulder to shoulder.

The latest version includes the bipartisan package of energy tax incentives approved by the Senate Finance Committee last year for farmers in the Midwest, the South, timber harvesters in the Northwest, or wind farms across the country. This package is going to produce and create jobs. This package has twice passed the Senate without dissent.

For all the Senators from my region and other places who said they could not support cloture on the Energy bill last winter because of the MTBE issue, here is your chance to vote for an energy bill that does not have anything to do with MTBE. Members do not have to worry about your personal injury lawyer friends calling upon you to fight the MTBE thing because they want to protect their own income. Members do not have to worry about offending them. That is not in this bill. Members got a chance to vote an energy bill they wanted.

This maneuvering bothers me. So I brought along a chart that draws from a favorite activity in the Midwest. I am talking about a game of football. The gridiron does not necessarily have anything to do with the gridlock that is occurring on this bill, but it illustrates the problems we have.

This JOBS bill is very near the Senate goalline. Unfortunately, politics is driving the Democratic leadership to move the goalposts. When we came into session in January, Senator Frist was criticized by the Democratic leadership for not moving to the JOBS bill right away. At that time, the goalpost was very clear, very close, right there where it always is on the football field. That was in January.

After we finished the highway bill and a couple of other things, Senator Frist attempted to move the jobs in manufacturing bill. Much to my surprise, we were ambushed by the Democratic leadership with unrelated amendments. I thought I had an understanding as floor manager. That understanding was we were going to do amendments first that were related to the bill and then move to other amendments. That agreement was not carried out.

From my standpoint, this was an unfortunate event. In budget discussions, I made clear I opposed putting this JOBS bill in the reconciliation package because I had assurances that the Democratic leadership wanted the bill passed. In fact, my ranking Member, Senator Baucus, 2 days before Republicans went to Philadelphia for our retreat in January to make our plans for this year, told me. I want to move this JOBS bill; do not let the Republicans include this JOBS bill in the reconciliation because reconciliation is obnoxious to the bipartisanship of the Senate. It is obnoxious to the minority.

When we were making our plans in Philadelphia, my colleagues responded to that request from my Democrat ranking Member and we did not include this bill in the process of reconciliation. It happens that my view was not shared by the House leadership or even by the Senate leadership or by the White House. I took the position in leadership meetings and in the Senate Budget Committee Republican caucus deliberations that the Democratic leadership would not politicize this bill; we would get it passed.

I was ambushed on March 3rd. In fact, it looks like I was wrong and others were right.

So we have a second goalpost here. It was the amendment of my colleague from Iowa on overtime. It did not matter that we had voted on that amendment previously. It did not matter that the amendment dealt with proposed--not final, proposed--Department of Labor regulations. No, none of that mattered. That amendment was and still is a showstopper to this bipartisan bill that everyone agrees ought to pass the Senate. When it comes to a final vote, it will pass overwhelmingly.

We are now at that second goalpost. The demands of the Democratic leadership still change. We were talking about a single-digit list of amendments. Not anymore. Now that it looks like an overtime vote may be in the picture, there is a goalpost yet farther away. For the first time, we are hearing of other amendments not even in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, such as an increase in the minimum wage, another showstopper. We cannot finish the bill, we are told, even though we are told the substance is great. This is the greatest bill since sliced bread is the opinion of people all over the Senate. But we cannot finish the bill because of this new goalpost.

Heaven help us how that might turn out.

There is a final goalpost out there. It is way, way out there, as you can see. It is getting to conference. We may move through all of these goalposts but then be blocked from going to conference because the Democrats have decided they should never agree to go to conference on a bill unless they can dictate the outcome. Effectively, that does not just shut down the Senate; that shuts down the whole Congress.

Now, let me ask you: Is this any way to legislate? Is this a proper exercise of leadership? Is this right when jobs are on the line and people back home expect us to move consensus legislation? You have to wonder: Is all this obstruction really worth it?

Now, my sense is, the political imperative of stopping this bipartisan bill is

very strong. It seems the Democratic leadership is so fearful or resistant to getting a bipartisan JOBS bill to the President's desk that they are going to do anything to block it. Just keep moving the goalposts; pretty soon you will not see them. I think the record reflects this view I have that somehow there can be no JOBS bill that gets to the President of the United States.

Now, do you know what I would be willing to do? If there is something with the title of this bill, called a JOBS bill, that is obnoxious to the minority, because it might make a Republican President look good, well, I will change the name of it. You guys name this bill. It is OK with me. The title has nothing to do with the substance of it in the sense of legislative dominance, but we try to say, in the title of a bill, what we are intending to accomplish. What we are intending to accomplish in this jobs in manufacturing bill is to stop this outsourcing that you hear so much about, to create jobs in manufacturing in America, and not just jobs but good jobs, because manufacturing jobs that are related to exports pay 15 percent above the national average. They are good jobs.

I have predicted they cannot let this bill get to the President of the United States for political reasons. I hope I am proven wrong in the next few days. But I can say this: It is time to get the job done. In a few days, I hope we can move back and pass this jobs in manufacturing legislation. It is, in fact, a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is, in fact, a piece of legislation that deserves better treatment than it has received so far.

So tomorrow I hope, for all these reasons, particularly the reasons I gave earlier this afternoon--that there are so many amendments that have been added to this bill at the request of Democrats and Republicans alike, but I emphasize the Democrats--they have something in this bill they have asked for. They have asked for me to consider it. If they do not vote to stop debate tomorrow, to move on this legislation, get it to the President, why did they come to me in the first place and ask me to put their favorite piece of legislation in this bill?

It is all good legislation. I do not find fault with the people who have asked me to do it. It is all good public policy. But, also, it was not something real pertinent to the primary purpose of this legislation. But we are helping them get their bill passed by cooperating with them. I would like a little cooperation in return. I would like to have all the Members who we have tried to accommodate-- both Republican and Democrat--vote to stop debate and move on to final passage of this bill, so we can create jobs in manufacturing.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 6, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing to evaluate chronic wasting and disease in our Nation's water.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jarret Heil and Trenton Norman be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on S. 1367.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for managing the bill while I had to be in a conference to work out compromises on the pension bill. But more importantly, going back to his days in the House of Representatives, he has been a trailblazer in the cause of moving people from welfare to work so that those people have an opportunity to move themselves up the ladder.

Families on welfare and low-income families need childcare, and they need it now. This bill will help do that. If Democrats obstruct passage of this welfare bill, we risk losing a significant opportunity to substantially increase childcare funding for welfare families as well as for poor working families. If we simply continue the level of childcare funding under current law, hundreds of thousands of children and working families will lose their childcare. Estimates have been made that nearly 225,000 children could lose childcare assistance by the year 2006, and more than 360,000 children could lose it by the year 2008.

Is that what the Democrats want? Is that what they stand for in their vote against cloture on this legislation? That is playing politics on the welfare bill, and playing politics will not get this bill passed.

This bill is good policy. Democrats know that. And good policy is good politics.

Let me be clear: If Democrats succeed in their efforts to derail consideration of the welfare bill, hundreds of thousands of children will lose childcare. In other words, in order to score political points, Democrats are leaving poor children and their working single moms out in the cold. Without additional childcare resources, many States will be forced to make painful childcare cuts or institute waiting lists or increase copays.

If childcare funds are not available, low-income families, working families trying to do the right thing will be unable to help pay for childcare. Children work; children suffer. Or else children don't suffer and parents don't work.

Under this situation, they would be forced to resort to inadequate, unstable, probably unsafe childcare arrangements, or even be forced to give up their jobs and return to welfare, all so that political points can be made. That doesn't make sense to me, especially for a party that brags about putting the care of the people in need uppermost in their platform.

I think that is shameful. Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves for making political hay on the backs of these low-income people.

In addition to the loss of childcare funding increases, if we are not able to enact this legislation--and you have to have cloture to get to finality, or else you have to have an agreement on the number of amendments and their germaneness to move ahead. So without one or the other, we are not able to enact welfare reform. In addition, we would also fail to make needed improvements to child support enforcement programs. We would fail to provide transitional medical assistance for 5 years as well as give States access to the contingency funds they have not been able to use because we liberalized States' access to those contingency funds. We leave States in the dark about what a reauthorization bill next year would look like. Why leave 50 State legislatures in a lurch when if we acted, they can put their State programs in place and move on with certainty?

When this is all added together--and there are a lot of other things we could say--it is an extraordinarily irresponsible policy that ends up with the lack of finality on the part of this Senate on welfare reform.

But then maybe welfare reform has never been a priority for Democrats. In the 107th Congress, even though my friend, Senator Baucus, reported a bill out of committee with $5.5 billion for childcare, welfare never made it to the floor of the Senate. This year, the Senate Finance Committee reported out a bill with significant Democratic priorities in it, but no Democrat voted for it.

Our Republican leader, Senator Frist, gave us a week out of a very crowded legislative schedule because welfare reform--taking care of the needs of the poor, the needs of children--is high on the agenda of Senator Frist. But it also has to be worked in with a very crowded legislative schedule. But he gave us time. He has many Members and many committee chairmen besides this Senator pressuring him for floor time to take up their bills, to consider legislation; yet, this had the high priority of our Republican leader.

We passed the bipartisan and Republican-sponsored Snowe amendment, increasing childcare by $6 billion, and still it looks like Democrats are prepared to block action on this bill, this bill that helps poor people, because they have an agenda that somehow outranks welfare. Obviously, their agenda is to make political points. I am sad to say that ultimately children and their working moms are the ones who will pay the price for this political grandstanding.

I hope we can do better by them, Mr. President. I have worked hard so that we could in fact do better for these people. It would be a shame if we are prevented from passing a bill that would genuinely help those in need just so the other side can score political points, or at least what they perceive to be political points.

The question is whether the Democrats will be held accountable if they

succeed in killing welfare reform and killing an additional $7 billion for childcare. This issue is not about a vote on minimum wage. Republicans are willing to take a vote on minimum wage. As my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, said yesterday, ``We are willing to pay the ransom. We just need some assurances that we get the victim back.'' We need to know we can pass this bill and get it to conference. That is the issue over which Democrats are obstructing.

It is very unprecedented that Democrats are objecting to appointing conferees. Let me say that more broadly. It is almost unprecedented for the legislative process not to work the way the Constitution writers intended, and that is you get to a point where you work out compromises between the other body and this one, and that takes a conference committee to do it. If you want a product instead of politics, you go to conference. That begs the point, are we ever, then, going to be able to pass anything around here? In order to get a bill enacted, it has to pass both bodies.

We have $7 billion in childcare on the table right here. In order to score political points, Democrats are going to leave this banquet that is out there for people in need.

Again, the issue is not about getting a vote on minimum wage. Republicans are willing to take a vote on minimum wage. The issue is about getting a bill done, reaching finality. Democrats are preventing us from getting a welfare bill through the legislative process. I hope they have a surprise for this Senator and that we get cloture, and that they deliver to the people what they promised. This is very unfortunate for our country and for families who could have benefited from the bill that it looks like Democrats are going to kill today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I asked unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to myself and Senator Baucus signed by 41 Democrat Senators. However, at the time of printing it was missing its second page. I again ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 1, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony for Unified and Regional Commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements, in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 2 p.m. to mark up an original bill entitled ``The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2004.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 1, 2004, off the Senate floor on pending Committee business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Economic Treaties.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Building room 226.

Agenda:

I. Nominations: Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; Peter W. Hall to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Roger T. Benitez to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California; Jane J. Boyle to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas; Marcia G. Cooke to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida; Paul S. Diamond to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Walter D. Kelley, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Matthew G. Whitaker to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.

II. Bills: S. 1735--Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 [Hatch, Chambliss, Cornyn, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley, Schumer].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 1, 2004, for a hearing to consider the nominations of Robert N. Davis, to be Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims, and Pamela M. Iovino, to be Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Congressional Affairs.

The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 1 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on the implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone.

The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing On ``Securing Our Borders Under a Temporary Guest Worker Proposal'' on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in SD226.

Panel 1: The Honorable Robert Bonner, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; The Honorable Stewart Verdery, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; and Director Donna Bucella, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Department of Justice, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 1, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on military installation programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.

Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space

MR. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on NASA FY05 Budget, in SR-253.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.

Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we heard testimony from the other side on the fiscal condition of the U.S. Government, how bad it is and they are sounding alarms. I think all that is very legitimate. I am not here to dispute specific figures, I am not here to say that the other side has been intellectually wrong, but at least to say they have left some misimpressions about some aspects of this budget. I will start with the chart shown about borrowing from foreign countries.

The U.S. Government does not go to other countries and say, hat in hand: Will you lend us X number of dollars? What the U.S. Government does is say to the 270 million Americans, and anybody else in the world: We have X amount of debt that we have to refinance, or finance, and people come to bid on that. The market determines who gets what.

Now, we do have a lot of foreigners that own American debt. Why do they want to invest in America's national

debt? Because they have confidence in America and because they want a return on their money. It ought to be somewhat satisfying to the American people that the rest of the world thinks so well of the American economy and the soundness of our Government that they are willing to invest in the national debt, just as American citizens invest in the national debt, because they want the return; they want the certainty of it.

The impression was left that we go, hat in hand, to a lot of foreign countries to beg for money. We don't do that. It is our policy, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to say that we are offering so much investment, and you can come and make your claim to it under these conditions.

The other misimpression is that something different is happening to the Social Security surplus. Why is that being said? Because people want to get seniors concerned about what Congress might be doing to ruin their Social Security. I say to the seniors of America--and people on the other side of the aisle, if they don't know it--that nothing has changed since 1936 as far as the way the Social Security surplus is handled. Nothing has changed since 1936.

Starting in 1936 and for every year since then except 1981 and 1982, there has always been a positive cashflow coming in from the payroll tax to what was paid out. We decided in 1936 to invest that surplus in Treasury bonds. Why? Because it is a good, safe investment for seniors, for their retirement. It is the way the Federal Government can show to the seniors of America and to all of the people of America that we are going to make sure your Social Security surplus is safe and that the obligations in the future are met. Except for in 1981 and 1982, when there was a negative cashflow, that has been done. We made it up by borrowing to keep the checks going.

As far as the Social Security surplus is concerned, today, yesterday, and tomorrow--at least until 2018, as best we can project--there will be a positive cashflow, and that money is going to be invested in Treasury notes that are obligations to keep Social Security benefits at 100 percent at least through 2042, until all that surplus is used up. So for the seniors of America, nothing has changed.

I think we also ought to remember that we dealt with dozens of amendments on the other side of the aisle when the budget was up. Every one of those amendments was for spending more money. They will say, yes, they wanted to raise taxes; they had tax offsets to spend that money. But they were not interested in raising taxes to lower the national debt; they were interested in raising taxes to spend more money. So just the tax cut cannot be considered a reason for the debt. In fact, if you want to know why we have a debt, we have a debt of 25 percent because of tax cuts, 25 percent because of increased spending for the war as well as homeland security, and 50 percent because of the downturn in the economy.

When did that downturn in the economy start? In the year 2000, not in the year 2001. The manufacturing index started going down in March of 2000. Do you know NASDAQ lost half of its value in 2000? President Bush saw that economic situation and, hence, the tax cut of 2001 to turn the economy around, and it has worked. But that is only 25 percent of the reason for the deficit. The other is just the downturn in the economy and what happened on September 11 and a recovery that was delayed because of attacks by terrorists on America, the second time only since the War of 1812 that Americans have been attacked and it had an impact on the economy. And it was a negative impact on the economy that led to 3 years of downturn of income coming into the Federal Government for the first time since the 1930s; in other words, less income this year than the year before, than the year before.

That has never happened, even when we had tax cuts in the past. We have to go back to the 1930s. I hope the other side is willing to admit these are very unusual times we are in.

Then, what about the fact that we are in a war? What about the fact that we were attacked on September 11? Do you want to fight the terrorists in the United States or do you want to fight them in Iraq and Afghanistan? This Commander in Chief decided to fight them in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of in New York City and Washington, DC.

Wars cost money. We only go to war to win. If we are going to go to war to win and put American men and women on the battlefield, we are going to give them the resources it takes to win. We have been attacked by the other side because somehow we do not account for the cost of a war. On December 8, 1941, when FDR was addressing the Congress of the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor, if Members of Congress had said at that time, How much is this war going to cost, they would have been laughed at. How come they are not laughed at now, Mr. President? We are going to spend what it takes to win the war. We are not going to leave our men and women hanging without support. If we had taken that attitude toward World War II, Hitler would have been in New York City. So we ought to have some leeway when it comes to budgets to win a war and backing our men and women and not being harassed because of what the war is going to cost, just as we are going to know that in the month of September we are going to fire off so many cruise missiles.

The last point I will make is, I might be willing to consider an increase in taxes, but I have never found anybody on the other side of the aisle who has said to me how high taxes can go to satisfy their desire to spend more money. For 50 years, we have had a policy in this country of taxing in the Federal Government at about 17 to 19 percent of gross national product. It seems to me that is pretty good policy because of two reasons: No. 1, the American people do not tend to attack us for taxing too high when it is in that band; and, No. 2, it has not been harmful to the economy, as we have seen tremendous growth in the economy for the last 50 years.

What we are trying to do is keep the level of taxation within that band of 17 to 19 percent. Right now it is a little bit lower. Sometimes it might be a little bit higher, but our policy is to keep it within that band and to keep spending within that band. But in times of war, that spending policy has to have some give if you want to win a war.

Even though the presentation that has been made by the other side may be totally accurate as far as the statistics are concerned, I think there is a bigger picture than just charts and statistics. There is what America is all about and the role of Government in America and the importance of responding to attacks on America and winning a war and backing up our troops.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we are hopefully at a position today where there is going to be some decision made by leadership--meaning the Democrat leader and Republican leader--on proceeding on this legislation. In the meantime, we will proceed with amendments and hopefully move along as best we can without having a certain finality.

I had a chance to listen to my colleagues' statements. I will make this commentary. We have already said to the minority, the Democratic leadership, that we are prepared to vote on amendments that are before the Senate. So the issue is not voting on amendments before the Senate. There is some feeling that we are going to get this bill to finality. That doesn't mean not voting on a lot of amendments. That can be worked in as well. All we want is some certainty that we are going to get to finality. Finality means getting to conference.

We have a couple pieces of legislation that have been sitting around this body, after the body has finished work on them, not being able to go to conference. One is the CARE Act, an acronym for legislation that encourages charitable giving. Another one is the Workforce Investment Act. These are two pieces of legislation that have been before the Senate, and the minority, the Democrats, will not let us go to conference on these pieces of legislation.

So, in a sense, the Senate has worked its will, but the legislative process has been shut down. It seems to me if this legislation includes so much of what the Democrats want to accomplish in the way of reform of welfare--particularly the vote we had yesterday, very dramatically increasing by $6 billion the amount to be spent on childcare--that they would want this legislation to become law. So we need some assurance from the other side that if we agree to voting on some amendments that they want to vote on--that is no longer an issue--we want to move ahead with germane amendments.

There is not an argument about the number at this point. We can get to a vote on this, but most important is not have it stalled in the Senate as those other two pieces of legislation. It seems to me the issue isn't a whole lot different now than it was 2 years ago. The only difference is the Republicans were in the minority, then and the Democrats were in the majority. At that particular time, we saw an Energy bill taken away from the Energy Committee and brought to the floor. That bill never became law. We saw a prescription drug bill taken over by the leadership on the floor of the Senate, with the committee effectively cut out. There were 2 weeks of debate on an Energy bill but nothing happened. There was not a budget adopted that year.

We Republicans referred to the leadership at that time as having a graveyard in the Senate because they wanted issues for that election as opposed to products. We Republicans said to the electorate at that time that we want products, not issues. So when we took over in the majority in 2003, the committee system was allowed to work, developing bipartisanship. Nothing gets done in the Senate without bipartisanship. We could bring the issues to the floor and work the will of the Senate and get things through the Senate. That is what we are elected to do-- get things through the Senate and let the process work.

So there is nothing that my colleague from Montana said that I disagree with, except we ought to see light at the end of the tunnel. Is there anything wrong with saying: Are you guys--meaning the Democrats--going to do what you did on the Workforce Investment Act and the CARE Act and let the Senate become a graveyard again just because something is happening that you don't like?

It seems to me there would be a lesson learned from the last election. When the Senate became a graveyard, the people of this country sent a message that they don't want the Senate to be a graveyard. They gave the majority to the Republicans. We show that we can produce. Yet look what we are running into--the CARE Act, after a year of not going to conference. I don't know how long the Workforce Investment Act has been waiting to go to conference. We were stalled last week on a bill the Democrats agreed ought to become law, the FSC/ ETI bill. That stalled.

I would not say the Welfare Act is stalled. But what do we know is down the road? What is wrong with a little bit of transparency. The transparency is that they present an amendment on minimum wage and they want a vote. So we present a plan to get to a vote on that very important issue, but we cannot get some assurance that we may not be in the same boat as with the CARE Act and the Workforce Investment Act.

When it comes to the minimum wage being important for welfare, I suggest to the other leaders that, as chairman of the committee, in a letter I received from them last year, which is not dated--I received this letter, and it was signed by 41 Democrats--telling us the things they wanted in this legislation that the Finance Committee was going to be working on at that particular time. They were setting out priorities they believed we had not adequately dealt with. In this letter, there was never any mention of minimum wage being an important part of welfare reform legislation.

I did take what they said in this letter very seriously, and they dealt with issues such as universal engagement, ending the caseload reduction credit, strengthening child support, extending TMA, providing additional State flexibility, issues dealing with postsecondary education, no superwaiver, no increase in work without State flexibility. Of all of those provisions they raised concern about, none dealt with minimum wage. I and the majority tried to accommodate the minority members who signed this letter and put these things in this legislation. These provisions are all in this bill.

Other priorities, as stated by the Democrats, included some additional funding for childcare, and we passed that overwhelmingly yesterday. It wasn't something I could get done in committee. I, obviously, agreed with that approach because I voted for it yesterday.

We also had a request from the Democrats in this letter to increase vocational education eligibility for legal immigrants. We have not dealt with that, but that is going to be an amendment before the Senate.

What we have tried to do in this whole process of Republicans gaining control of the Senate and letting the committee system work, as opposed to 2002 when very major legislation, such as prescription drugs and the Energy bill, was taken away from the committees and brought to the floor--we do not develop bipartisanship on the floor, and they never became law--we have tried to make the committee system work. When specific requests are made, such as 41 Democrats sending us a letter raising concerns about their issues, we try to put them in the legislation and accommodate them so that we have a product instead of an issue.

The other side ought to tell us if we are going down the same road we went down in 2002 to have the Senate become a graveyard for important legislation because they need issues instead of product. Did they learn a lesson from the last election? Do they want to lose more seats in the Senate? I don't think they do. But I think they have to get a better game plan than shutting down the Senate because we are in the majority to make this place work.

I know there are a lot of Democrats who are intent upon making this place work, and I know Senator Baucus, my ranking Democrat, is committed to making this place work. There should not be any reason we have to have a cloture vote, particularly when we made overtures to the other side to vote on a lot of important issues on

which they want to vote. All we want to know is that we are going to get an opportunity to develop a product. This Senate is not the only body that passes legislation that goes to the President; it also takes the House of Representatives. We do not get to finality until there is a conference committee if there is a difference between the House and the Senate, and in most major pieces of legislation, we have to have a conference committee.

I do not understand why we can't get to conference on the CARE Act, a bill to encourage charitable giving by people who fill out the short form of the income tax by giving above-the-line deduction, or having the tax-free rollover IRAs for people who want to give some of their lifetime savings to charitable giving. There are a lot of other good provisions in that legislation as well.

Do you know what is wrong with that, Madam President? What is probably wrong with that legislation is it is one of the No. 1 goals of the President of the United States, and maybe the other side can't let him have a victory. Yet in the scheme of what the President of the United States has to do, it may be a No. 1 goal of his, but it is a very small part of the total agenda that this President has of leading this Nation and being the Chief Executive Officer for our Government.

What is wrong with the Workforce Investment Act? One would think that with the other side crying all the time about outsourcing--forgetting about insourcing; we have a $58 billion favorable balance of trade on insourcing versus outsourcing--but we all ought to be concerned about outsourcing. What does Senator Kerry, as a Democratic candidate for President, say we need to do about outsourcing? Educate our workforce. And we have opportunities to move legislation that does that, and we cannot get to conference. What is the game?

We have offered to the other side votes on important legislation they want. Can they let us see light at the end of the tunnel so we know there are not games being played? I would hope there are people on the other side of the body who want this place to work, and there are. I would hope people who want product instead of issues will rise to the top, as cream does, and as cream of the crop remind their leadership of what happened in the last election, and do they want to be a less significant minority than we presently are because I think what is good about the Senate is that it keeps the extremes from governing in America--the extreme on the left and the extreme on the right.

The Senate, when it cooperates and gets things done, governs from the center. Whether that is 60 votes or 70 votes or 80 votes, we govern from the center.

This is a body that is going to make sure that Nazis do not take over America or Communists take over America, and there are none of them in the Congress. But when you do not have the center rule, as Germany learned or as Korinsky learned and tried to show the people of Russia in 1917, when the extremes take over, democratic values are lost.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are involved in debate on a nongermane amendment the Democrats have offered on which we Republicans have said we are willing to vote, assuming we can have finality on this legislation and make sure we get to conference.

In the meantime, while those procedural issues are being worked out, I wish to express some views on the subject of minimum wage.

The proponents of this legislation claim they want to make sure that workers are able to earn a livable wage. Who doesn't know that is necessary for people to get along in this world? It is not very clear to me what the term ``livable wage'' means. But those who use the term seem to believe a person working at a minimum wage ought to earn more than the poverty level.

So let us consider that goal for a moment. Although there is more than one way to define poverty, the Department of Health and Human Services publishes the poverty guidelines each year. These guidelines are used to determine eligibility for low-income programs like food stamps. For a single individual, the poverty guideline then would be $9,310 a year. Under current law, any job subject to the Federal minimum wage must pay at least $5.15 an hour. Assuming a person worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, at a minimum wage, they would earn over $10,000 a year. Even after deducting Federal income taxes owed on this amount, a minimum wage worker is left with more money than the poverty guidelines.

I would like to repeat that a full-time minimum wage worker already earns more than the poverty level.

Now, is that a livable wage? The answer is that it depends. Even in my State of Iowa not very many people would say that is very ideal; in fact, just the opposite. Most people would look for much higher than that. According to the Census Bureau, more than 2 million workers have hourly wages at or below the minimum wage. More than one-fourth of these workers are between the ages of 16 and 19.

So is $5.15 an hour a livable wage? If one is a teenager living at home with their parents, they probably feel like they are making a lot of money. But what about other minimum wage workers? According to the Census Bureau, 85 percent of the people earning the minimum wage live with their parents, have a working spouse or live alone. Only 15 percent of the minimum wage workers are trying to support a family.

For those few who are trying to support a family, $5.15 an hour is obviously not enough income. Fortunately, these families do not have to get by on $5.15 an hour because under current law these families are eligible for Federal assistance through the earned income tax credit and through the food stamp program, two programs that are meant to encourage people into the workforce in a way that there is good return on it.

A single mom with two children working full-time at minimum wage would qualify for more than $4,000 in refundable tax credits and more than $2,000 in food stamps. On an hourly basis, that works out to more than $8 an hour. Even after Federal taxes are withheld, a single mom with two children is left with more than $15,670, which is the poverty guideline for a family of three. Thus, the debate cannot really be about getting people out of poverty.

Some people might say that these workers should not have to rely on Government programs to escape poverty, and those people working would look for a day in the future when they were making enough money that they would not qualify for the earned income tax credit or qualify for food stamps. But other people might say that employers should not be so cheap, that they ought to pay their employees more than the poverty level wages.

As I have just explained, the poverty level varies by the size of the families. Employers cannot pay their workers based on the size of their families. I do not know that they ever have. When one stops at a local donut shop, they do not charge $5 on Tuesday when the cashier is a teenager living at home with his parents and then charge $7 on Thursday when the cashier is a single mom raising two children. That is not the way the real world of economics or the business place works. Any business that tried to do things that way would no longer be in business.

The wages earned by workers are determined by the value that consumers place on the goods and services produced by the workers. Employers cannot pay their employees more than customers are willing to pay. In fact, in most cases, customers do have

choices of where to buy their goods and services. They do not have to stop at the local donut shop. If they want to, they can eat at home, or some may just decide to do without.

Those who support raising the minimum wage claim that they are helping workers earn a livable wage, but if Congress could wave a magic wand and if Congress would raise wages by legislative decree, why would they stop at $7 an hour? Why not $70? Why not $700? Then everybody could be a millionaire.

The reason supporters of a minimum wage stop at $7 is because they know if the minimum wage is raised higher it means yet higher prices and fewer jobs. To deny these facts is to deny economic reality.

Proof? There is plenty of proof. It is very evident by the fact that no one has proposed raising the minimum wage to $70 or $700 an hour. Raising the minimum wage by $7 or $70 or $700 all have ensuing ill effects. The only difference is the smaller the increase the smaller the effect. Those who support a smaller increase are hoping that by only raising the minimum wage to $7, the price increases and the job losses will be small enough that no one will complain too loudly.

Minimizing the damage will not stop the damage. Raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour is going to cost employers $6 billion a year. That is a $6 billion tax increase on a small segment of our economy, particularly the small business sector of the economy. Ironically, out of those costs of $6 billion, roughly $5 billion will go to workers who are not supporting a family while $1 billion is going to go to workers who are supporting a family.

In other words, raising the minimum wage for everyone means only $1 out of every $6 goes to those who are most in need and particularly those we are trying to help with this bill to move people from welfare to work. That is a very expensive way to help low-income families.

One might try to justify this costly and inefficient policy if it were the only way to help those in need, but as I have already discussed raising the minimum wage is not about getting people out of poverty. A single mom working full-time at the minimum wage, with one or two children, is already out of poverty, thanks to the earned income tax credit and thanks to food stamps. If we want to help low income workers, we should support policies like the earned income tax credit and food stamps that provide help to those who need it the most.

Congress does not have a magic wand. It cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.

I yield the floor.

If she is yielding the floor, then I want the floor.

Would it be OK if I take 5 minutes?

Or even 6 or 7 minutes.

That is what I would like to do.

First of all, the Senator from Connecticut asks a legitimate question of the Senator from Washington about when this might come up. There is an orderly way of doing things around here. And usually in the Senate, the leader--and that is not me; that is Senator Frist from Tennessee-- sets the agenda for the Senate.

It is my understanding that right now we are working on it. I do not know whether the Senator from Washington or the Senator from Connecticut has been in contact with the leadership of the Senate so we can do things in an orderly way or whether they want to make political points. But I hope they want to do it in an orderly way because that is the way things get done around here. So it is not with pleasure that I object right now, and look like a bad person to the Senator from Washington--because she has always treated me very fairly in her service in the Senate--and to object particularly when we are probably, in a matter of hours or a few days, going to pass this legislation. I am sure it is going to be passed in a way so that the unemployment compensation is seamless for those who are otherwise entitled to it.

That is all I can do to answer the question of the Senator from Connecticut. It is my firm conviction it is going to happen.

Now, maybe I think things are going to happen, but they might not because of something beyond what I know now. But I think they are going to happen. I know there have already been suggestions made between the two leaders of the Senate's political parties--our respective caucuses--to move some of these important issues along.

But do the members of the Democratic Party in the Senate think only Democrats have important issues they want to bring up? Don't they think there might be a few Republicans who have something they want to bring up? So you work these accommodations out. That is what I think we ought to do.

But what I would like to do, for just a few minutes, is speak to--not to challenge anything the Senator from Washington said about unemployment because, factually, I do not think you can do that--but there are other thoughts that need to be put on the table at the same time.

I made a presentation here 2 weeks ago to try to bring into this debate points of view that are made by the intellectual wing of the Democratic Party to offset what we have just heard from the political wing of the Democratic Party. And I quoted a former Democratic Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich. I want to quote him again because he writes very eloquently about job changes going on in America and about job loss in America.

I will quote this long paragraph:

It's true that U.S. manufacturing employment has been

dropping for many years, but that's not primarily due to

foreigners taking these jobs. Factory jobs are vanishing all

over the world. Economists at Alliance Capital Management

took a look at employment trends in 20 large economies and

found that between 1995 and 2002, 22 million factory jobs had

disappeared.

Now get this:

The U.S. wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11

percent of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the

Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. Even developing nations

lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline,

China a 15 percent drop. What happened to factory jobs? In

two words, higher productivity.

He says:

I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees

and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front

of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years

this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for

an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades

the robots, like the gas man changing your meter.

The points about productivity she made very well, I believe. But here is the other side of that. You can create jobs and not have productivity--be inefficient, be uncompetitive, and not have a business after a while. Or you can be productive because enhancing productivity in America is what it takes to raise wages. If you want to increase the standard of living in America, you have to raise wages. To raise wages, you have to enhance productivity.

So are they suggesting we ought to turn the clock back and forget about productivity, forget about raising the standard of living in America? Do they want us to become some Third World economy over the period of the next 50 years, if you went down that road, or do you want to do what America can do best, the other things Secretary Reich is referring to? We have a knowledge base in America. Take advantage of that knowledge base. Create jobs that are more productive and, in the process, raise wages and raise the standard of living. Those are the choices we have.

America is a dynamic economy. Every month 7 million jobs go out of existence, and 7 million jobs come into existence. It would be ideal if it were more than 7 million jobs coming on board. That hasn't happened, and that is why we have the 2.3 million jobs that are referred to all the time.

Do you think it is always going to be this way in America? Absolutely not, because of the dynamic economy we have. It is because we are always enhancing productivity that we are going to do better.

You don't have to be a defeatist when it comes to the economy. We have gone through tougher times. We have gone through tougher times when unemployment was 25 percent, not 5.6 percent. We got through it. America is stronger today. Don't lose faith in America.

Yes, I will yield for a question.

The Senator asks a very legitimate question. For my part, eventually we have to face this. I don't care how we face it, as a separate bill or as an amendment. I think she has to ask somebody just one step above my

pay grade to get an answer to that. I am not prepared to answer that. I do not have an answer from the people that give it because, as I said, the leader sets the schedule. I respect the leader, and I don't want to put him in a position. I might be able to say, but I don't have certainty of it. So I don't want to put him in a bad position.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I don't think I need to object, but I think there ought to be some consideration that if other Republicans come to the Chamber, we don't have Democrats ganging up on us to give one point of view. There ought to be some accommodation to Republicans if they would come over here. I don't expect anybody beyond the Senator from Texas to come over and speak, but if they do, I would hope you will be a gentleman and try to work them in so we let America know there are two sides to every story.

With that consideration, I do not object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 31, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a nominations hearing to consider the nominations of: Stephen L. Johnson, to be Deputy Administrator, EPA; Ann R. Klee, to be General Counsel, EPA; Charles Johnson, to be Chief Financial Officer, EPA; Benjamin Grumbles, to be Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, EPA; and Gary Lee Visscher, to be a Member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on the effects of the Madrid terrorist attacks on U.S.-European cooperation in the war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on Active and Reserve military and civilian personnel programs, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 31, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing to consider the role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in meeting the Nation's water resource needs in the 21st century.

The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about high gasoline prices lately, and rightly so because gasoline prices are as high as they have ever been in the history of our country and, in the process, not only taking a lot of money out of the pockets of working men and women, but harming the overall economy. And the full impact has not been felt yet.

In the process of hearing so many remarks and concerns about this situation, as we heard for a half hour a few minutes ago from one of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, I wonder if we are not hearing so many speeches from the other side of the

aisle on the issue of energy because it was the other side of the aisle that led a filibuster against the national energy policy we had before us last November. Maybe there is some guilt on their part about defeating a national energy policy, as it was through a Democratic filibuster.

I thought since that vote, when we had 58 votes and only needed 2 more to get cloture, to get to finality on a bill that was passed overwhelmingly by this body, that bill would have been the national energy policy. It would have been the first national energy policy that passed this body for probably a dozen or more years, and it is now needed more than ever before, but we needed two more votes. It is so puzzling to me that 46 out of 49 Democrats can stick together when they want to defeat very well-qualified judges the President sends up here, so well qualified they have the highest rating of the American Bar Association, and yet when we had a national energy policy, we adopted that national energy policy 3 or 4 months after the Northeast blackout last August and just before we knew energy prices were going to go up because OPEC announced they were going to shut off the spigot, why couldn't we get more than 13 out of 49 Democrats, considering the unanimity of holding the caucus together to defeat judges, and the Democratic leader was very much in favor of the Energy bill but he voted to stop debate? Why couldn't more than 13 Democrats help bring about a national energy policy?

Now we are hearing so much from the other side that one wonders if they don't have a somewhat guilty conscience about that vote.

We only needed two more Democrats. There are at least four Democrats from corn-producing States who should have been voting for cloture because this bill was so good for the ethanol industry, as an example, producing ethanol, a renewable fuel to mix with gasoline, to stretch gasoline, but we had four Democrats on the other side from corn- producing States who did not vote. We only needed two of them.

Also, this was a very comprehensive energy policy, so comprehensive it was well balanced with tax incentives for fossil fuels, tax incentives for renewables and alternative energy, and tax incentives for conservation. In fact, the speech we just heard was a lot about conservation, tax incentives for conservation, and they do not want to vote to stop a Democratic filibuster and move the bill along? It is very puzzling. I do not understand it. It makes one wonder: Are we hearing all these speeches now since gas is way up, at the highest level in history, because maybe they have some shame because they didn't want to vote to stop that filibuster last fall?

Then I hear some criticism toward the President about high gasoline prices. But what about the President of the United States leading the way ever since he has been in office to get this Congress to adopt a national energy policy, and Congress came within two votes, but a Democratic filibuster killed it, and the President is getting blamed for a national energy policy he has been pushing that the other side killed?

Is there some guilt, some shame on the other side trying to detract from what the President has been trying to do? Is there some shame on the other side when they were in the majority in 2001 and 2002 and could not produce a national energy policy?

We have had an opportunity to move forward with a national energy policy, and those people who are giving the speeches condemning the President or concerned about high prices, what about helping us to reconsider that vote of last November--it can be reconsidered--and bring cloture and finality to the bill, and we can have a national energy policy?

Is a national energy policy going to make a difference when it comes to high energy prices? You bet it is because it is sending a signal to OPEC that we have our act put together and we are prepared to respond.

It very much broke the stranglehold of OPEC in 1982 when President Reagan deregulated the cost controls that we had on petroleum. For the next 20 years, OPEC was irrelevant because it told the rest of the world that we are not going to hold our product off the market. When we establish not only our own incentives for producing our own fossil fuels to a greater extent than we are today but also that we are going a whole new route of having a national energy policy on renewables and alternative energy and also that we are going to have incentives for conservation, it is going to send that same clear signal to OPEC?

OPEC is meeting maybe right this very day to say to the rest of the world: We are going to shut our spigots down another million barrels a day. And all the time the Senate is languishing because of a Democrat filibuster last November of the Energy bill. They see inactivity on our part, and to a great extent it encourages them the same way they were encouraged when we had price controls on petroleum from 1979, 1980, and 1981 until Reagan finally took them off. I hope we will have less speeches from the other side and votes in favor of ethanol and biodiesel, all of those things that are good for the agricultural communities of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, as well as Iowa and Minnesota. They are good for the environment because ethanol and biodiesel are cleaner burning than fossil fuels; good for the agricultural economy because when the bill is fully implemented, we would be using 20 percent of our corn crop to produce ethanol and will eventually be doing the same thing with the soybean crop and biodiesel. We will also be conserving as well.

Yet what do we get from the Members of those States when they have an opportunity to do something? They vote no, under some excuse that we are not going to be able to maybe have some lawsuits that they want to have.

Do they want chocolate cake for lawyers or do they want lower gasoline prices? Do they want chocolate cake for their lawyers--because the whole new realm of lawsuits after tobacco and after asbestos, that is where those lawyers are going to go, suing the energy companies--or do they want a cleaner environment? Do they want chocolate cake for their lawyers or do they want to help their farmers? Do they want chocolate cake for their lawyers or do they want to send a signal to OPEC that we have our act together and we are going to play in this energy game and we are not going to be in a stranglehold by those oil sheiks? I think the choice is pretty clear. I hope we get some action and less words.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I am going to vote yes on the amendment of the Senator from Maine. There are several reasons.

I have already stated yesterday in remarks that I believe the next phase of welfare reform must focus on strengthening work and opportunities for people to move from welfare to work. Of course, work is the key to self-sufficiency. Hence, this bill; this bill strengthens work. It would increase the participation rate requirement for States as well as increase the standard hours for individuals.

The typical welfare adult case is usually a single mother with a young child, many of whom lack even a high school degree. These are women who work more often than not. These women more often than not have families in crisis. They can't find a way to make their lives work. They need help.

If we are asking these women to go to work and to move from part-time to full-time work, if that is the case for some, childcare is an integral part of ensuring they can successfully meet the challenge required by law--a challenge that is good for society. Moving people out of welfare into the world of work is the only way they can move up the economic ladder. A life of welfare is a life of poverty.

Lack of good, affordable childcare is often a barrier to succeeding in the workplace. I am committed to doing everything I can to help these families succeed in work. That is good for the taxpayer as well as for the families. I have come to the conclusion that increasing funding for childcare is a key to accomplishing that goal.

As we know, States are facing budget deficits and childcare funding in those States has been frozen. Certainly in the context of a debate over welfare reform and progress, we should be mindful that States have spent resources to provide childcare to families attempting a transition from welfare to work.

I believe in the context of the debate over welfare reform we should consider whether it is important that we provide a level of funding sufficient so States can maintain the childcare supporting services they have been providing to welfare recipients and low-income families. I have concluded it is important to continue those services. I recognize in order to do that, we need to provide additional resources in the specific area of childcare.

If we were merely to increase childcare funding at a rate to keep up with inflation on the current level of spending, we would increase it by about $1.5 billion. If we include the $1 billion already in the bill before the Senate as it was reported out of committee and adjust that for inflation as well as including what the Congressional Budget Office estimates are the childcare costs associated with increasing the work requirement, we are close to $3.3 billion in additional childcare costs. This is what we know. We know we need at least $3.3 billion to meet the challenge of childcare. Now we have heard we need anywhere from $4 billion to $5 billion for States to continue providing services related to childcare.

I don't think we know for sure the exact increase of childcare funding we need to maintain the current level of services. However, I do think we need to assume there is a need, and an increasing need.

I do not believe $6 billion over 5 years is an unreasonable increase in childcare funding, given the increase in the work requirements, the current State budget situation, and the importance of maintaining at the very least the current level of childcare support available to low- income families.

Therefore, I will vote for the Snowe amendment. I ask my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield the floor.