Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, there is no doubt we are going to have a vote on minimum wage sometime, maybe on this bill or at least on some other bill. It is one thing to ask for an agreement to vote on a nongermane amendment--the majority party has the responsibility of getting work done, although we are cognizant of the fact we do not get anything done in this body if it is not bipartisan. We want to move this legislation along because it is so important to moving people out of poverty.

As I said yesterday, some are on the edge of society, out of sight and out of mind, if they are on welfare. They are never going to move out of poverty if they are on welfare.

As I said yesterday, and the Senator from Massachusetts misunderstood me, if you are ever going to move out of poverty, you have to be in the world of work. Being in the world of work does not automatically, even with an increase in the minimum wage, guarantee you are going to be out of poverty, but at least you have a chance of moving out of poverty; whereas on welfare you are destined to a lifetime of poverty.

We are interested in moving this legislation along, and it would help a little bit reaching some understanding of voting on these amendments if we knew we were going to get this bill done and help the people who need to be helped.

The point I want to make in regard to this amendment, and it is also in conjunction with the offering of nongermane amendments on other bills I have had before this Senate by the other party, is it seems to me they are always missing the point. They are always getting the cart before the horse.

The bill before the Senate 2 weeks ago was a bipartisan bill that Senator Baucus and I worked out. It came out of our committee with all the Democrats supporting it. It encourages the creation of jobs in manufacturing by reducing the tax on manufacturing because that high tax on manufacturing is a disincentive to the creation of jobs. And it happens to be an incentive to outsourcing of jobs.

Also, because there is a tariff against some of our products going into Europe, this would eliminate that tariff so we could be competitive. OK, that legislation is a bipartisan approach to creating jobs in manufacturing. So what does the other party do? They offer an amendment dealing with overtime regulations.

They get the cart before the horse because the first thing we have to do is create jobs for people to get overtime. That legislation stalled because of nongermane amendments.

Now we have what is a legitimate subject of discussion--but somewhere else--increasing the minimum wage. That has been a legitimate point of discussion since the 1920s, and it has been the law in this country since 1938. Nobody denies that is a worthy subject of discussion. Again, another example of getting the cart before the horse is that we are talking about getting people who are on welfare, not working, a job. Let's get them in the world of work.

We have Members on the other side of the aisle stalling this legislation with nongermane amendments.

We have to put the priorities where the priorities ought to be: to help people get jobs and keep jobs so that all these other issues that are coming up will be applicable to more workers.

I am going to address for a short time this issue of the situation of people on welfare and our opportunities to move them to work to emphasize the success of that program in the legislation we have had on the books since 1996 and to see if we cannot improve that legislation in the bill that is before the Senate and move forward with another 8 years of success of moving people from welfare to work, giving them an opportunity to move up the economic ladder.

The families who go on welfare are, obviously, very vulnerable and fragile families. They not only need a job, but they need support in moving from welfare to work. We are not going to dump them out in the cold cruel world of work. Legislation that is already on the books and is going to be improved by this bill is going to enhance their support. We have already demonstrated that with one overwhelming vote on more money for childcare. I have heard that a long time from that side of the aisle, as we have heard from a lot of Republicans. One would think they would want to pass this legislation to give people on welfare who are moving

into work the support they need to get there. This legislation does it. But the shenanigans on the other side with nongermane amendments are holding that up.

The average family on welfare has two children, and that average family is headed by a young woman. Most of these families are African American or Hispanic. Half of these families have a child under the age of 6, and we take into consideration in this legislation specific needs of families with children under 6.

The women who head these families are desperately poor. That is what welfare does for people, it keeps them in poverty. These women who have these families, besides being desperately poor and, contrary to the way the argument over minimum wage was characterized, they are not working. That is why it is so important to get this legislation passed before you worry about minimum wage because we have to give them the support so they can get out there in the world of work so they can get the minimum wage in the first place.

States are reporting to us that the majority of adults on welfare are not doing anything. In other words, they are not working and maybe not doing anything that will lead to work, as we are trying to help them do through this infrastructure of support, of helping with job training and education, with substance abuse and other problems families might have because it is quite obvious in the world of welfare, it is not a way to achieve self-sufficiency. Many of these adult recipients are not ready for full-time work, so discussions about working 40 hours do not really apply to this population. In fact, for a while the argument over welfare reform focused on President Bush's proposal to require adult recipients on welfare to be engaged in work activities for 40 hours a week. That outraged my Democratic colleagues, that the administration would propose raising the hours of activity, including work, to 40 hours. Just as if out there in the world of work it isn't assumed, not anything less than 40 hours a week, for the most part. So it is somewhat ironic that we are here discussing a 40-hour work week scenario because, as I said, most of these adults on welfare are not working at all and if they are working they are surely not working full time.

These are adults, and again they are mainly women, with multiple and often coexisting barriers to work. They may be the victims of domestic abuse. They may have substance abuse problems. Add all that together and you have people who need services that this legislation provides to get them ready to go to work. So you worry about this person. Are they getting a minimum wage at this level or at that level? That is why this discussion over minimum wage is just a little confusing to me, as legitimate as it is for Congress to discuss the minimum wage, because we have set the minimum wage since 1938. But in connection with these people, they oftentimes are not earning any wage. But they are people who need services if they are ever going to get that job.

I am hopeful we will be able to work something out on minimum wage, and that we can complete our work on this welfare bill. I think people on the other side of the aisle, if they could indicate to us finality on this legislation, there can be some accommodation. Because families in need are waiting for us to get this done. It is a very successful program that started in 1996 and we need to continue it. This legislation fine-tunes it; it improves it; it strengthens it. We spend more money to do a better job of support for people who need to go to work.

I yield the floor.

I object.

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

Mr. President, today we begin debate on what the public at large would refer to as a welfare reform bill, a bill that would build upon very major changes that were made after 60 years of the previous welfare legislation that did not accomplish its goals to one now where we have had an opportunity since 1996 to move people from welfare to work.

The public at large and sometimes even I refer to this legislation as welfare reform, but our legislation is entitled ``The Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act.'' If you hear us use the acronym P-R-I-D-E, PRIDE, this is the legislation that is before the Senate. I am very happy that we are finally able to consider this legislation.

Going back to 1996, after years of debate and even after two vetoes by President Clinton, we finally had a Republican Congress pass, and a Democratic President sign, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. I emphasize that because the issue of welfare is highly charged politically. When you are going to make major changes, as we did in 1996, it takes bipartisanship to accomplish those changes. That bipartisanship was between Democratic President Clinton and a Republican-controlled Congress.

The enactment of welfare reform ended the entitlement aspect of welfare, the cash assistance part of it. The impetus for welfare reform was generated by a number of factors, including public sentiment that the welfare system needed overhauling. When campaigning for President, President Clinton promised, in his words, ``to end welfare as we know it.'' For the Republicans, during the campaign for Congress in 1994 when the Contract With America was the watch word of Republicans, welfare reform was a key part of that. So we had a President promising to end welfare as we know it, we had Republicans putting it in their Contract With America, and, finally, after 2 years, the legislation was passed at that time.

I would categorize the PRIDE legislation as moving on and fine-tuning that basic underlying legislation which has sunset. The sunset was in the 1996 legislation. When legislation sunsets, it must be reenacted by the Congress of the United States or that part of the code goes off the books.

Quite honestly, there are Americans who have needs. There is still need for

assistance, but the goal of that assistance is still as it has always been: to move people from welfare to work.

In the years leading up to the enactment of welfare reform in 1996, the AFDC roles soared and costs increased. From 1988 through 1992, welfare spending increased by billions of dollars. The welfare system was attributed by many to contributing to a culture of isolation and dependence, persisting from one generation to another. Despite dire predictions to the contrary, the reforms in the 1996 act have produced very positive results.

The welfare caseload has dropped dramatically. Between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2002, the average monthly number of welfare recipients fell by 5.8 million or 53 percent of the previous high. Child poverty has also been reduced. Between 1996 and 2001, the national child poverty rate fell by 20 percent. This decline is even more marked for certain groups. We see the African-American children poverty rate dropping from nearly 40 percent to 30 percent, the lowest rate on record.

The Hispanic child poverty rate dropped from just slightly over 40 percent to 28 percent, the largest 5-year drop on record.

Employment rates of adult recipients has increased. In fiscal year 2001, 27 percent of the adult recipients were employed, rising to about 2.4 times the 1996 employment rate of 11 percent.

These reforms all stemmed from a work-first approach that emphasized an adult's attachment to the workforce. I believe we should continue and this legislation does build upon a work-first approach, and yet the need for reform continues.

There are key provisions in the 1996 act which have not yielded the desired results. Additionally, there are further reforms which should be enacted, things that we have learned from the 1996 act, and we are fine-tuning the present legislation through this legislation before us. As an example, the 1996 bill envisions a contingency fund which would provide additional matching grants to needy States during economic downturns.

However, during the recent recession, the first real test of the contingency fund, no State was able to access the contingency fund. This is because States must raise their own spending considerably during a recession to meet the contingency fund State spending requirements.

I am sure it was not the intent of the authors of the 1996 bill to make the contingency fund inaccessible. The PRIDE bill before the Senate includes provisions which would liberalize the contingency fund to make it more accessible to needy States and to help more citizens of their States who have the need.

Another example would be the work participation rate. The 1996 welfare reform bill envisioned a participation rate of 50 percent by 2002. However, because of the way the caseload reduction credit has worked, many States have a marginal or even nonexistent work participation requirement, meaning they are meeting the requirements of existing Federal law without putting one more person from the welfare rolls into the payrolls. The fact that the caseload reduction credit has effectively neutralized the work participation rate requirement is then a fundamental flaw in this 1996 law that PRIDE corrects.

The PRIDE bill does, in fact, correct this by replacing the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit. To ensure that the credit does not undermine the work participation rate, the credit would have a phased-in cap. Many have advocated that there needs to be a stronger message sent to States on the value of education as a means of getting out of poverty. Some have also indicated the need for increased child care funding, as well as needed improvements to child support and enforcement policies.

The PRIDE legislation before the Senate increases opportunities for education, opportunities for training, as well as support for the families by increased funding for child care. Additionally, the PRIDE bill provides child support enhancements with more child support going to families. These reforms are a critical means that help families get off and stay off of welfare.

Two of the four purposes of the 1996 welfare act dealt with strengthening two-parent families. So far, very few States have taken the opportunity to develop and to implement innovative programs and policies to address the issues of healthy two-parent marriages, even though the 1996 law is very flexible on how that is to be done-- obviously too flexible from the standpoint of it being a requirement that the State ought to meet.

I strongly support marriage promotion activities as a means of improving child well-being. Let nobody in this body or outside this body say there is anything in this language that has anything to do with forcing people into the institution of marriage. Well short of that, this legislation does and should do things to emphasize the importance of people who are in a married relationship, that they are less apt to be on welfare than families who are single parent.

This legislation provides funding for healthy marriage promotion activities, as well as research, demonstrations and technical assistance to States in developing effective programs. Thus, while the 1996 act made significant reforms, there remains more that should be done to strengthen the current welfare delivery system. Those reforms are included in the PRIDE bill now before the Senate.

Recognizing the improvements that the 1996 reforms made, our Senate Finance Committee began deliberations by working off of current law and improving it with priorities identified by Senators on and off the Finance Committee, as well as ideas that are coming from President Bush's administration.

The Senate Finance Committee deliberations in many ways continued the work done in the 107th Congress on the issues of welfare reform. As Members know, the bill that then-Chairman Baucus produced in the second half of the 107th Congress, which went by the acronym WORK bill, was based on the so-called tripartisan agreement at that time. This tripartisan agreement was a series of policy agreements reached by Senators Breaux, Rockefeller, Lincoln, and Jeffords from the Democratic caucus, and Senators Hatch and Snowe from the Republican caucus. These Members, along with then-Chairman Baucus, continued to play strong and important leadership roles on the Finance Committee relative to welfare reform.

I had a chance to review the work of the last Congress, which was the tripartisan agreement, and I noted similarities between what the tripartisan group proposed, what the PRIDE Act before us has in it, and also the House-passed bill that passed early last year. That House- passed bill is largely based upon President Bush's proposal for welfare reform. I refer my colleagues to the various charts that I am going to put before them now, which highlight the many areas of common ground between last year's WORK bill and the House bill, and the PRIDE bill by which the present title is before the Senate. Admittedly, not all the details are exactly the same, but as my colleagues will see from these charts, there is a great deal of common ground between these three bills. I think it is important to emphasize the similarities because too often on the Senate floor we have emphasis upon disagreements.

This common ground is building upon the bipartisanship that took place in 1996 to move us to the present program.

There is common ground regarding keeping what works from the 1996 reform bill. Going down the chart from top to bottom, all three bills maintain the basic block grant, continue the policy of no individual entitlement to assistance, and retain the lifetime 5-year time limit.

Both the bill of Senator Baucus, of last session, and the legislation now before the Senate would maintain current sanction policy. The PRIDE bill continues to allow for 12 months of education and training, while the House bill scales that back to 4 months and the bill of Senator Baucus would have increased that to 24 months.

Additionally, both the WORK bill and the PRIDE bill would maintain the current list of core work and work readiness activities, although the WORK bill would allow 8 weeks to be spent in job research.

Now we have a chart that deals with improving State flexibility. Before I describe what is on this chart, we have had a great deal of emphasis upon letting States use this Federal legislation

with some degree of flexibility. Frankly, it is very difficult for us to pour a mold in Washington called welfare reform and have it fit all 50 States exactly the same way. What it might take for the State of Iowa to meet the needs of a welfare family in Waterloo, IA, might be entirely different than in New York City. If you try to solve it in exactly the same way, you are probably going to waste money in New York or Waterloo or you might not accomplish as much in one city for that money as opposed to another. So let Albany, as the capital of New York, or let Des Moines, IA, as the capital of my State--let the legislators there and administrators there fit this to meet their various needs.

I want to point, though, to the common ground in terms of improving State flexibility. Again, I am referring to the three proposals: The Senate bill from the last Congress, the Senate bill from this Congress, and the House-passed bill that is now in the Senate for our consideration. All three proposals would allow for adults on assistance, with barriers to work, to engage in activities designed to address those barriers and allow those barrier removal activities to count toward a State work requirement for 3 months, provide for increased access to emergency or contingency funds during an economic downturn, and allow States to use their unobligated balances or carryover funds for any welfare-related purpose. That would include child care, whereas currently States can only use these funds for cash assistance. We give States much more flexibility to meet their needs because they know their needs better than we do.

Both the Senate bill of the 107th Congress as well as the Senate bill of the 108th Congress would allow for an additional 3 months of barrier removal activities if combined with work. Both the WORK bill and the PRIDE bill include a provision allowing States to count longer duration postsecondary education towards their work requirement. This is a provision patterned after the State of Maine's Parents as Scholars Program.

We also have common ground between these three pieces of legislation on strengthening work requirements and leading people into the world of work. For 60 years we put welfare recipients out of sight, out of mind, out to the edges of society, guaranteeing a life of poverty. What we started doing in 1996, and we intend to continue to do through this legislation, is move people from the world of welfare to the world of work. The motivation behind that is you have to be in the world of work to have a chance to move up the economic ladder. You cannot move up the economic ladder in the world of welfare. But where there are 138 million Americans in the world of work, that is where we need to have as many welfare recipients as we can so they can move out of poverty.

No child should be sentenced to a life of poverty, and I think we are showing in the 1996 legislation, which we are now refining, that this helps people move up the economic ladder. At least there is opportunity to move up the economic ladder where there is no opportunity to do that if you are relying on a welfare check.

I want to again emphasize there is common ground relative to strengthening the work requirement. All three bills would increase a State's required participation rate, raise the time spent in core or priority activities, as well as assign partial credit for hours below the standard. The PRIDE bill and the House bill would raise the standard hour. The PRIDE bill and the WORK bill would replace the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit based on legislation introduced by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

There is common ground on promoting healthy families. All three bills would provide for universal engagement of improved child support provisions, healthy marriage grants, as well as for responsible fatherhood grants. Both the WORK and the PRIDE bills would extend transitional medical assistance for 5 years, with program simplification that was authored by Senator Breaux of Louisiana.

It would allow for caregiving for a disabled child to count as work, and would require States to develop presanction review policies.

I have worked very hard to make sure that this is a bipartisan product. I have also been continually mindful of concerns raised by Democratic colleagues that they have about this provision. In areas where we differ, I am more than happy to let the Senate work its will, and there are outstanding issues. There are key differences between last year's Senate Finance Committee bill and this year's Senate Finance Committee bill. In my opinion, the most significant ones are the level of child care funding available for States, about which there is going to be an amendment that we are going to be dealing with shortly. Another one would be 24 months versus 12 months of allowable education and training. Another one would be eligibility for legal immigrants, for welfare, Medicaid, and the children's health insurance program. Another one would be continuation of the expired State aid to families of dependent children waiver; and, fifth, the standard hours for calculating a State's work participation rate.

I am also aware there are Members who may wish to consider provisions increasing the work requirement by broadening the family's account toward the participation rate as well as increasing the standard hour.

Additionally, I have had Members tell me they want to consider amendments requiring States to pose a full check sanction on adults who fail to comply with their self-sufficiency plans.

These are all things to which the Senate is entitled, guaranteed, to have a healthy debate on. These are things that will be settled on the floor of the Senate, if people want to pursue these differences of opinion.

However, at this point I want to spend some time discussing the issues surrounding the work requirement in PRIDE, specifically the issue of work hours for individuals receiving assistance. I want to clarify, first of all, something for the record. There is no Federal hour requirement on an adult receiving assistance.

I want to say that another way.

The Federal Government cannot make an individual welfare recipient work 40 hours or 30 hours or 1 hour. Just as there is no longer an individual entitlement to welfare, there is no individual requirement for work hours. As the great baseball leader Casey Stengel used to say, Look it up.

There is a Federal requirement on the States to engage welfare clients in a variety of meaningful activities in order to meet a Federal work participation rate, and there are severe penalties on States for failure to meet the Federal work participation rate.

Currently, in order for a State to count an adult recipient toward the calculation of that State's work requirement, that adult must be engaged in priority work or work-related activities for at least 30 hours.

As you know, the majority of families receiving welfare don't want to be on welfare. A recent study by the Mathematica Policy Research Institute of low-income families in my State revealed that many of those who ask for assistance ``felt that it sacrifices their independence and pride to do so.''

In hearings as well as in townhall meetings in my State of Iowa, adults receiving assistance told me they desire to work. I took at their word Iowans who spoke to me of their desire to work, and that is why I have worked so hard to bring a bill forward that would encourage States to redouble their efforts to engage adults receiving assistance in meaningful activities and better prepare them to enter the world of work.

Consider the hypothetical case of Sara, a mom with two kids, who finds herself in a crisis. A victim of domestic abuse, Sara is trying to make a better life for herself and her children. To that end, she moves out of her abuser's home and attempts to find a way to support her family. Lacking a number of basic skills as well as needing some counseling to deal with her history of abuse, Sara presents with a number of challenges and needs welfare to help support her family.

Under current law, States have a limited capacity to deal with Sara's issues and have those activities count toward a State work participation rate. Under current law, a State cannot count any domestic violence counseling that may be offered to Sara toward their work participation rate.

Sara knows she must work to support her family, so she begins immediately

looking for work. She spends 6 weeks looking for a job and finally finds a part-time job as a waitress working 6 hours a day for 4 days a week. She continues to look for a better paying job for an hour a day as well as spending another hour a day in counseling provided to her by her own State.

I think many of us would agree that Sara is doing everything she can to try to move toward self-sufficiency and that her State by engaging her in counseling is doing its part as well. However, under current law, because she is only part time and because a State cannot count her job search after 6 weeks, and under current law domestic violence counseling can never count, Sara does not count toward that State's participation rate, regardless of how hard she or the State make the effort for her to be in the work force. In other words, you either meet the 30-hour standard and count or you don't.

Currently, the States report that the majority of adults--57 percent--receiving assistance engage in 0 hours of activity. Clearly, it is more difficult for States to work with adults who are not doing anything than to work with an adult working 29 hours and get her engaged in meaningful activities for another 5 hours.

It can be argued as well that it is more meaningful to help an adult move from 0 to 20 hours of activity than to move an adult from 29 hours to 34 hours of activity; but under current law, a State has no incentive to work with that particular individual. It doesn't give them credit, to the Federal Government, for doing the State's part under the welfare-to-work law requirements

The administration's proposal for welfare reform reauthorization-- last year's Senate bill called the WORK bill and this year's PRIDE bill--allows States to get partial credit for hours below that standard hour requirement.

As my colleagues know, the standard hour is when an eligible parent or parents count as ``one family'' for purposes of calculating a State's work participation rate. Partial credit for hours below the standard would give States a very strong incentive to work with adults who may not be ready for full-time employment. I think we can all agree it is better for these adults to be doing something rather than nothing, languishing on welfare rolls until the time limit kicks in and they have to go off assistance, having no skills to go get a job or skills to support their family.

I have another chart I would like to bring to your attention.

Our PRIDE bill is unique, however, insomuch as the legislation would establish a series of ``tiers'' where partial credit is assigned along with a band of hours.

For work or work-readiness activities in the 20-23 hour range, a State may claim credit for an adult with a child age 6 or older counting as .675 of an entire family. For hours of 24-29 range, a State may claim credit for an adult counting as .75 of a family. And for hours in the 30-33 range, a State may claim credit for an adult counting as .875 of a family.

The PRIDE bill, consistent with last year's tripartisan proposal, establishes a separate lower standard hour for parents with a child under the age of 6 because of the greater need for attention of that child. However, PRIDE sets a standard hour at 24, whereas the tripartisan proposal would have continued to set the standard hour for a parent with a child under age 6 at 20 hours. States can also capture a modest amount of extra credit for hours above this standard.

As a result of these provisions in the PRIDE Act, the Congressional Research Service has calculated that overall, the nationwide work participation rate for States increases from a national average of 29 percent--without waivers--to 41 percent under our PRIDE legislation.

There are some States that have very low participation rates. I have included a number of provisions specifically intended to help those States. Additionally, I am willing to work with Members representing those States on measures we can take to assist those States in making improvements in the way services are delivered and clients being engaged in those States.

When we talk about the work hours as they relate to the PRIDE bill, I think it is important to bear in mind that the significant hour is not whether it is 34 or 40 or 37, but the significant number of hours is 20 because that is where the partial credit begins.

Additionally, when we talk about the hours in the work requirement, the important hour again is not 30 or 40, but the important hour is 24 because that is the threshold for core work activities.

Once a client meets the 24-hour threshold for core work activities, States can count unlimited education, counseling, job search, or other barrier-removal activities toward the State's participation rate.

So then, we go back to Sara, the young mother to whom I previously referred, who, under current law--even though she was working 24 hours, and in counseling, and even looking for another job--did not count at all toward a State's participation rate and, consequently, would not get much attention from that State--the attention that is needed to improve people's economic growth.

Under the legislation before the Senate this year, as opposed to what current law has been since 1996, Sara would have up to 6 months allowed in barrier-removal activities, including domestic violence counseling and substance abuse counseling, that counts toward this State's participation rate, meeting the requirements of Federal law.

Once the 6 months are up, she has an additional 12 months that she can spend in education and training.

Once those 12 months are up, if she works for 24 hours a week, spends an hour a day, 5 days a week, in domestic-abuse counseling, and looks for a better job for an hour a day, 5 days a week, she then has reached the point where she counts as one family, where the State recognizes her as a very significant individual, where the State, by paying attention to her, is going to get some credit. In other words, under the legislation now before the Senate, Sara does count; whereas, under current law, Sara does not count.

During the past 3 years of debate on the issue of welfare reform, I have heard a number of different perspectives on the best approach to take for the next phase of welfare reform.

Some have argued the way to go is to increase the time that adults receiving assistance spend engaged in meaningful work activity. The correlation between full-time work and increased earnings is compelling.

Some have suggested that increasing the amount of time allowed for education and training is more important than increasing the time spent working. The correlation between increased education and increased earnings, of course, is compelling as well.

Others believe that encouraging marriage and reducing out-of-wedlock births would net the best result.

Still others have suggested that increasing State flexibility should be an integral part of any reform effort.

I firmly believe that when it comes to welfare reform, there is, in fact, no such thing as ``one size fits all.'' While education may be the best approach for some, it may not be for others. Encouraging healthy family formation may be just what one family needs, but perhaps that approach would not be in the best interest of another family under different circumstances.

The PRIDE bill takes a blended approach to welfare reform and strives to find balance among all these perspectives.

The legislation before the Senate increases the emphasis on work and work-readiness activities, as well as increasing the flexibility for States to engage adults in education and training activities. The PRIDE legislation also provides resources to encourage States to develop innovative family formation programs, while making it clear that participation in those programs must be voluntary, and the program must be developed with domestic violence professionals.

I have a chart speaking to the factors that influence poverty rates. This approach is consistent with the latest research; in other words, the approach of flexibility--``one size fits all'' not working.

We have a recent policy brief that was released by the Brookings Institution, and it was drafted by Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill. It is entitled ``Work and Marriage: The Way to End Poverty and Welfare.'' The authors, using Census data and simple modeling, simulate

the effects of various factors on the poverty rate for families with children.

The poverty rate for families with children, in 2001, was 13 percent. Now, surely, everyone agrees that a central purpose of welfare reform is the reduction of poverty. As this chart clearly shows, the least effective factor in reducing poverty was to double a family's welfare benefit. The most effective single way to reduce poverty was to work full time. Indeed, according to these authors of the Brookings Institute policy brief:

[F]ull-time work eliminates almost half of the poverty

experienced by families with children.

However, the most effective approach to reducing poverty was a combination of work, marriage, education, and family-size reduction.

As colleagues can see from this chart, when the blended approach is adopted, poverty is reduced a staggering 9.3 percent, going from 13 percent down to 3.7 percent.

I find these numbers to be quite compelling. I am pleased that they reinforce the approach taken in this legislation before the Senate.

I know there are colleagues who have many thoughts on these pieces of legislation, and we are going to have a very lively debate.

Amendment No. 2937

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, and ask for its consideration.

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

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I don't think we have any objection to that. The only speaker I had on this side who wanted to speak was the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. He wanted to speak for a little while on the amendment of the Senator from Maine. Other than that, I don't have any requests on this side.

I object.

I object.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President--and I will object--I want to take advantage of this opportunity to say that there are a lot of very important pieces of legislation that we have before this body that are bipartisan that need to be passed.

Two weeks ago, we had a bill dealing with outsourcing and the efforts to create manufacturing jobs in America by giving a tax advantage to manufacturers that manufacture here. It is a bipartisan bill, voted out of the Senate Finance Committee with only two dissenting votes, and those were Republican votes. So, overwhelmingly, people on the other side of the aisle know that bill has to pass.

But time after time we deal with nongermane amendments that distract from the efforts of this Senate to do things that create jobs in America and, in this particular instance, move people from welfare to work.

So I do not think it is wrong for some of us to take exception to the efforts to stall important pieces of legislation getting through this body, and that is why I object.

I object.

The Senator from North Dakota wants to speak. First, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes before the Senator from North Dakota speaks.

Mr. President, I want to respond somewhat to the Senator from Massachusetts.

First of all, I hope he understands this is a Monday--not that Monday is

not just as important as any other day of the week. But it was announced last week there would be no votes today. His amendment doesn't have anything to do with votes today, but there are a lot of Members not here who ought to have some input when a nongermane amendment comes up. So I object for the reasons of myself as well as others.

Also, you can see from the debate of the Senator from Massachusetts that he feels very strongly about the importance of that amendment which he offers on the minimum wage. There is nothing wrong with the issue of the minimum wage coming up. But for this Senator from Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, with issues I am trying to respond to in a bipartisan way, and to issues that are raised as much from the other side of the aisle as they are from this side of the aisle--I mentioned the FSC/ETI bill of 2 weeks ago. I mentioned the welfare reform bill this week. There is a bipartisan consensus--maybe I should not say consensus--there is an agreement we ought to have the legislation before the Senate and passed. In the face of FSC/ETI, it was responding as much from the other side as this side that that legislation to encourage manufacturing in the United States, to create jobs in the United States ought to pass. When it comes to a vote, it will probably pass 90-10. But the legislation was held up 2 weeks ago by people on the other side of the aisle with nongermane amendments.

Now we have welfare reform, sunset last October. We have extended it two or three times since then, so we have to continue the welfare reform programs. There is a consensus we ought to deal with this legislation and get some permanency to our welfare-to-work legislation. What happened? Right out of the box, people from the other side of the aisle--legitimate issues or not--are trying to stop legislation immediately in its tracks that will pass this body by a very wide margin. Have they ever thought maybe some of these pieces of legislation ought to stand on their own rather than hooking them onto bills unrelated to theirs?

I don't object to the issue of increasing the minimum wage. What I object to is the constant harassment on the part of people on the other side of the aisle to keeping legislation from moving along very quickly that everybody knows needs to pass. This is just not Republican pieces of legislation dealing with welfare reform. It is just not Republican legislation dealing with encouraging manufacturing and creating jobs in manufacturing in America. These pieces of legislation are doing what the Senate ought to be doing to get things done, working in a bipartisan way.

If you work in a bipartisan way to bring legislation to the floor of the Senate, why is the other side of the aisle always trying to slow down that legislation? It seems to me that is what we are dealing with. There are times to deal with pieces of legislation, but not in this way, harassing all the time.

I yield the floor.

I have two unanimous consent requests. The first one deals with tomorrow's business and a vote on the Snowe amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to Snowe amendment No. 2937 regarding childcare occur at 12:15 on Tuesday March 30, provided further that no second degrees be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, with Senator Carper to be recognized for up to 10 minutes prior to the vote, and that the time be counted against any Democrat- controlled time.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, am I right that we are in morning business?

Mr. President, since the tragic events of September 11, we have all strived mightily to ensure that our great homeland is never subjected to a terrorist attack by the evildoers again. But everyday those very evildoers weaken the fabric of our country, their enemy, by flooding our great society with addictive and deadly drugs. While the link between terrorists and drugs has been made countless times publically, we, as a Nation, have yet to attack the problem with an approach that is consistent and successful.

On March 13, 2002, Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, and Francis Taylor, Ambassador- at-large for Counterterrorism, made the points in joint testimony prepared for a hearing on ``Narco-Terror: The Worldwide Connection Between Drugs and Terror'' held by the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information. Taylor, who delivered the opening testimony, told us that ``relations between drug traffickers and terrorists benefit both.''

``Drug traffickers benefit from the terrorists' military skills, weapons supply, and access to clandestine organizations. Terrorists gain a source of revenue and expertise in illicit transfer and laundering of proceeds from illicit transactions,'' he said.

Taylor listed terrorist groups with known links to drug trafficking around the world--from the South American nations of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay to Afghanistan, which, he said, accounts for more than 70 percent of the world's supply of opiates.

Mr. President, we know that 12 of the 25 major terror organizations identified by the State Department in 2002 have ties to drug traffickers and we know that drugs are a major source of funding for these terrorist groups. We know these groups sometimes work as conspirators to carry out their evil purposes.

The Lebanese Hezbollah group is increasingly involved in drug trafficking and terrorist organizations in Europe and Southeast Asia also are tied to illicit drugs.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, commonly known as the FARC, protects cocaine laboratories and clandestine airstrips in southern Colombia and some FARC units directly control local cocaine base markets.

As evidence that terrorist groups cooperate and work together, the Colombian National Police arrested three members of the IRA in July, 2001, who are believed to have used the demilitarized zone to train the FARC in the use of explosives.

While we know these connections, we have not taken full advantage of the vast resources and knowledge available to exploit this connection. The link between terrorism and drug trafficking that may take many forms, ranging from facilitation--protection, transportation, and taxation--to direct trafficking by the terrorist organization itself in order to finance its activities. Traffickers and terrorists have many of the same needs in terms of the secret movement of goods, people and money.

There are no swans in the sewer, and the relationships between drug traffickers and terrorists benefit both. As Mr. Beers stated, ``Drug traffickers benefit from the terrorists' military skills, weapons supply, and access to clandestine organizations. Terrorists gain a source of revenue and expertise [from drug traffickers] in illicit transfer and laundering of proceeds from illicit transactions.'' Corrupt officials who are influenced by the dirty money of the narco- terrorists make it easier for the groups to get access to fraudulent documents, including passports and travel documents. This allows the terrorists to travel abroad under the stealth and protection of a shadowy network that is virtually undetectable.

Terrorists and drug traffickers also use the same methods to hide their illegal profits and conduct fundraising to feed their evil plans. The schemes used by the terrorists for the transferring and laundering of drug money for general criminal purposes are similar to those used to move money to support terrorist activities. The use of ``charities'' and informal networks such as ``hawalas'' are easy and efficient ways to launder money.

Yet these are the only methods we know about. Congress is in the process

of crafting a budget for the 2005 fiscal year. We have some tough choices ahead of us. But as we move forward, I would urge my colleagues to keep in mind the lessons we have learned in our efforts to go after drug trafficking organizations.

First, to be successful, we need the assistance of other nations. Though many countries have been quick to update their regulations, few have the law enforcement structure in place to carry out interdiction. Law enforcement capabilities must improve globally. In addition, communication between law enforcement agencies nationally and internationally, must become seamless in order to rapidly and effectively identify, target and eradicate terrorists and their drug trafficking brothers before they eradicate us.

Second, our various law enforcement efforts within the United States must be coordinated. As our efforts to catch drug traffickers have taught us, no one agency has all of the tools, information, resources or skills to get the job done alone. Encouraging interagency cooperation, then, must be a priority.

And third, the efforts made at the State and local level to go after drug traffickers are also an important piece of our war on terror. We cannot, should not, and must not, overlook the efforts and expertise of our State and local law enforcement officers. They know best what's going on in their communities and often have the best, most effective approach to stem the flow of crime within their borders.

I will say more about the links between drug trafficking and terrorism in the future. But the connection is there and should not be ignored. Whether we discuss the financing or smuggling by terrorists, document fraud or corruption by drug traffickers, the sewer where the individuals bent on these activities dwell needs to be cleaned up. Let's not overlook the other filth in the water just because the sewer rat floats by.

Mr. President, I think we have a bubbling stew pot of trouble brewing in Afghanistan, and we need to take stronger action action requested by President Karzai, by the way--soon, or much of our effort to root out lawlessness in Afghanistan may be undercut.

What am I talking about? Narcotics--particularly about the significant increase in opium production and trafficking in Afghanistan. I am not challenging the significant progress which has been made in the past 2 years. Removing the Taliban and preparing the groundwork for a democratically elected government is no small feat. Working with our allies, we have gathered all of the right ingredients together to build a new Afghanistan that will benefit everyone-- particularly the people of Afghanistan. But the outcome is far from certain, and it doesn't seem as if we are paying enough attention to the danger signs.

According to the latest International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released by the State Department at the beginning of this month, Afghanistan had the potential to produce 2,865 metric tons of opium in 2003. This represents almost two-thirds of the total potential opium production in the world. We know the havoc that drug use creates in a society. We know the corruption that drug trafficking encourages whereever it occurs. Experience has shown us that ignoring drug production and trafficking has only made things worse. These factors alone should be a reason for concern.

We should also be concerned about who is profiting from this resurgence. The difference between what the Afghan farmer is getting and what an eightball of heroin is worth on the streets of Paris is astronomical. And I am certain those reaping this enormous profit are not the same individuals who support the Karzai government, or who are happy to see coalition troops there.

The profits and instability that follow drug production wherever it occurs should be raising alarms for everyone involved. What is most worrisome, however, is we have seen these ingredients thrown together before, in Colombia. We can go down that same road, or we can take action now, before events boil over into chaos.

Earlier this week I spoke on this floor about the connections between drug trafficking and terrorism. The clearest nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism is in Colombia, where there are three major terrorist organizations using drugs to fund their efforts to overthrow the government.

The State Department has designated these three groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, the National Liberation Army, ELN, and the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia, AUC, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. But these terrorist organizations began with more ideological roots, and more localized objectives.

Together, these three terrorist organizations have killed thousands of innocents. Three American civilians are currently being held hostage by the FARC, and have not been allowed any contact with the outside world for over a year.

For nearly 40 years the FARC have been pressing a pro-Marxist ideology. Similarly, the ELN held a more Maoist philosophy, but also strove for the same revolutionary objective. Initially these efforts were supported by donations from both the Soviet Union and Cuba. But that support ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.

While not as old, the AUC began as a series of para-military groups initially funded by the wealthy landlords in Colombia. These groups, initially endorsed by the government, were created because the government was unable to protect these rural landlords from attacks by the guerrillas.

But the end of the cold war did not mean an end to the guerrilla activities in Colombia. Instead, all three of these organizations were able to turn to the narcotics trade for funding. Because of this, their membership and the violence associated with each of these organizations has increased dramatically. It is now estimated that these groups receive a significant portion of their operating revenues from narcotics.

With that move, much of the ideology and even the pretense of being a guerrilla group disappeared as well. At first, they just provided security and other support to the drug lords and were paid for their services. But that was not enough.

Today we know that both the AUC and the FARC fight each other for access to the best smuggling routes into and out of Colombia. They fight the government to protect their drug production and transportation networks. They have also begun reaching out to foreign terrorist organizations as well, using narcotics as currency in exchange for guns and training.

Until recently, these terrorist organizations were able to move freely throughout a significant portion of rural Colombia, forcing the displacement of millions of Colombians as they battled the government and each other over drugs and politics. Only after coming to the conclusion that both drug trafficking and terrorism must be addressed equally has there been progress in restoring the control of Colombia to the legitimate government.

Fast forward to Afghanistan. Like the FARC, there are groups within Afghanistan, primarily operating in the remote areas of the country, who for ideological reasons would like to overthrow the government. The Taliban is perhaps the best known, but there are others as well. Numerous warlords also operate throughout the countryside, some whom have even had the blessing of the government.

The Taliban, like the FARC after the fall of the Soviet Union, need to secure an alternative means of financing their operations if they are to survive. Our success in choking off their traditional funding sources has created this necessity. Opium--like coca for the FARC--is an easy, local, and available opportunity to do exactly that, and will not be a new source of revenue for the Taliban. While the Taliban banned opium production for a period of time when they controlled Afghanistan, they also taxed the trafficking and resulting profits from the sale of stored opium after the ban.

Add to this equation some of the many warlords that control various areas of Afghanistan. Some of these warlords even worked with coalition forces to oust the Taliban. But most have no intention of surrendering any

of their power or authority to the central government in Kabul, preferring to fight for their own fiefdoms.

They have no interest in enforcing edicts from Kabul, or in taking any action that might give the central government additional legitimacy. Profits from opium production and trafficking are a key method for continuing to fund their war clan.

These efforts are not as blatant or as well organized as what we have in Colombia today, but the ingredients are there. It is time we start connecting the dots.

Today, several thousand U.S. and coalition soldiers are hunting down terrorists. These terrorists are receiving physical and financial support from somewhere. Meanwhile, the Karzai government is working furiously to establish the police, judicial, and military systems necessary to ensure that the people of Afghanistan can equitably govern themselves. But they must overcome the chaos created by 20 years of occupation and civil war. The last thing that they need is a well funded rebellion in their backyard.

The Karzai government recognizes the dangers posed by bumper crops of opium. They know the profits being generated by this drug production go not to the Afghani people, but to the few powerful enough to move the opium out of Afghanistan. These drug traffickers flourish in the same kind of lawless environment where terrorists train.

We need to start connecting the dots. We cannot continue to separate terrorism and narco-trafficking. I fear that if the United States narcotics policy in Afghanistan does not catch up to that of the Karzai government, we will be facing the same mess that we are working to clean up in Colombia. We have watched this pot before. We need to begin looking at our options now, before it boils over and we have a real mess.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the new prescription drug bill, a bill that is going to benefit senior citizens starting June 1 of this year on a temporary basis, and then in a permanent program to benefit senior citizens starting November 15, 2005. If somebody wonders why a temporary program, why a permanent program, when we passed the first changes in Medicare in 38 years, very dramatic changes, by adding prescription drugs to the Medicare bill, we asked the people in the Department of Health and Human Services administering this new law how long it would take to put this new expansion and modernization and strengthening of Medicare into operation. They said they needed about 18 months to 2 years, probably about 6 months longer than it took to get the original Medicare bill in place after its passage in 1965. We didn't want seniors to have to wait 18 months to 2 years to get some money from it, so there is a temporary program of the drug card that will save seniors 25 percent on drugs, and also the subsidy for low-income American seniors and disabled who are under $12,000-a-year income--a $600 subsidy for that. So we have a new prescription drug program.

This was a relatively close vote on the floor of the Senate. I think about 10 or 12 votes separated those of us for it and those of us against it. We have had colleagues who have opposed this bill continuing several attacks, and some of those as recently as today, on this bipartisan legislation that was passed into law and signed by the President on December 10, last year.

This law represents years of hard work by Republicans and Democrats alike. We had the chance to fulfill a commitment to our seniors last year. We took that opportunity and we have delivered. I am glad we did. For the first time in the history of Medicare, seniors will have a voluntary prescription drug benefit. For the first time seniors will receive, in addition to a drug benefit, a coordinated disease management program, better coverage of preventive screenings, and protection against catastrophic drug costs.

In regard to the coordinated disease management program, what we are trying to do is zero in on the 5 percent of the seniors who are responsible for 50 percent of the costs from Medicare. By zeroing in on them, we can enhance our quality of life during retirement and we can also save taxpayers some money by keeping people out of the hospital who otherwise might go immediately to the hospital if you were only concerned about getting sick people well. If you are concerned about keeping sick people from getting sicker, or keeping people from getting sick in the first place, it is always cheaper. It is always cheaper to prevent a sickness than it is to cure one. That is why we zero in on that 5 percent with coordinated disease management.

The plan we passed helps to reduce drug costs by harnessing the buying power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate lower prices, and by speeding up the entry of lower cost generic drugs into the market. I remind my colleagues who insinuated that the bill was some fly-by-night idea cooked up in some back room and passed in the dark of night that over 350 outside groups supported this law, and that includes the AARP, the Alzheimer's Association, the National Council On Aging, and 347 other organizations. Do you think that 350 organizations in America that are concerned about the welfare of our seniors and the welfare of the disabled are going to put their reputations on the line for something that was hastily put together and passed at the midnight hour? That sort of statement does not do justice to Members of this body and some who are not even Members of this body now because it started 4 or 5 years ago. People then were working on a prescription drug program for seniors.

This is something that was well thought out, well considered, compromised as necessary under the way we do business in the U.S. Congress, particularly in the Senate to accommodate bipartisanship because nothing gets done in the U.S. Senate that is not bipartisan.

Now I would like to speak directly to some of the criticisms from my colleagues about this new prescription drug program, the strengthening and improvement of Medicare that prescription drugs bring to it.

The first criticism is toward the administration because they are advertising on radio and television to the 44 million seniors and disabled of America. Probably a large percentage of them do not even know this program exists. The advertising is to tell them about the opportunities they will have under this new legislation. It is to alert them to the legislation and encourage them to get information about the legislation.

Once a senior sees this sort of advertisement, then as I am talking to the seniors, I think of them having at least four areas where they can get help, at least four areas in the State of Iowa. One is the 1- 800 Medicare number. No. 2 is the AARP and the very good booklets they put out describing this. No. 3 in my State is the Department of Insurance that administers the federally funded SHIPP program where they can get one-on-one counseling from that program. Number 4, they can go to any congressional office and get help.

What is this criticism about the administration advertising on TV? It is exactly what the law requires. Wouldn't you expect the President of the United States and the Secretary of HHS to carry out the law if we in this Congress said take X number of dollars and educate people about this legislation? I am surprised some of my colleagues would oppose providing seniors with timely and accurate and clear information about changes made in this law.

Do you know why seniors need to know? Because this is not a program Congress and the President is shoving down anybody's throat. There are three words about this program that seniors ought to remember. One is it is voluntary. Second, it is universal; anybody who wants to participate can participate. Third, it is targeted because of the limited resources we have. It is targeted toward heavy subsidy to people with incomes under 150 percent of poverty, and targeted with a heavy subsidy to those who have catastrophic drug costs. But everybody benefits. On average, seniors are going to benefit to the tune of 50- percent reduction in drug costs.

In January of this year several Democratic Members of Congress accused the administration of robbing the Medicare Program. Those are their words. Then they asked the General Accounting Office to investigate whether the ads constitute a misuse of Federal funds.

I use the General Accounting Office quite often to do investigations for me, so I don't have any problems with anybody asking the General Accounting Office to investigate anything. That is their job. They do a good job of it. But the General Accounting Office confirmed for these Democratic Members of Congress that the law mandates the Department of Health and Human Services to educate seniors, and that the ads are not political, as they were accused of being political. The General Accounting Office report makes clear that the Department has a responsibility, in fact, to inform seniors and to make sure they understand the new benefits and how they might help the seniors and disabled of America.

What information is currently available to seniors may be coming from unscrupulous sources as well, because in the February 17, 2004, New York Times there was a feature story about people going door-to-door offering what they called Medicare-approved cards though none at that point, nor maybe even at this point, have, in fact, been approved. And enrollment doesn't even begin until May. Don't you think, for consumer protection, people ought to know something about this legislation?

Again, in regard to scam artists, one Federal official said these artists are fraudulently impersonating or misrepresenting Medicare by telephone and by door-to-door visits to beneficiaries' homes. In some cases, a caller obtained personal information about beneficiaries before even visiting their homes.

These ads are not propaganda as confirmed by the GAO. They fill an important void that not only educates American seniors but will also prevent criminals and scammers from taking advantage of and potentially harming America's seniors and disabled.

Educating our seniors on the new Medicare Drug Modernization Act is

not only required by law, it is the right thing to do.

If I could refer to another criticism of this legislation or maybe something that happened since the legislation, these accusations we have heard, that the so-called true cost of the Medicare bill was somehow hidden from Congress before the final vote, is simply political election year hyperbole.

The opponents of the drug benefit are making this claim because the final cost estimate from the Center for Medicare Services, Office of the Actuary, was not completed before the vote took place.

Let us be very clear. The cost estimate was not withheld from Congress because there was not any final cost estimate from the Center for Medicare Services to withhold in the first place. Their cost estimate wasn't even completed until December 23. That was 2 weeks after the President signed the bill, and a month after Congress passed it.

So let us again be clear. We did not have from the Center for Medicare Services the official cost estimate on the Medicare bill before the vote because the bill had to be passed before they were going to come to a final figure. But we did have what Congress uses and the only figure we use in official estimates of anything. We had Medicare bill estimates from the Congressional Budget Office before we voted. And that is what Congress goes by.

Even if we had had the Center for Medicare Services with some figure out there, that may have meant something to some people but there could not have been a point of order made on some estimate of the Center for Medicare Services because the only point of order is if it is contrary to the Budget Act. The Congressional Budget Office makes that determination.

Around Congress, the Congressional Budget Office is God. Even if they are wrong, they are still God. They are the basis for determining whether a supermajority has to be required to move to legislation. If you violate the Budget Act and exceed the estimate of the cost, then you have to have a supermajority. We only go by the Congressional Budget Office.

I happen to believe, as some people have criticized, maybe some Government official was muzzled not to communicate with Congress on something they believed. I happen to believe that no Government official should ever be muzzled from providing critical information to Congress. If that happened last year, that was wrong.

These accusations about whether the 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 the Actuary is perhaps helpful, it is not the cost analysis that Congress relies on, and it is not the one that Members make points of order against because we rely exclusively upon cost estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. It is CBO's cost estimate that we use to determine whether legislation is within authorized budget limits. For Congress, if there is a true cost estimate, it happens to be from the Congressional Budget Office. We had a true cost estimate from them. It is the only one that matters.

When Congress approved a $400 billion reserve fund to create a Medicare prescription drug program, this meant $400 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office, not $400 billion according to the Center for Medicare Services.

With all due respect to the dedicated staff who work at the Center for Medicare Services, Office of the Actuary, their cost estimates are irrelevant to our process of legislating, except to the extent to which a Member might want to have that as a factor. But it surely isn't going to govern what a majority of this body does.

The Congressional Budget Office worked closely with the conferees, and the staff, on the prescription drug bill to ensure that a full analysis of projected costs was completed. The conferees and staff regularly and constantly consulted with the Congressional Budget Office throughout the development of the Senate bill, and also through the 3 months of arriving at a conference committee compromise between the House and the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office had to work nearly around the clock and on weekends for a month to do a complete, thorough, and rigorous cost analysis on the prescription drug bill. That official cost estimate was available to every Member of Congress before the measure was presented to the House or the Senate for a vote.

It is also pretty disingenuous for the opponents of the Medicare bill on the other side of the aisle to suggest that the pricetag for the Medicare bill causes them concern. The fact is, they have supported proposals that cost hundreds of billions of dollars more. Don't complain to me about a bill costing $359 billion, or maybe it was CMS coming up with a larger number when in the first place those individuals are supporting bills that cost $600 billion or $800 billion--or in the other body.

Last year, the Democratic proposal over there would have cost nearly $1 trillion, $605 billion more than our bill. In fact, as to the Senate Democratic proposal in 2002, when we had the debate on the tripartisan bill, when we had the debate on bills on that side of the aisle, we didn't pass them. But we had a long debate that summer. That Senate Democrat proposal was $200 billion more than the bill we enacted into law this year. Further, there were more than 50 amendments offered on the floor of the Senate during the debate on this Senate bill that would have increased the cost of the bill by tens of billions of dollars. Then people are complaining about $395 billion, or people are complaining about the cost estimate by the Center for Medicare Services, which is higher.

The bottom line is there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we had a true cost estimate for the prescription drug bill last year, and everyone had access to it before the vote. That source was our congressional God, the Congressional Budget Office.

The impact on the Medicare trust fund is something also that needs to be addressed. I will speak about that a little bit. The trustees' report revealed yesterday the Medicare trust fund insolvency date has been moved up 7 years, to the year 2019. Most of the change is due to higher health care costs, changes in the economy, better data analysis and projection, and improved data on the health of beneficiaries.

In the Medicare bill we just passed, we put money in there for enhanced quality care, particularly in rural America. Thirty States are below the national average of reimbursement. We gathered together in this Senate to pass overwhelmingly a bill to give equal treatment to rural areas that we give to urban areas on reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. That is responsible for 2 of the 7 years that Medicare is closer to insolvency than last year based upon the trustees' estimate.

We all have to admit we have concern about the future solvency of Medicare. We have to stay focused on improving and protecting Medicare for future generations. We have to do this while not jeopardizing access to care.

Another topic discussed this morning was the prohibition on negotiating. There is a paragraph in the bill that says the Federal Government cannot be involved in the negotiation for drugs. That was put there for a specific purpose. We want to keep the Federal bureaucrat out of the medicine cabinet. We learned our lesson from the VA. I will give a personal experience I had in the last month. I have been holding several town meetings since the first of the year in my State to help seniors understand this prescription drug program they have to make some choices on. Since the first of the year, I have held meetings in 32 different counties. In Des Moines, IA, the first question I had after my presentation was from a woman who said her doctor said she ought to have such and such a pill, but the Veterans' Administration was not going to pay for it. Why? Because it probably cost more than some other drug VA thinks is just as good. But the doctor does not think it is just as good.

We could have the same thing happening if the Federal Government is going to negotiate for all seniors. We do not need to have that. Our bill provides every therapeutic class have one of a kind available of every drug that is known to meet that need. We want the doctor and the patient to have access.

We want to keep the Federal Government out of the senior citizen's medicine cabinet.

Let me go into detail why we have it this way. First of all, the accusation is this legislation prohibits negotiation with drug companies. We have learned from 40 years of Federal employee health benefit plan about plans negotiating with drug companies and other health care providers to bring down costs. It has worked very well. We have different plans seniors can join to decide what kind of service they want. Then the plans are going to negotiate the drugs down. It has worked before. It can work now. It will work now. In fact, this is the only thing in the bill the Congressional Budget Office said was going to bring down the costs of the program. If the Government did it directly, it was going to cost more. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said.

We are going to have negotiation with drug companies. This accusation could not be further from the truth. The truth is the Medicare prescription drug plans will be negotiating directly with drug makers. These negotiations are at the heart of the new Medicare drug benefit. The absurd claim the Government will not be negotiating with drug makers comes from the noninterference clause in the Medicare bill. This clause did not prohibit Medicare from negotiating with drug makers. It prohibits the Center for Medicare Services from interfering in those negotiations.

Let me be clear. The noninterference clause is at the heart of the bill's structure for delivering prescription drug coverage to seniors and disabled. This clause ensures those savings will result from market competition rather than through price fixing by the Center for Medicare Services bureaucracy.

This same noninterference clause was in the Daschle-Kennedy- Rockefeller bill and the Gephardt-Dingell-Stark bill in 2000. It is almost identical to the noninterference clause in the Gephardt-Dingell- Stark bill and the Medicare Modernization Act which was signed into law.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded the market-based approach in the new Medicare bill will result in higher prescription drug costs management factor for Medicare than any other approach being considered last year by the Congress.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office said about eliminating the noninterference clause in a letter earlier this year:

The Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that

further reduce federal spending to a significant degree.

The Congressional Budget Office said in the letter:

CBO estimates substantial savings will be obtained by

private plans.

Let me be clear. Direct government negotiation is not the answer. We ran into that with the VA, the VA bureaucrats getting in the medicine cabinet of the veterans of America. The Government does not negotiate drug prices. The Government sets prices. The bill's entire approach is to get seniors the best deal through vigorous market competition, not through price controls.

Even the Washington Post editorial page wrote on February 17:

Governments are notoriously bad at setting prices, and the

U.S. government is notoriously bad at setting prices in the

medical realm.

Price controls won't work, whether we are talking about all drugs or just so-called single-source drugs, as one of our colleagues from Oregon has proposed.

The Congressional Budget Office said such a proposal would ``generate no savings or even increase Federal costs.''

It would seem, then, the devil is in the details.

We did not rely on the Center for Medicare Services for price fixing but instead created a new drug benefit that relies on strong market competition and creates consumer choices. This approach has been analyzed by experts as getting the best deal for seniors on lower drug prices.

To sum up, it is an election year and plenty of people are using Medicare to play politics. The new Medicare law is a bipartisan proposal that resulted from years of work by both Republicans and Democrats. The new law creates a volunteer benefit that is targeted to low-income seniors and those with high drug costs. The new law lowers drug costs by speeding the delivery of new generic drugs to the marketplace, lowering costs to all Americans, not just those on Medicare. The new law also revitalizes the rural health care safety net with the biggest package of rural payment improvements in the history of the program. The AARP has made that clear when providing its strong endorsement that the Medicare bill ``helps millions of older Americans and their families'' and is ``an important milestone in the Nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens . . . ''

I yield the floor.

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, as the first order of business, I withdraw the pending amendment No. 2899.

On behalf of Senator Hutchison, I call up amendment No. 2888.

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

I ask the Senator from Texas to answer the question of the Senator from Nevada, if she would, please.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, the Senator has asked to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, I send a further amendment to the desk. This amendment is the same as what I previously had withdrawn.

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

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

I want to make very clear that the vote that is coming up, that we call cloture, is an effort to reach finality on this legislation. We won't be able to do it otherwise. So I think it is a very important vote, particularly considering the fact that Europe has put a 5-percent tariff on a lot of agricultural and manufacturing and timber products. We need to think in terms of a 5-percent tariff making a very uneven playing field for American manufacturing

and agriculture, if we are going to do business with Europe.

I hope each person in the Senate will think of the products they might export to Europe, the extent to which those products now have, already, a 5-percent tariff. Then there is going to be a 1-percent tariff added each succeeding month, up to 17 percent. Think in terms of our inability to export to Europe those products.

I have in front of me several pages of items that they have already legally put these tariffs on because we lost the World Trade Organization decision. And pretty soon, when you keep getting a percent added every month, there is going to be a lot of layoffs in these industries because they can't compete.

I already met with a group at 9 o'clock this morning that told me with the 5-percent tariff on their products, they are unable to make sales in Europe. That happened to come from the timber and paper industry. I can say that.

This legislation, if we pass it, will not only take care of the problem of the tariffs being put on, they will go away when we pass this legislation. So there is no more sanctions, no more penalizing tariffs against American products. Not only that, but we are going to reduce the taxation of manufacturing that is done in the United States by American workers. We are going to reduce the corporate tax on manufacturing here. American corporations that manufacture overseas will not get the benefit from it. Foreign corporations that come to America to set up plants hiring American workers will get the benefit of the lower rate of taxation. So this is tilted very much toward the preservation of jobs.

I remind people on the other side of the aisle who have been legitimately wondering when jobs are going to start being created in a very healthy economic climate of 5-percent growth and only .5- and .6- percent unemployment, we are all concerned about that--very healthy recovery, but particularly in manufacturing, not jobs being created the way they would normally happen. This is the opportunity for any Members of the Senate who are concerned about that to help us get cloture and pass this bill so we preserve jobs in manufacturing and we create jobs in manufacturing by emphasizing made in America.

I yield the floor.

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

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

There are over 500 products on this list. There are 500 products on this list on which we know there are sanctions and tariffs from Europe, which will make our products uncompetitive. I thought I would list a few of these and the States these products come from so Senators will know they are voting against jobs in their own States by this process of European sanctions:

Precious stones and metals would be affected in New York, New Jersey, Utah; nuclear reactors and boilers, California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan; toys, games, and sports equipment, California, New York, and Wisconsin; electric machinery, California, Massachusetts, Texas; wood products, Minnesota, California, Georgia, Pennsylvania; wood industry residues and animal feed, Louisiana, Florida, Illinois; aluminum, New York, Ohio, Georgia, California; iron and steel, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California; glass and glassware, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey; leather art, saddlery, handbags, California, New York, Texas; tools, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania; paper, paperboard, and articles, Georgia, South Carolina, Massachusetts; articles of iron and steel, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania; apparel that is not knit, California, New York, New Jersey; meat and edible meat, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota; copper, Illinois, Pennsylvania, California; animal or vegetable fats, New York, Texas, California, Louisiana; edible vegetables, California, Washington, Oregon; apparel, knit or crochet, California, New York, North Carolina; oilseeds and grain, California, New York, Oregon; textile art and needlecraft, New York, Illinois, and California; ceramic products, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois; footwear, gaiters, California, Massachusetts, New York; carpets, Georgia, New York, South Carolina; cereal, flour, starch, or milk, California, New York, Illinois; soap, waxes, polish, candles, Ohio, Massachusetts, California; edible fruit and nuts, California, Florida, Washington; products of animal origin, New York, California, Pennsylvania.

We can go on and on because there are more that I could give. For one, I hope that every Senator realizes this 5-percent tariff is going to go up 1 percent a month for the next 12 months, adding up to a 17- percent tariff. The extent to which these products are hurt by that 5- percent tariff each month we wait to get this legislation passed, it is going to place more of a burden on American industry, lose more American jobs, and lose an opportunity to create jobs, which this legislation does.

I also remind some Members that have asked us to put provisions in this bill, if they vote against cloture, they are voting against these provisions. There is a new homestead provision for

rural development providing special assistance for businesses in counties losing population. There is a provision that allows payment under the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program to exempt that payment from taxation.

We have provisions in this bill to clean up brownfields.

We have provisions in this bill for mortgage revenue bonds.

There are 70 Senate cosponsors of this bill.

We allow deductions for private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a new home.

We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone bonds for the rebuilding of New York City.

We also included $100 million in tax credits to be used on rail infrastructure projects within the New York Liberty Zone.

We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure.

We have some provisions in this bill for Native Americans.

These are provisions Members have asked us to accommodate them on in this legislation. Is it worth killing off these important priorities by voting against cloture, not letting us get to finality, not letting us make American industry more competitive, which obviously is going to create jobs, about which we heard so much concern on the part of Members of this body, that we have a healthy recovery of 5-percent growth, only 5.6-percent unemployment, which, historically, is very low unemployment, but still not enough jobs being created?

The situation is going to get worse if we do not pass this legislation.

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

I withhold that request. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

OK. I yield it all to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, earlier today in my floor speech concerning the products on the European Union sanction list, I offered to put this sanction list in the Congressional Record. However, the complete list is over 300 pages and would be too costly to reproduce fully. Nevertheless, the complete list and description can be found on the Senate Finance Com- mittee's website, at www.finance.senate.gov.

Mr. President, I wish to correct the record with respect to some comments made by my friend and colleague, Senator Harkin.

Senator Harkin said that the managers' package was non-germane

amendments. All of the amendments were tax relief measures that were requested by Members on both sides of the aisle.

The bill before us is a tax relief bill. It deals with a tax incentive designed to help our exporters. This bill deals with tax relief for domestic manufacturers and international tax reform.

The sum and substance of this bill is about tax relief. The managers' package is about bipartisan tax relief. It is germane to this bill.

The amendment of my friend from Iowa is a labor law matter. It is not in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.

Madam President, I know the Senator from Wyoming wants to speak. I will not give a long speech at this point on the vote that just occurred. I wish to take a second to respond to the partisanship aspect of this debate. I cannot speak for anybody but this Senator.

It would be one thing if the overtime amendment were the only one that we had to deal with, but we have seen lists, I think, of up to maybe 10 nongermane amendments that may have been potentially part of this debate. So you can understand, there may be 10 legitimate issues that are nongermane to this debate which ought to be discussed on the Senate floor, as per the right of every Senator, as expressed by the Senator from Nevada; but they don't all have to be discussed on this very important bill before the Senate.

This is a very important bipartisan bill before the Senate. It is one thing to deal with an overtime amendment; it is quite another thing to deal with an environment in which the minority may be expecting us to deal with vast numbers of nongermane amendments. That is very difficult and it is that sort of environment which brings about a cloture vote.

As my friend from Montana has stated, I hope we do get this behind us. The germane amendments will take very little time and we can then move past this bill. This bill will pass overwhelmingly when we get it up for a vote.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, prior to our cloture vote on the FSC/ETI bill, I read a list of some products that, if they are going to be shipped out of the United States and exported to Europe, are going to have, right now, a 5-percent tariff added to them because of European retaliation against the United States because we have not passed this legislation yet. That is going to cause jobs to be lost. That tariff is going to go up, over the course of the next 12 months, 1 percent every month, to 17 percent.

I will be a little bit more specific in how some of those products and the manufacturers of those products, or the producers of those products, will be affected.

In jewelry manufacturing, we would have $2 billion in annual exports being jeopardized. Ninety-five percent of jewelry manufacturers are small businesses, so obviously it would have a huge potential impact on jobs. Folks such as Stamper Black Hills Gold in South Dakota are targeted, as one example of jewelry manufacturing.

Racehorses: The average value of U.S. exports of racehorses is about $100,000. At 5 percent, that is an extra $5,000 cost to our exports. By the end of the year, it will be an extra $14,000 on average. For high- value horses, it will be several times more. These sanctions would impact States such as New York, California, Florida, and Maryland. In the area of dairy, we will have sanctions on cheese exports impacting States such as Wisconsin, Vermont; fruits and vegetables, California; citrus fruits, peppers, Florida, and tomatoes, as an example.

I could go on and on, but I will include for the Record a list beyond what I have just referred to. We have over 500 items that have been targeted already with sanctions on them. I ask unanimous consent to print that information in the Record.

We just had a cloture vote on the bill. I have spoken before about that not being my preferred route for moving a strongly bipartisan bill, but leadership decided to do it. Obviously, I want to get to finality, so I voted to close debate and move on.

The JOBS bill is a bill to create manufacturing jobs. It should not have required a cloture vote to get it passed. But politics have stepped in the way, and that seems to be the rule of the day.

I wanted to act on this bill last year because I was fearful that elections this year and the politics connected thereto would get in the way of the Senate's ability to do its job. It looks as though I may have been right after all. The procedural shenanigans when we first brought up the bill confirmed my worst fears. Senator Baucus and I had an agreed order of amendments that would have improved the bill and brought important relevant issues forward. Many of those issues included in this amendment by Senator Baucus and I were at the request of a lot of people who voted against cloture.

The agreement we had was undermined by the Democratic leadership. They would prefer to turn a bipartisan bill into a political football. That is inexcusable because we have worked hard throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns, Republican and Democrat, were incorporated in the bill.

You should not play political games with a bipartisan bill that preserves the jobs of manufacturing workers across the land, and probably greatly increases the number of manufacturing jobs.

I would like to repeat points I made yesterday about the bipartisan aspects of this legislation. The construction of the JOBS bill began when Senator Baucus was chairman of the Finance Committee. He held a hearing in July 2002 to address the FSC/ETI controversy within the World Trade Organization. We heard vital testimony from a cross-section of the industries that would be adversely affected by repeal of the Extraterritorial Income Act. We also heard from U.S. companies that were clamoring for international tax reform because our tax rules were hurting their competitiveness in foreign markets. Their foreign competitors were running circles around them because of our international tax rules. That is what we were told during the hearing.

Also during the hearing, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Hatch expressed concerns about how our international tax laws were impairing the competitiveness of U.S. industry.

In response, at that particular time, still in 2002, Senator Baucus formed an international tax working group with Senator Graham, Senator Hatch, and this Senator. It was open also to any other member of the Finance Committee who wanted to serve and had an interest in this issue. This bipartisan Finance Committee working group formed the basis for the bill that is now before us. We directed our staff to engage in an exhaustive analysis of international reform proposals to glean the very best ideas from many different sources, and as many as possible. Senator Baucus and I also formed a bipartisan, bicameral working group with the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee in an effort to find some common ground on dealing with repeal of the Foreign Sales Corporation extraterritorial income language in our law that had been declared contrary to our international treaty obligations.

After that effort failed, working with the Ways and Means Committee, Senator Baucus and I continued to work with our Finance Committee colleagues on bipartisan development of the repeal of that language and also to expand and improve the international tax reform package. We continued our bipartisan efforts when I became chairman last year.

In July 2003, following on the impetus of the Baucus hearings, we held two additional hearings on FSC/ETI and the international reform issue. These two hearings concluded our final bipartisan effort in reviewing all of the policy options for creating the bill now pending before the Senate. Let me emphasize that there is not one provision in this JOBS bill that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. We have acted in the best faith to produce a bill that protects American manufacturing jobs and makes our companies globally competitive. And we did this in a fully bipartisan manner, which is what the American people expect us to do on such an important issue as manufacturing jobs and our Nation's economic health and also because, quite frankly, nothing gets done

in the Senate that does not have a bipartisan approach.

But these efforts toward bipartisanship and all the other efforts that went into it do not seem to be enough for some. I believe some people don't want this bill to pass. I will bet those very same people will end up voting for it anyway, if we ever get to that point, because I don't think they can openly oppose it. That would be bad form, considering all the talk there has been in this body about outsourcing and offshore manufacturing. Instead, these people who might not want to see this bill pass would try to destroy the bipartisan product with amendments on controversial issues that are what we call ``not germane'' but are also totally unrelated to the JOBS bill.

That is why we found ourselves facing the cloture vote today. The cloture motion did not get the 60-percent supermajority. Consequently, we are in a position of limbo on this legislation.

I am speaking because I want people to reconsider their position, particularly in light of all of the products that I have read that are going to have a 5-percent tariff on them, making our manufacturing less competitive and consequently losing jobs to a greater extent. When I think about efforts, for political reasons, to destroy this bill, I can quote, at least, from a Washington Post article that quoted a Democratic tax aide as saying--and this person is not named in the article--

There's not a lot of incentive for us to figure out this

problem--

Meaning the FSC/ETI problem. This Democratic aide went on to say:

Allowing the extra-territorial income controversy to fester

would yield increased sanctions that could benefit the

Democrats in November.

Well, that is exactly what is accomplished by not getting the supermajority of 60 to stop debate and to move on. This is, in fact, festering. Now, all of this, to me, is an appalling statement, whether it comes from a Member or whether it comes from a top staffer of a Democratic Member, because this debate should be about policy, not about petty politics.

Today, Democrats said no to cloture; Republicans said yes to cloture. The Democrats are on record opposing the provisions in this bill. Some of those provisions, if we don't get beyond where we are now, will be killed because of this morning's vote. This bill will end $4 billion a year of European Union tariffs against U.S. exports. These sanctions are already being imposed against many U.S. products. I named over 500 of them. They fall into the category of grain, timber, paper, and various manufactured goods.

Those sanctions started on May 1. They increase 1 percent each month we fail to act, adding up over 12 months to 17 percent. They will be 13 percent by the end of this year. That is too politically tempting for some to let pass.

We could have ended the $4 billion in sanctions with this bill, but the Democrats said no. The Congressional Budget Office says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since the middle of the year 2000--6 months before President Bush became President--when a depression in manufacturing set in. The JOBS bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our manufacturing sector to promote rehiring in U.S.-based manufacturing. But the Democrats said no.

The Democrats claim they are worried about the scope of proposed overtime regulations--regulations that are not even out yet, not final. But how can you worry about overtime if you don't have a job in the first place? You have to have a job to earn overtime. We need to address the manufacturing job loss right now by voting for the bipartisan JOBS bill.

The JOBS bill gives a 3 percentage point tax rate cut on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States. This will not benefit manufacturing offshore. So you can see this is tilted toward encouraging manufacturing in the United States, creating jobs in the United States. This reduction in taxes starts as soon as the President signs this bill. This manufacturing rate cut applies not only to big corporations but to sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, and foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the United States and hire workers here. This should keep the Government out of their pocket while they try to recover from the economic downturn by lowering this tax and also because it is an incentive to expand production here rather than overseas. But on that vote we had about 2 hours ago, the Democrats said no.

The JOBS bill extends the research and development tax credit through the end of 2005. This credit is a domestic tax benefit that incentives research and development, translating to good, high-paying jobs for Americans here in America, not overseas. But the Democrats said no today.

There are other important provisions in this bill. The bill extends for 2 years tax provisions that expired in 2003 and 2004. This includes items such as the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. Why did the Democrats say no to these measures that are meant to help lower income people and young people get into the workforce to work their way up the economic ladder--particularly to move people off welfare into the world of work, because in the world of welfare, you are going to be in a life of poverty. If you move people over here and give them an opportunity to move up, quite frankly, they are going to be able to improve themselves, enhance their opportunities, enhance their livelihoods.

There are also in the bill enhanced depreciation provisions to help the ailing airline industry. There are new homestead provisions for rural development. These provide special assistance for businesses in counties that are losing population. It provides incentives for newly constructed rural investment buildings, for starting or expanding a rural business in a rural high outmigration county. But the Democrats said no when they voted to continue the debate rather than reach finality on this bill.

We have a provision that allows payments under the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program to be exempt from tax. This is also for rural development--again, responding to a lot of Senators who support that because they are concerned about having high quality health care in rural America.

The JOBS bill includes brownfields revitalization. The bill waives taxes for tax-exempt investors who invest in the cleanup and remediation of qualified brownfield sites.

It includes a mortgage revenue bonds provision. That proposal would repeal the current rule that mortgage revenue bond payments received after the bond has been outstanding for 10 years must be used to pay off the bond rather than issue new mortgages. There are 70 Senate cosponsors of that bill. But the Democrats said no today on the cloture vote.

We allow deductions from private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a home. The no vote on today's cloture motion was a vote against homeowners.

We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone bonds for the rebuilding of New York City because of September 11. We included $100 million in tax credits to be used on rail infrastructure projects in the New York Liberty Zone. The Democrats actually tied up funding for the Liberty Zone to prove a political point on a Labor Department overtime regulation that isn't even finalized. Well, we tried to help some Senators with that provision. Yet they voted no.

There is a lot here to help economic development. We have increased industrial development bond levels to spur economic development. We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure. We have included tribal bonds, which allow Native Americans to obtain bond financing for reservation projects in the same manner as State and local governments.

We have a new tribal new markets tax credit. This would add $50 million annually in new markets tax credits dedicated to community entities serving Native Americans.

The JOBS bill provided $500 million over 3 years in the Federal tax credits to States for intercity passenger rail capital projects, and for so-called short-line rail service.

Was it worth killing off these important priorities by voting against an unfinished regulation? But that is what the Democrats did with this cloture vote.

We also have a special dividend allocation rule for the benefit of farm cooperatives. We have provisions that

help cattlemen when drought, flood, and other weather-related conditions--all beyond the control of the individual farmer--might wipe out their livestock.

We have a provision to benefit rural letter carriers.

The JOBS bill enhances a broadband expense so people in rural America can have a quality of life through IT, the same as those people in urban America.

We have included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act so people who win lawsuits actually get benefits from them because we have some people winning lawsuits and by the time they pay their taxes and pay the lawyers, they do not have anything left. So what good does it do to win a civil rights lawsuit?

Our bill includes a tax credit for employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called to active duty. There is a lot of that now because of the war.

The Democrats voted against cloture and killed all these measures. All these benefits are being held hostage because the other side is pushing for a vote on a nongermane amendment.

When we are faced with 5-percent sanctions, and next month it is going to be 6 percent and the following month 7 percent and eventually 17 percent after a year, I think in that environment it is fair to call this obstruction and maybe, in the case of this divided vote, political obstruction, partisan obstruction, particularly when this bill was developed in complete cooperation with the Democrats, not only on the underlying bill, but a lot of these amendments that were added by Senator Baucus and me were a direct result of trying to satisfy Democrats as well as Republicans.

That sort of obstruction did not work in 2002, and I do not think it is going to work today. When it was tried in 2002, Mr. President, do you know what happened? That sort of obstruction was supposed to win the Democrats continued majority in the Senate, and it cost them the majority. Do you know why? Because politics is not good policy, but good policy is good politics.

It is inexcusable to hold up a bill that will benefit millions of manufacturing jobs to score political points. We have worked hard throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns--both Republicans and Democrats--were in this bill. In the committee, we did more to satisfy the Democrats. There were two votes against this bill and those two votes were from Republicans. How is that for a Republican chairman working with the Democratic leader of that committee to get a bipartisan bill to satisfy the Democrats, and in the process I irritate two Republicans? But it is still a bipartisan bill.

We tried to make sure everyone's concerns were taken care of in this bill. We see that concern reflected in the amendments I just listed. Anyone who voted against cloture voted against all those items I just listed because a few on the other side--or maybe I should say all on the other side--wanted to vote on another amendment, an amendment that was not germane. Then we had some people on the other side who were involved in that amendment saying all these amendments I listed are nongermane as well. Every one of them is in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, and every one of them is a tax-related item. So tell me tax-related items are nongermane and use that as an excuse to bring up a nongermane amendment that is in the jurisdiction of the Labor Committee. It just does not make sense. It is not true.

I hope somehow there can be some accommodation and get serious about the manufacturing job crisis that is facing America. We need to move this JOBS bill forward. Sooner or later, it is going to move forward because the more we tack on 1 percentage point a month for the next 12 months and get up to 17 percent, there are going to be enough businesses, as well as working people, complaining, and I hope they forward their complaints to the Democratic Party in the Senate because those are the people who voted against cloture.

Yes, I will yield for a question.

Mr. President, I am aware of that, and it gives me an opportunity, because I did not highlight it in my remarks, to compliment the Senator from Nevada because he is the brains behind that amendment. That amendment probably will do as much good--or at least almost as much good--as the underlying legislation. It is a part of this bill. It ought to be passed, and I am sure the Senator from Nevada will be constantly reminding people on the other side of the aisle that their voting against cloture has also, at least temporarily, killed this provision as well.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is entirely right, 100 percent right. He may have not heard me say this, but I keep referring during this debate to a statement made by the Washington Post describing a Democratic tax aide as saying there was not a whole lot of incentive for the other side to move this bill along because as sanctions come on and people get laid off, that is going to benefit them in the next election. I said to my colleagues and I say to the Senator from Nevada that is politics getting in the way of good policy. I hope the other side realizes that the best politics is good policy.

I yield the floor.

Doubled.

Yes.

Very frequently.

No. Right now I am not going to.

I am going to wait a while, because I have spoken so many times, I ought to give other Members an opportunity.

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

I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last night the majority leader set up a process for moving this bill to a cloture vote. This is not our preferred route for moving what is clearly a bipartisan bill voted out of committee 19 to 2. The two dissenting votes happened to be Republicans, not Democrats. This is clearly a bipartisan bill. A bipartisan bill should not require a cloture vote to get passed.

I remain hopeful we will be able to work out an agreement on moving the bill forward without the need for this extraordinary parliamentary process, but if cloture is the only way to move this bill, then I hope everybody will support cloture. We need to support cloture in the same bipartisan manner we used to build this bill. It is urgent that we move this bill immediately.

This bill reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the United States and sold overseas so we can create jobs in America. We give a priority on taxation to goods made in America.

Everybody in this body is concerned about outsourcing. If we want to do something about keeping jobs in America and adding to the number of jobs in America, this bill will do it. It is going to make our costs of operation less and consequently competitive with world competition. That is why we call it the JOBS bill.

The reason we are in a bad position right now is because under the international agreements we have on trade, the World Trade Organization has ruled that our pretax policy is an illegal export subsidy, and consequently the World Trade Organization has authorized Europe to do up to $4 billion a year in sanctions against U.S. exports.

It isn't just the case of our tax system causing us to not be competitive. On top of that, we now have $4 billion of sanctions to further weigh down our ability to compete in the export market. These sanctions began on March 1. These sanctions started at 5 percent, which is just like a 5-percent sales tax on the stuff we are going to sell. The rule of Economics 101 is if you tax something at a higher rate, you get less of it. But not only is it 5 percent now, it is going to be 5 percent for each month we do not conform our tax laws to our trade agreements.

Remember, we have trade agreements because the U.S. Congress enacted those trade agreements. It has been done by a majority of the representatives of the American people. One percent a month can take us all the way up to a maximum of 17 percent over the course of a year. By November, we are going to have a 12-percent tax on our exports. This is a very serious threat for all States because the sanctions hit a wide range of products--agricultural, timber, and manufacturing products that we sell overseas.

We need to get this issue behind us very soon or we will never get this bill passed and we will continue to have this mounting level of taxation on our products being exported to a point where we are even more uncompetitive, to a point where workers may be laid off; whereas just the opposite can happen if we pass this legislation. We are going to be able to make our manufacturing more competitive and across the board with a wider range--not just for big corporations in America but for individuals that export, for sole proprietorships that are in manufacturing; you name it. People are going to get the benefit of a lower rate of taxation if they manufacture in America--not if they have a company in America and they manufacture overseas but just American jobs, American products made in America, or if a company wants to come over here and invest in America and build a plant and hire American workers, they will get the benefit of it as well.

We had 3 or 4 days on this bill 2 weeks ago. We started on it again yesterday. I think it is very important that we move ahead on this legislation. But the opening debate and the procedural shenanigans confirm my worst fears because there are some on the other side who want to use this legislation to move things that are unrelated to making our industry competitive and unrelated to the motivations behind this bipartisan bill.

Senator Baucus and I agreed on an order of amendments that would improve the bill and broaden important relevant issues. That agreement was undermined by the process coming from the other side of the aisle.

It means Members there presumably do not know the importance of this legislation, do not want to debate the substance of the bill but debate everything else. In a sense, this bipartisan bill is being turned into a political football. That is inexcusable because we have worked hard throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns, both Republican and Democrat, were incorporated into this bill. You do not play political games with a bipartisan bill that affects the jobs of manufacturing workers across this land.

I take a moment to talk about how bipartisan this bill is. It is bipartisan and was built that way from the ground up. It is the construction that began when my friend and colleague, Senator Baucus, was chairman of the Finance Committee. Senator Baucus held hearings on this issue in July 2002 to address the FSC/ETI controversy going on within the World Trade Organization. The title of the hearing was ``The Role of the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act in the International Competitiveness of U.S. Commerce.'' Talk about a chairman taking his responsibilities seriously, Senator Baucus did.

Even then we were concerned about the outsourcing of jobs. We were concerned about American manufacturing being able to compete with the global environment we are in. We heard at that time vital testimony from a cross-section of industries that would be adversely affected by the repeal of this extraterritorial income act.

We also heard from U.S. companies that were clamoring for international tax reform more broadly than FSC/ETI because our tax rules were hurting their competitiveness in the foreign markets. If you want to create jobs in America, and we have a tax system that makes us uncompetitive, would you not expect the Congress of the United States to respond, and respond in a bipartisan way to that problem for our manufacturers? Or if you did not, why would you harangue about outsourcing? You need to do something about it.

These companies that testified in the summer of 2002 told us their foreign competitors were running circles around them because of our antiquated international taxing rules. During this hearing, we had our colleagues, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Hatch of Utah, express concerns about how our international tax laws were impairing the competitiveness of U.S. companies. After some discussion on forming a blue-ribbon commission to study this problem, we all decided that decisive action was more important than the usual commission approach that usually ends up with a lot of public relations and high talk but no action.

During that hearing, then-Chairman Baucus formed an international tax working group that was joined by Senator Graham, Senator Hatch, and this Senator, and was open to any other Finance Committee Senator interested in this issue. The bipartisan Finance Committee working group formed the basis for the bill we are debating this very minute. We directed our staff to engage in an exhaustive analysis of many international reform proposals that have been offered. Our efforts were intended to glean the very best ideas from as many sources as possible.

Senator Baucus and I also formed a bipartisan, bicameral working group with the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee of the other body in an effort to find some common ground on dealing with this repeal of FSC/ETI. Obviously, that did not go so well because the other body has come out with legislation somewhat different than ours. Consequently, they are finding it very difficult to get the votes to pass it in the other body. That is another reason, if we move quickly, maybe we can impress upon the House of Representatives that this body can function, this body works; we have a good product and maybe that will encourage bipartisanship in the House of Representatives.

Through this working group we continued our efforts in cooperation with

Senator Hatch, Senator Bob Graham, and other members of the Finance Committee who wanted to do what was fair and what was right in complying with this World Trade Organization ruling. We continued our bipartisan efforts when I became chairman in 2003. In July last year, we held two hearings on the FSC/ETI and international reform issues. One hearing focused on: ``An Examination of the United States Tax Policy and Its Effect on Domestic and International Competitiveness of United States-Based Operations,'' building upon the very successful hearing that chairman Baucus had in 2002.

Our second hearing was entitled ``United States Tax Policy and Its Effects on International Competitiveness of United States-Owned Foreign Operations,'' as opposed to United States-based operations in the first hearing. These two hearings concluded our final bipartisan effort in reviewing all of the policy options that led to the creation of the bill that is before the Senate right now.

Let me again emphasize there is not one provision in this JOBS bill that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. We have acted in good faith. We have acted in the best of faith to produce a bill that takes American manufacturing jobs and ensures that our companies remain the global competitors we want them to be. We did this in a fully bipartisan manner, which is what the American people expect on such an important issue as manufacturing jobs in our Nation's economic health.

These efforts that have been expended to bring this bill to this point are apparently not enough for some. They still view this whole process as political punt, pass, and kick competition. I now realize there are some who do not want this bill to pass, and maybe not having it passed will serve their political end. They want economic downturns that continued sanctions will produce to continue economic doldrum.

Several weeks ago, an article in the Washington Post quoted a Democratic tax aide as saying: ``There is not a lot of incentive for us to figure out this problem.'' The Democratic aide went on to say that allowing the extraterritorial income controversy to fester would yield increased sanctions that somehow would benefit the Democrats in November. That is an appalling statement because we hear the concern that is legitimately expressed about outsourcing.

We have a bill before the Senate that can do something about outsourcing. We have a situation before the Senate that if we do not pass this bill, not only will we not have some tax advantage we thought we once had, but we will have the sanctions on top of that to weight down American industry so more people are laid off.

How can Members one day give a speech about outsourcing and the next day slow down a bill that does something about outsourcing? Outsourcing only comes as a matter of competition. There is not any American businessperson sitting around anyplace that decides, I want Mary's job to go to India. I want Pete's job to go to China. I want Ralph's job to go to Russia.

There is not any American businessman who speaks in terms of: I don't want this American to have a job, because they would not have hired them in the first place.

This outsourcing happens because they look at what their competition is paying to produce a product. In the economics of business, when you are a businessperson, wherever in the world, if you do not make a profit, you are not going to be in business. So a businessperson seeing that he is not competitive, that is where you lead to outsourcing.

Now these American manufacturers come and testify before our committee. They tell us what makes them noncompetitive. One is the cost of capital in America being high. We have an opportunity to reduce the cost of capital and, at the same time, encourage manufacturing in America. That is what this bill does.

So everyone on both sides of the aisle who talks about outsourcing--I do myself--needs to band together if we are serious about doing something about outsourcing and get behind this effort to get the bill passed because manufacturers tell us this bill will help. And, for sure, they know these sanctions that are on American manufacturing now are an additional burden they cannot withstand.

America's farmers and manufacturing workers must not pay the price for the sort of stonewalling we are seeing. Efforts to delay this bipartisan bill with unrelated measures is a bad excuse. Why would they raise political issues that are unrelated to this bill in an attempt to undermine the JOBS Act?

Delay will allow sanctions to continue and drive down our economy. That will allow sanctions to increase to 12 percent by the November elections. Maybe that is too tempting for some people who are worried about the election instead of the next generation to pass up.

I am hopeful we will see the best politics ends up being good policy. That is what we have with this bill. We help domestic manufacturers. We help U.S. companies compete overseas. Putting politics ahead of good policy is exactly the wrong approach. In effect, this political game does not help those who face the sanctions. It does not help domestic manufacturers and workers in those industries.

A vote against this bill is a vote to continue European Union sanctions, already at 5 percent--6 percent in April, 7 percent in May, 8 percent in June, 9 percent in July, 10 percent in August, 11 percent in September, 12 percent in November.

We are here to represent the interests of the United States. On this bill, we are here to represent the interests of jobs in America. We are here to represent the symbol ``Made in America.''

If we do not pass this bill, whether people realize it, they are representing the interests of the European Union, because it is the European Union which is going to benefit with European jobs.

We have 5.6 percent unemployment in America, which is probably less unemployment than most of my life in politics as an index of how the economy is going. But still, it is bad to have 5.6 percent unemployment. What is worse than the 5.6 percent unemployment is the people who are complaining about the 5.6 percent unemployment and not passing this bill that is going to make employment in America better.

Oh, maybe they are looking over to Germany. Their unemployment rate went up last month to 10.7 percent. By not passing this bill, we might help some German workers get a job, some of the German unemployed get a job. Well, I do not think we ought to put the interests of the European Union first.

The only way to honor our trade obligations and to make American business competitive and to create jobs in America is to pass this bill and repeal the extraterritorial income provisions of our law. It is very simple. It is so simple that is why this is a bipartisan bill. As I said before, I hope the leadership of this body can cooperate, both Republican and Democrat, to focus on this legislation, to focus on the task at hand, and particularly on the other side where all the amendments are coming from, to know the importance of passing this bill, not stalling this bill, and moving forward.

Repealing FSC/ETI raises about $55 billion over 10 years, and 89 percent of that money comes from manufacturing. It gives us an opportunity to use that $55 billion to emphasize American manufacturing, the creation of jobs in America, and to use that $55 billion as an incentive to American manufacturers to manufacture here and not to manufacture overseas.

We need to send that money back to the manufacturing sector because if we do not, then besides these sanctions, we have a $50 billion tax increase on American manufacturing.

The Congressional Budget Office says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since July of 2000. Is this manufacturing decline something the Bush administration did? No. It started in July of 2000. A $50 billion tax increase will not stimulate manufacturing jobs.

Again, simple principles of economics 101: If you tax something more, you get less of it.

The JOBS bill uses all of the money from the FSC/ETI repeal to give a 3 percentage point tax cut on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States. Let me emphasize: just in the United States. It is not for manufacturing by American companies overseas.

The relief applies not only to big manufacturers but sole proprietors,

partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations if they are manufacturing in America, and also plain big or small foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the United States.

We also include international tax reforms, mostly in the foreign tax area, and most of which benefit manufacturing.

Our bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad support in both bodies of the Congress.

The Finance bill is revenue neutral. That is another thing we have to do: have it carefully crafted in order to get bipartisan support for this legislation and not add to the deficit; there are both Republicans and Democrats who do not want to pass a tax bill that loses revenue. So we have the ability, by extending Customs user fees--and, more importantly, by shutting down illicit tax shelters, corporate tax shelters, and closing abusive corporate tax loopholes--to raise money to do even more than we have described to be able to do some reform of the international taxing regime generally beyond just FSC/ETI.

As with all bills, there is never complete agreement on this approach. That is even considering the fact it was voted out of committee in a bipartisan way 19 to 2. Remember, all Democrats voted for this bill to come out of committee.

Our bill contains a haircut on the rate reduction some of us would like to remove and others would like to retain. Some Members prefer a reduction in the top corporate rate across the board in place of the international reforms and the manufacturer's rate cut in this bill. I understand the desire for this simpler approach cutting taxes, but a top level rate cut would only go to the biggest corporations of America. Local family-held S corporations and partnerships, which presently get some extraterritorial income benefits, get nothing from this. If we redirect FSC/ETI money to an across-the-board corporate cut, then the manufacturing sector will be the revenue offset. In other words, we are going to be shifting from tax advantages from manufacturing to services where we have some problem, but I think we generally agree not as much of a problem as we have in manufacturing.

The international tax reforms largely fix problems our domestic companies face with the complexities of the foreign tax credit. These reforms are necessary if we are to level the playing field for U.S. companies that compete with our trading partners. The Finance Committee bipartisan bill has been improved with an amendment to extend the research and development tax credit through the end of 2005. That is a domestic tax benefit that incentives research and development, makes our businesses competitive and prepared for the next generation of technology. This, however, translates also into good, high-paying jobs for workers in America and not overseas.

In addition to the previously agreed upon R&D amendment, there are several additional provisions to improve this bill. We have the amendment by Senators Bunning and Stabenow, a bipartisan amendment to accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This amendment ensures the tax relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI. This is now part of the bill.

Second, there is an amendment I offered with Senator Baucus to extend for 2 years tax provisions that have expired. Some expired in 2003, some this year. This includes items such as the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit which have been merged and simplified into a single credit as proposed by Senator Santorum and others in the bill S. 1180. This is now a part of the legislation.

A third provision on net operating losses is also included. This provision allows companies that operated at losses during the difficult economic conditions of last year to offset those losses against their income of the previous 5 years. So this provision is going to accelerate tax relief to companies that need it to continue operations and to continue their recovery from the recent economic difficulties. This provision is now in the bill.

The JOBS bill before us also contains many other items that are widely supported by the Members. We have enhanced the amount of transition relief for U.S. manufacturing companies that will be harmed by the FSC/ETI repeal. We have enhanced depreciation provisions, brownfield revitalization, mortgage revenue bonds. We allow deductions from private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a home.

The bill includes tax benefits for reservist employees that provides a tax credit to employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called up to active duty. We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone Bonds for the rebuilding of New York City, particularly requested by its two Senators. We have increased industrial development bond levels to spur economic development. We have included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act. We have provided for rail infrastructure and broadband.

All of these benefits are being held hostage because some Members are pushing politically motivated votes on an issue that is not even in this bill. Let's get on with the business at hand and finish it. Let's put good economic policy first in the Senate.

We do have the issue of cloture which comes up periodically when we have to get to the completion of legislation. I, for one, was hoping this cloture would not be filed. That is the way Senator Baucus and I hoped it would happen. I have to deal with the fact it is filed. My colleague Senator Baucus has to deal with that fact as well. This needs to be dealt with on a little higher plain than from bill to bill.

I propose to the leadership of the Republican and Democratic caucuses that somehow, if we are going to get between now and adjournment this fall, without a lot of waste of time on the part of the Senate and the 100 Members equally affected, that we get a list of the so-called amendments I referred to as politically motivated. I think the other side sees they have certain issues that ought to get before the American people, ought to be discussed. Republicans have some of those issues as well that Democrats would just as soon we not bring up. I don't know why there can't be some agreement unrelated to a specific bill before the Senate that certain of these issues are going to be brought up, and we will find someplace to handle one on this bill, one on another bill, a third one on another bill, so they don't get dumped at one time all on one piece of legislation. Then we know ahead of time what the situation is; there will be a plan for the functioning of the Senate.

I should not speak for Senator Baucus but I believe I can. He comes from a philosophy that this place ought to work, that it ought to make product. We ought to do our job. And I am sure that even though he might have a different view than I do on this issue of cloture, he wishes it were not that way. I wish it were not that way. He wishes there was a plan before us to move every important piece of legislation in an expeditious way because that is what we are sent here to do. We all ought to want to make this place work because when it does not work, it makes all of us look bad. It puts the good of the American people secondary to politics, whether it is Republican politics or Democratic.

I yield the floor.

Is our situation such that we are on the JOBS bill?

We have a very important vote tomorrow. That vote is cloture to stop an effort to bring nongermane issues into and stall this bill.

I spoke this morning, spending a great deal of time explaining how the JOBS bill is a fully bipartisan bill built from the ground up in a bipartisan manner. We cannot get anything through the Senate that is not bipartisan. We can get a lot of things through the House of Representatives that are partisan but not through the Senate.

Now we are facing an attempt to defeat this bipartisan measure by injecting politically charged amendments into the JOBS bill regarding an issue that is not even dealt with in this bill. Somebody wants to write a law.

Why does the other side insist on amending this important bill for a matter that is not even the subject of this legislation? We need to focus on what is in this bill and what will be killed if we do not get cloture approval tomorrow.

We know the only way this bill can pass is by a ``yes'' vote tomorrow on stopping debate and moving to finality. But will the Democrats say no to cloture? Will they go on record opposing the provisions that are in this bill--very important provisions for creating jobs in America, preserving jobs in manufacturing, answers to concerns that the people of this body have expressed about outsourcing, about not enough manufacturing jobs being created?

If you look at this bill, you will find, then, that there is very important provisions for creating jobs that the other side is preparing to kill, so, in a sense, their vote tomorrow will be a vote contrary to what they have been complaining about for a long period of time about this recovery not providing enough jobs, and particularly about jobs going overseas.

This bill will prevent that. I do not understand why people would not vote to move a bill along that is going to solve a lot of the problems about our not creating enough jobs in manufacturing. If this bill does not move along, actually the situation is going to get worse, and we are going to lose jobs that we presently have in manufacturing.

So why would they be prepared to kill this bill? This bill will end $4 billion a year of tariffs put on U.S. exports by Europe. Those tariffs are already being imposed against U.S. exports of grain, timber, paper, and manufactured goods. We can end those tariffs now at 5 percent, growing 1 percent a month into the future. We can end them with this bill. But will the Democrats say no?

A vote against the JOBS bill is a vote in favor of that 5-percent tariff going up 1 percent a month into the future. And that goes up very fast, making our business, our American manufacturing uncompetitive.

The Congressional Budget Office says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since the manufacturing downturn started 6 months before President Bush became President. This bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our manufacturing sector to promote rehiring in U.S.- based manufacturing. But will the Democrats say no?

The Democrats claim they are worried about the scope of the proposed overtime regulations. The regulations are not even final yet. But how can you worry about overtime if you do not have a job in the first place? Shouldn't

we first worry about creating manufacturing jobs and take care of overtime on another bill instead of slowing this one up? Or will the Democrats say no?

The money from the FSC/ETI repeal gives a 3-percentage point tax rate cut on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States. It is not for manufacturing done offshore. We start this tax relief immediately.

This manufacturing rate cut relief applies to sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, even foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the United States to manufacture here with American workers. This should keep the Government out of their pockets while they try to recover from the economic downturn. That is what this bill is all about: helping these manufacturing companies recover from the economic downturn. Now, will the Democrats say no to the opportunity to help American manufacturing?

This bill includes international tax reforms, most of which benefit American manufacturing, to keep it competitive in the global marketplace.

This bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad support in both the House and the Senate. It has both Republican and Democrat sponsors. But will the Democrats say no?

This bill extends the research and development tax credit through the end of 2005, something very necessary to keep our industry ahead of the curve, building for the next product, building for the next service, particularly in the technical areas. This is a domestic tax benefit that incentivizes research and development, translating into good, high-paying jobs for workers here in America, not across the ocean. But will the Democrats say no tomorrow on the cloture vote?

In addition, there are several additional provisions that are important to this bill. Senators Bunning and Stabenow sought to accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This ensures that the tax relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI.

The bill extends, for 2 years, tax provisions that expired in 2003, last year. Some of them already expired. Some of them are expiring this year. They need to be included because those incentives are very important to the prosperity of companies that rely upon these tax incentives. This would include items such as the work opportunity tax credit, helping young people, helping low-income people to get jobs, to get job training. It helps to move people from welfare to work because we have tax credits that do that.

Why would any Democrat vote against the extension of the welfare-to- work tax credits, moving people out of welfare, where they are assured a life of poverty, into the mainstream of America, the world of work where you have a chance to move up the economic ladder? Over here, in welfare, you never have a chance to move up. We have tax credits to help. Will the Democrats say no to these tax credits to help low-income people get into the world of work, to move above, to improve themselves, to get out of poverty?

There is a provision also in this bill on net operating losses that will accelerate tax relief to companies that need it to continue operations and recover from recent difficulties. The reason for doing that is they have some tax credits. They do not have income to write it off against. This gives them some benefit helping them to enhance their recovery.

We have enhanced depreciation provisions to help the ailing airline industry, the manufacture of airplanes--Boeing, in my State where avionics are made for airplanes, Rockwell Collins--because you cannot, under existing depreciation laws, get something into completion by this deadline because it takes so long to build an airplane. This will extend provisions that were meant to help industry a year ago if they got long timelines to get something finished.

There are new homestead provisions. This provides special assistance for businesses in counties that are losing population. This is rural economic development, providing incentives for newly constructed rural investment buildings, for starting or expanding a rural business in a rural high-outmigration county. Will the Democrats say no to that rural economic development?

This bill includes brownfields revitalization. The bill waives taxes for tax-exempt investors who invest in the cleanup and remediation of qualified brownfields sites. Will the Democrats say no to helping clean up the environment? Would that vote comport with the rhetoric you hear on the environment from the other side of the aisle?

Mortgage revenue bonds: This proposal would repeal the current rule that mortgage revenue bond payments received after the bond has been outstanding for 10 years must be used to pay off the bond, rather than issue new mortgages.

There are 70 Senate cosponsors to this bill. Would the Democrats justify voting no on cloture to kill a provision that 70 of their colleagues support?

We allow deductions for private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a home. Anyone planning to vote no on this one? Would they vote no on allowing the cost of mortgage insurance to be written off as one writes off interest on a mortgage? That is helping a lot of young people to get a home that they would not otherwise be able to afford. I know home ownership is the highest it has been in the history of our country. Maybe they are saying: We have enough Americans owning homes. Why help some other people this way? It is in this bill. If they vote no tomorrow, they are voting against helping those homeowners with their mortgage insurance costs.

This bill includes a tax credit to employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called to active duty. Would Democrats say no to the guardsmen and reservists who are defending our country, helping us win this war, by voting no tomorrow?

We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone bonds for rebuilding New York City. The two Senators from New York have talked to me about them. Are they going to vote no tomorrow and say no to the Liberty Zone bonds helping New York City at a time when Ground Zero begs for help? Will they tie up funding for the Liberty Zone in order to prove a political point for a Labor Department overtime regulation that has not yet been finalized? If it had been finalized, there is an opportunity for an expedited procedure for congressional veto of those very same regulations they don't want. This is not the last train out of the station. There are other opportunities to fight these battles and probably in a more appropriate way than a nongermane amendment on legislation that ought to pass, that is going to preserve and create jobs in manufacturing. Where are the priorities of the other side of the aisle?

We also have in this bill increased industrial development bond levels to spur economic development. We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure. We have included tribal bonds which apply the same rules to Native American tribes issuing tax exempt bonds to finance facilities on a Native American reservation that apply to tax exempt bonds that we allow State and local governments to use. Are Senators of the other party going to vote against the Native American Indian provisions of this bill?

We have a tribal new markets tax credit. This amendment would add $50 million annually in the new markets tax credit dedicated to community development entities serving Native American reservations, if there is a poverty rate of over 40 percent. Are they going to say no to helping those needy Americans?

We have included a Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act so when people have been harmed in violation of their civil rights, they can go to court and get justice. Do you know what happens when they get justice? We have some people paying income tax on what they pay their lawyers so when it is all said and done, a big settlement, sometimes the people who have been harmed get nothing because of the unfair taxation of that award. Are the Democrats going to say no to those people who have had their civil rights violated? They can't get justice in court. That doesn't sound like the other party, does it?

Is it worth killing off these important priorities over a regulatory issue that has already been voted on by the Senate? How many times do we have to express our view on something?

We also have in this bill a special dividends allocation rule that benefits agricultural cooperatives. We have other farm provisions that help cattlemen receive tax free treatment if they replace livestock with other farm property where there has been drought, flood, or other weather-related conditions within 2 years from the date the livestock has been sold. Last year we heard a lot from the other side of the aisle about not helping the farmers who have been hurt by drought. Here is an opportunity to help some people through tax problems they have as a result of something beyond the control of the family farmer. Are they not going to give those farmers an opportunity to have help?

We have a provision that allows payment under the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program to be exempt from tax. Every Senator here has rural America in their State. We are always saying there is not adequate health delivery services in some parts of our country in rural America. We set up the National Health Service Corps to provide services there. They still have a hard time getting adequate service, but we have provisions in here for additional incentives for people to serve rural America. I hear from my colleagues that we have to do something about health care in rural America. We have an opportunity tomorrow in this legislation to do something about it. Will the Democrats vote no tomorrow?

We have a proposal to allow the itemized deduction for unreimbursed vehicle use for rural letter carriers. Why does that come before us? Because every time you drive a quarter of a mile and you stop at a rural mailbox to leave mail, and then go on to the next farmer's box to leave mail, that vehicle has higher costs than if it was going down the road 60 miles an hour and never stopping. The Tax Code ought to reflect a little bit different business deduction for that automobile as opposed to a business vehicle that doesn't stop at every mailbox.

We have provisions in this bill to enhance broadband expensing provisions. We always hear from the other side that the quality of life in rural America can never be equal to that of cities if they don't have the same IT access. This gives that IT access. I hear Members of the other side of the aisle talk to me about broadband tax credits. We have an opportunity to do that now. Are they going to say no to what they have been asking me to do for the last 2 or 3 years?

We provide real infrastructure tax credits, the so-called short-line credits. This bill provides $500 million over 3 years in Federal tax credits to States for intercity passenger rail capital projects. Eligible intercity passenger rail projects include planning, track rehabilitation, upgrade, development and relocation, security and safety projects, passenger equipment acquisition, station improvement, intermodal facilities development, and environmental review and impact mitigation.

States may transfer credits directly to short-line and regional railroads. They are going to say no to that?

Finally--here is something for the New York Senators--the proposal makes $100 million in tax credits available to New York to be used on rail infrastructure projects in the New York Liberty Zone.

Will the Democrats say no? Will they vote against cloture tomorrow and thereby kill these measures? Will they do this over a proposed regulation which, as Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions just explained, is being misrepresented and used as a political scare tactic?

All of these benefits are being held hostage because the other side is pushing a politically motivated vote on an issue that is not even in this bill.

The leadership on the other side doesn't really want to debate the substance of this bill. Sometimes I get that feeling. They would prefer to turn this bipartisan bill into a political football.

This is inexcusable because we have worked very hard throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns, both Republican and Democrat, were incorporated into this bill. I related all of those. There is no reason this bill should not get almost unanimous support. In fact, it was voted out of committee 19 to 2. Now we have opposition from the other side. I don't understand.

Anyone who votes against cloture tomorrow is effectively voting against all of the items I just listed. This should not happen on a bill that is meant to create jobs in America, with an emphasis upon manufacturing jobs.

Several weeks ago, there was an article in the Washington Post quoting a Democratic tax aide--unidentified--saying, ``There's not a lot of incentives for us to figure out this problem.''

The Democratic aide went on to say that allowing the extraterritorial income controversy to fester would yield increased sanctions--increased tariffs--on American products going to Europe, which would benefit the Democrats in November.

That is a very appalling statement. I don't think that staff of either party are paid to think in terms of politics. They ought to be paid to think in terms of policy and, in the end, if they think about policy, they have good politics.

Efforts to delay this bipartisan bill with unrelated measures is a poor excuse. So let's get on with the business at hand and finish this bill. Vote on cloture tomorrow, approve cloture, have finality on the bill, and when we do all that, we are going to put a jobs creation bill ahead of partisan politics, put these important benefits I just listed ahead of some concern that we have about an administrative regulation that hasn't even been issued yet. Let's stop playing politics and put the Senate back to work and move the JOBS bill forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 23, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Atomic Energy Defense activities of the Department of Energy, 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 Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10:00 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10 a.m., on Passenger and Freight Rail Safety.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 23rd at 2:00 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing to examine the ``United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea''.

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 Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on U.S. & Mexico: Immigration Policy and the Bilateral Relationship.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. for a joint hearing with the House Committee on Government Reform, titled ``The Postal Service in Crisis: A Joint Senate-House

Hearing on Principles for Meaningful Reform.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10 a.m. on ``A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Preserve Traditional Marriage'' in the Russell Senate Office Building Room 325.

Panel I: The Honorable Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator, R-CO, The Honorable Barney Frank, U.S. Representative, D-MA, The Honorable John Lewis, U.S. Representative, D-GA.

Panel II: Ms. Phyllis G. Bossin, Phyllis G. Bossin Co., L.P.A., Chair, American Bar Association, Family Law Section, Cincinnati, OH, Professor Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law, Minneapolis, MN, Reverent Richard Richardson, Assistant Pastor, St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, Director of Political Affairs, The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, President/CEO, Children's Services of Roxbury, Boston, MA, Professor Katherine S. Spaht, Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Professor, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, Professor Cass R. Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on ``Counterfeiting and Theft of Tangible Intellectual Property: Challenges and Solutions'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: The Honorable Jon W. Dudas, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, The Honorable Christopher Wray, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Mr. James Mendenhall, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intellectual Property, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Washington, DC, The Honorable Earl Anthony Wayne, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, United States Department of State, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Mr. Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, United States Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Richard K. Willard, Senior Vice President, Legal and General Counsel, The Gillette Company, Boston, MA, Mr. Brad Buckles, Executive Vice President for Anti-Piracy, Recording Industry Association of America, Washington, DC, Ms. Vanessa Price, Intellectual Property Specialist, Burton Snowboards, Burlington, VT.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 23, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, March 23, 2004 from 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications be authorized to Meet Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on Spyware.

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 March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense financial management in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I want to reiterate the words of my distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Montana, on the importance of getting this bill passed. This bill is about jobs because it is about keeping American manufacturing competitive, particularly manufacturing that is exported. Export-related jobs in America are very good jobs because they pay 15 percent above the national average.

This bill, that we call by the acronym FSC/ETI, foreign sales corporation extraterritorial income, reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the United States and sold overseas. Whether it is done by American manufacturers or foreign companies that have come to America to establish a manufacturing plant and hire Americans, it applies to both. It does not apply to American companies that manufacture overseas.

The World Trade Organization is the reason we are debating this bill, because the World Trade Organization has ruled that our FSC/ETI legislation, that has been on the books for more than a couple of decades, is an illegal export subsidy and has authorized up to $4 billion a year of sanctions against U.S. exports. This is something the World Trade Organization said to the European Community that they could do on U.S. exports, because until we change this law, they see us not living up to our international trade obligations.

Why would the United States respond to the World Trade Organization this way? In the very same way we expect Europe or any other country to respond when the United States wins cases before the World Trade Organization. Let me say, we win many more than we lose. In fact, anybody reading commerce newspapers over the last week would find out that the United States has recently won two decisions before the World Trade Organization on other issues.

In regard to Europe, as one specific example, we expect Europe to abide by the decision that the U.S. cattle producers won in the World Trade Organization because Europe was not taking in our red meat, our beef products, because they were treated with a growth stimulant. Europe has decided not to abide by the World Trade Organization decision, so the United States, over the last 2 years, has imposed sanctions against Europe.

Would it be surprising to you if the U.S. Government does not respond positively to the World Trade Organization ruling and then Europe would, in fact, put sanctions against American products? They have already done that. Starting March 1, there has been a 5-percent increase in sanctions. We are going to have a 1-percent increase each month that we do not repeal this legislation. By November that would be in effect a 12-percent sales tax on American products going overseas to Europe.

It is very difficult for the United States to compete when we have a level playing field, but when we have a 12-percent add-on you can see that eventually some companies are going to become uncompetitive and, as a result, workers will be laid off.

What we want this legislation to do is not only avoid these sanctions, but we want to put American manufacturing in more of a competitive environment than it is in presently by reducing the corporate tax rate on companies that export if the manufacturing is done within the United States of America.

We have, potentially, by November, sanctions of 12 percent on American products. This is a very serious threat to all Members because sanctions are going to hit agricultural products, timber products, and even manufacturing products. We need to get this issue behind us before Memorial Day or sooner or we will never be able to get this bill to the President for signature.

I wanted to act on this bill last year because I was fearful politics would get in the way of the Senate's ability to do the job. Obviously, the closer you get to the election, the more there is an opportunity for politics to interfere.

The opening debate and shenanigans we had 2 weeks ago when we first took up this bill confirmed my worst fears. Some on the other side want to play politics with this bipartisan bill. Senator Baucus and I had an agreed order of amendments that would have improved the bill and brought up important, relevant issues. That agreement was undermined by the other side, particularly the leadership on the other side. The leadership does not really want to debate the substance of this bill. Yet they would say it is very important to get this bill passed.

We hear a lot about not creating enough jobs in the economy in this recovery. This is our opportunity to create jobs. I would think everybody would want to get this bill passed. Instead, it seems this bipartisan bill is being turned into a political football.

I am hopeful everybody on the other side of the aisle will see the best policy is also very good politics. That is what we have with this bill. We help domestic manufacturers; we help U.S. companies compete overseas. Putting politics ahead of good policy is exactly the wrong approach.

In effect, this political game does not help those who face sanctions. In other words, jobs in the industries and the products that have already been identified by Europe for sanctions are going to be in jeopardy. Particularly where we have so much problem competing with the global competition we have, it doesn't help our domestic manufacturers and workers, in manufacturing as well as other segments of the economy.

As I said before, I hope the Democratic leadership will focus on the task at hand and not play politics with this very important bipartisan piece of legislation.

With that procedural point I wanted to make behind us, I wish to speak specifically as a reminder to my colleagues of some of the important features of this legislation. Repealing FSC/ETI, as the World Trade Organization has ruled against the United States and implied that we need to get our laws in tune with our international obligations, the repeal raises around $55 billion over 10 years, and 89 percent of that $55 billion comes from manufacturing industries. If that money is not sent back to the manufacturing sector,

it will be a $50 billion tax increase on manufacturing. You know one of the simple rules of economics 101--you tax something more, you get less of it.

The Congressional Budget Office then says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since the manufacturing decline started in the last year of the Clinton administration--in other words, since the middle of July. A $50 billion tax increase now on that manufacturing obviously is not going to stimulate manufacturing jobs.

The bill before us uses all the money that is raised from the FSC/ETI repeal to put back into manufacturing, giving manufacturing corporations and self-proprietorships and other business entities a 3- percentage point tax rate reduction on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States.

This is not meant to help--and will not help--because our bill is not written this way to help manufacturing done offshore. We start phasing in these tax cuts this year. The cuts apply to different business entities, sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, or foreign corporations that set up manufacturing plants in the United States but only if they set up their manufacturing plants in the United States. We are not doing anything in this bill to export jobs overseas; just the opposite. What we are doing is meant to create jobs and preserve jobs in manufacturing in the United States, and to give the benefit to American-based companies or foreign corporations based in America that are creating jobs here.

Our bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad support in the House and Senate. The finance bill is also revenue neutral. That is very important because it seems to be an unwritten rule in the Senate--maybe not one that I entirely agree with, but if we are going to get anything done in a bipartisan way when it deals with tax reform, it has to be revenue neutral.

This bill, as amended, provides over $130 billion in business tax relief, but it is paid for by extending customs user fees and, most importantly, by shutting down corporate tax shelters and abusive loopholes.

It is an unwritten rule in the Senate, as I said, for revenue neutrality. So we have gone beyond the $50 billion to $130 billion of tax changes but offsetting it totally with money raised from FSC/ETI, from customs user fees, and, most importantly, doing something that ought to be done with or without this bill--shutting down these tax shelters and abusive loopholes.

As all bills, there is never complete agreement on an approach. Our bill contains a temporary haircut on rate reduction that some of us would like to remove and others of us would like to retain. Some Members prefer a reduction in the top corporate rate in place of international reforms and a rate reduction applying just to manufacturing. These Members would say you ought to treat all corporations the same. If all corporations were being impacted with a WTO ruling in the same way, whether manufacturing or not, I would agree. We are talking about basically manufacturing and at least 89 percent of the revenues coming in. We say we want to keep our manufacturing competitive. We are going to pour most of the benefits of this legislation back into the manufacturing sector.

Those on the other side say it ought to be across the board, affecting all corporations. There is a desire on the other side for a simpler approach by just cutting taxes across the board, but a top level rate cut would only go to the biggest corporations of America. Local family held S corporations or partnerships which presently get some ETI benefits would get nothing from that approach. If we redirect the FSC/ETI money to an across-the-board corporate cut, then the manufacturing sector will be the revenue offset for the services sector tax cut.

The international tax reforms largely fix problems our domestic companies face with the complexities of the foreign tax credit. These reforms are necessary if we are to level the playing field for U.S. companies that compete with our trading partners.

The Finance Committee's bipartisan bill has been improved with an amendment to extend the research and development tax credit through the end of year 2005. That is a domestic tax benefit which is an incentive to research and development. This translates also into good, high- paying jobs for workers in the United States and not overseas. Plus, it is an incentive for research and development which is going to keep our industries competitive with the highly educated workforces of Russia, China, and India where we are finding increasing competition. We need to keep up with these others.

America has no reason to be timid about the competitiveness of our workforce--the competitiveness of our workers from the standpoint of our educational commitment and our educational attainment. We have nothing to worry about when it involves our research leading us to new industries not of this decade but for the next decade. America has a very flexible economy. We can compete. Anyone who says we can't compete is a defeatist. I am not a defeatist when it comes to America's ability to be ahead of the rest of the world as we have been for the last 100 years in almost every aspect of our economy. The research and development part of this bill is surely something that is going to help us continue to do that.

In addition to the previously agreed upon research and development amendment, there are several additional amendments pending which will substantially improve this bill. First is an amendment offered by Senators Bunning and Stabenow to accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This amendment assures that the tax relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI.

Second, I have offered an amendment with Senator Baucus to extend the 2-year tax provisions which expired in the years 2003-2004. This includes items such as the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare- to-work tax credit which have been merged and simplified into a single credit as proposed by Senator Santorum and others in the bill, S. 1180.

A third pending amendment on net operating losses should also be included. This amendment allows companies that operated at losses during the difficult economic conditions of last year to offset those losses against their income for the previous 5 years. This provision would accelerate tax relief to companies that need to continue operations and recover from recent difficulties.

I ask my colleagues: Let us get on with the business at hand. Have this institution be what it traditionally has been. Yes. An institution where everything is thoroughly discussed as it ought to be because this is the only institution where that can be done in our American political system. But it is also an institution that moves along and doesn't stymie legislation. We know our responsibilities are to the taxpayers of this country to produce a good product and produce it quickly. If we think of the best policy, we will in fact have the best politics. Let's put good economic policy ahead of shortsighted politics.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business and I will yield the floor for anyone who wants to speak on the legislation.

Madam President, I will deal with the issue of the energy bill in the context of where we left off last November, two votes short of stopping a filibuster against the legislation so it could be passed. That means we had 58 votes. We needed two more. We cannot get two more votes. Therefore, the bill still languishes.

It was the first major energy policy for probably 15 years as far as the Federal Government passing one is concerned, and things are a lot scarier now than they were last November. Now we have what are the highest gasoline prices in the history of our country, just slightly above where they were a year ago, and previous to that a couple times in the late 1990s or the early part of this century. In other words, over the last 4 or 5 years they have probably been almost as high three or four times. We also have, different than at most times, very high natural gas prices.

The impact in the economy is very negative, as we know. The impact upon low-income families is very bad, as we know. It is a shame we could not get that bill passed last November. I hope we can get one passed very shortly. In fact, I had hoped the high natural gas prices and gasoline prices we faced would be an impetus to any Member in this body. Of the 42 who did not vote to stop debate, hopefully these Members will see the need for passing this energy legislation to help the economy, to help the consumers of America, to move this economy along.

I recall over the last 4 or 5 years there have been high gasoline prices in the past and maybe not so high natural gas prices in the past, that there has been an outrage expressed on the floor of this Senate about those high gasoline prices--Members speaking about collusion within the industry, Members asking the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether there was any anticompetitive activity, and tremendous outrage over the high prices.

Now that gasoline prices are higher, I would guess I would hear that same outrage. But we are not hearing it. I wonder if we are not hearing it because so many Members on the other side of the aisle were part of the filibuster against the energy bill last year, and they are ashamed when they had an opportunity to do something to bring an energy policy to America they did not do it.

That energy policy was one that was well balanced between tax incentives for the production of fossil fuel, tax incentives for the conservation of energy, and tax incentives for alternative and renewable fuels--a very well-balanced piece of legislation, legislation I would say was well balanced to meet the immediate needs of our country, which are best met by the fossil fuels we have been using for more than 100 years to take care of the near term but also well balanced for the outyears. Obviously, since God only made so much fossil fuel, and it is finite, the dependence on renewable and alternative fuels, as well as incentives for conservation, is the pattern for the future if we are going to have a sound energy policy.

This package, put together by Senator Domenici, is well balanced and had the good fortune of having so many of these tax incentives involved that came out of my Senate Finance Committee in a bipartisan way.

So why not the outrage now? We keep hearing so much debate during

the bill that is before us, and during morning business by Members, particularly of the other party, about the problems we are having creating jobs, the problems we are having with the Nation's economy.

There might be a difference of opinion whether the economy is doing well, but there are a lot of statistics that show it is doing well with the 8.2 percent growth for the third quarter of 2003, and the 4.1 percent growth for the fourth quarter of 2003, and unemployment holding steady at 5.6 percent. But we are still hearing the outrage that jobs are not being created. And who can argue that if you are unemployed and want a job you ought not have a job? You would expect to have a job with an economy growing where it is now and with the fabulously low rate of unemployment of 5.6 percent, because seldom have we had that low a rate of unemployment in the last 40 years. A national energy policy would surely help us with the creation of jobs.

So you can ask, where are the jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs? One factor affecting the manufacturing industry and, in turn, the economy in general I have not heard mentioned during the debate is the rising cost of energy. The fact is, the rising energy costs continue to be a drag on our economy.

In January, consumer prices jumped one-half of 1 percent, and that was only because, as small as that is, of higher energy costs. In fact, energy costs rose 4.7 percent, accounting for more than three-quarters of the overall increase in consumer prices.

Crude oil for April delivery is over $36 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas prices at the pump around the Nation are at record highs. Nationally, a gallon of regular gasoline averages $1.74. That is 2 cents higher than at this time last year.

Why are energy prices so high? Well, global demand for crude oil is increasing because of greater demand not only in the United States but because of a higher percentage of demand in Japan and China.

OPEC, which supplies 40 percent of the world's oil, recently announced they intend to cut production by 1 million barrels a day starting April 1. That is obviously going to push prices yet higher. This is from OPEC, an organization that has repeatedly stated their goal is to keep prices somewhere between $22 and $28 a barrel, not now satisfied with $36 a barrel. Because we are so dependent upon foreign countries for over 60 percent of our crude oil, I think they have gotten us--meaning OPEC has gotten the United States--over a barrel.

We have also seen a sustained increase in the demand and cost of natural gas. Because natural gas is now the fuel of choice for new electricity generation, the demand for natural gas is no longer seasonal. While our existing policies in Washington have created the increased demand for natural gas, we have done very little to ensure a domestic supply to meet that demand.

In fact, the increased exploration is not bringing in enough new natural gas online to keep up with the increased needs we have in this country. Hence, as you understand economics 101, when supply is down, price is up; hence, higher natural gas prices.

The fact is, high fuel prices remain a concern for transportation firms. High energy prices hurt steel mills, manufacturers, farmers, and eventually end up hurting all consumers. High energy prices cost American jobs. Unless we increase supply, we are going to see record high prices again this year, and we are going to see a continued drag on the American economy.

We need to help the manufacturing and agricultural industries save existing jobs and go beyond that to create new jobs. We need to lower our Nation's energy costs.

What are the alternatives? We could and should apply pressure to members of OPEC to increase supplies. Some have suggested releasing crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase supply and drive down prices.

I believe we can and must take action in the Senate to address rising energy costs. As my colleagues know, we have been considering a comprehensive energy bill in this Chamber for over a period of 3 years now, with the most progress made last year when we had a bill pass the House, a bill pass the Senate, a bill come successfully out of conference committee, and overwhelmingly pass the House of Representatives, but being defeated or at least stalled here on the floor of the Senate last November when we came up two votes short of stopping debate, to stop the filibuster, to get to finality. So it is quite obvious we have the votes to pass an energy bill in the Senate.

It is a shame we cannot get over that hurdle of 60 votes to get this bill there, to get us on the road to greater self-sufficiency with energy as we try to do it through a combination of incentives for fossil fuel production, incentives for energy conservation, and for alternative and renewable fuels. That conference committee agreement was voted on last November. Unfortunately, we had a minority of Senators successful in filibustering the bill.

I strongly support the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, in his efforts, then as well as now, to move this bill forward or, short of moving it forward, a bill of a similar nature to start over as hopefully one way of getting around a Democratic filibuster.

I am pleased Senator Domenici has introduced a slimmed-down bill that addresses the major concerns that prevented the Senate from adopting the conference report. This bill goes a long way toward increasing domestic energy production of conventional energy such as oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. The bill includes provisions to improve the tax treatment of natural gas gathering and distribution lines. It includes incentives for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to markets in the lower 48. The bill seeks to improve our Nation's electricity transmission capacity and reliability by creating enforceable and mandatory reliability standards and providing incentives for transmission grid improvements.

It also includes a number of provisions that would increase domestic production of renewable energy and create jobs at home. Through the renewable fuels standard, it would double the use of domestic homegrown ethanol, a first-time tax incentive for biodiesel to be made from soybeans.

It would also bring new sources of energy on line. It would extend the wind energy production tax credit that I first got through the Senate in 1992. It would have an expansion of the production tax credit for biomass and a tax incentive for purchases of residential solar and wind energy equipment.

Each of these provisions will increase our production of domestic renewable energy resources. They will also create thousands--some people have estimated 800,000--of jobs all across our country.

The bill also includes incentives for energy-efficient improvements to existing homes and for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles. These initiatives will lead to an increased domestic supply of energy, a more stable economy, and thousands of jobs for America's workers. Make no mistake about it, this energy bill is a jobs bill.

As I indicated, these provisions are in a new bill that Senator Domenici is trying to move along. But the ideal way to handle this would be to get two more votes to bring to an end the filibuster of the bill that was before the Senate last November because all of these provisions are included in that bill. There is no reason to start all over again, particularly when now, compared to last November, we have the highest price for gasoline in the history of our country, and we still have outrageously high prices for natural gas.

It is time this country has a national energy policy. There is no reason two Senators who are in the minority should stand in the way of moving this legislation along, legislation that passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly last year, came out of conference after about 2 months of work on putting together a compromise that could get an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives and get a vast majority vote in the Senate, but two votes short of the 60, the extraordinary supermajority it takes to stop a filibuster. I don't understand why we have Democrats from corn States, with everything this bill does for the production of ethanol that would help the farmers of their States, and also help the energy needs of our Nation, how

any Senator who is from a big corn-producing State could dare vote not to end this filibuster.

There are votes out there from members of the other party, from corn- producing States, who ought to explain to their constituents why they won't join in this effort with other farm State Senators to bring massively on line the production of ethanol that can help us be more energy independent from OPEC nations, particularly in a time when Americans are shedding blood in Iraq because we need some stability in the Middle East to guarantee oil coming to our country. Obviously, the blood I am talking about is shed because of the war we are in, the war to defeat terrorism against Americans, against western culture, but also the sort of democracy we can have in the Middle East brings stability that we don't have there now. And it is important to have that stability for the economic needs of our country.

I don't know why we can't get some votes from some farm State Democrats. We only need two of about half a dozen, whom we could easily identify, who should be voting with us to bring finality to this issue.

I believe these bills on energy, because we have this pending bill before the Senate and we have the conference report that is through the House and two votes short of getting to finality in the Senate last November--whichever one you are talking about--I believe these bills represent a comprehensive energy policy consisting of conservation efforts, the development of renewable and alternative energy sources, and domestic production of traditional sources of energy. This bill goes a long way to develop an energy policy that will drive down the cost of energy and create jobs at home so that we don't have to have the outrage that we have on the Senate floor, primarily from members of the other party, over 3 out of the last 5 years when energy prices have been so high. Why don't we do something about it? We have an opportunity. We don't seem to grasp it now when it is here.

This bill is too important to our economy to let it die. Therefore, I strongly encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to help our leadership bring either the conference committee up for a vote on the issue of stopping debate or the new bill that Senator Domenici has placed before the Senate, to bring it to the floor and consider it in a timely manner, and timely is already probably 3 months late as we have seen the energy prices go up to the highest level, hurting our economy. We can and should come to an agreement so we can consider and pass this JOBS bill as soon as possible.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Grassley amendment No. 2687 be agreed to; provided further that I then be immediately recognized to offer a further second degree related to net operating loss. I further ask consent that the amendment then be agreed to, and the underlying amendment No. 2686 be agreed to, as amended, with the motions to reconsider laid upon the table. I further ask consent that Senator Harkin then be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating to overtime; further, that no second degrees be in order to that amendment prior to a vote in relation to that amendment.

Mr. President, then, according to the unanimous consent agreement, I send an amendment to the desk for Senators Bunning, Lincoln, Santorum, Conrad, and Baucus.

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

Mr. President, I would like to comment on the remarks of the Senator from Nevada. He mentioned the possibility of a cloture motion. My colleague from Iowa also mentioned that possibility, and it could be a possibility. But I hope that will not poison the waters as we still try to reach agreement on this amendment and try to reach agreement on getting to finality on this bill.

I, along with Senator Baucus, have urged that we not have a cloture motion. That, of course, is a leadership decision. I would urge my colleagues to think in terms of the fact that it takes 48 hours for that motion to mature so it can be voted upon. That will be time for us to see if we can work out agreements not only on the pending amendment but also on any other amendments that may be adopted, and then, if so, the cloture motion could be vitiated.

I hope Members will look down the road at the goal of this legislation. That goal is to create jobs that are going to be very difficult to create if we are stuck with sanctions put on our manufacturing by the European Union. We already have 5-percent sanctions. It is going to go up 1 percent a month until it gets to 17 percent. Between now and the election, that is going to add up to at least 12-percent sanctions.

I hope both sides of the aisle will agree that it is already very difficult for U.S. manufacturing to compete in the global economy. A 17-percent penalty after 1 year is just like a 17-percent sales tax. That is going to make our manufacturing exports much more uncompetitive. Since everybody is concerned about creating and preserving jobs, keeping American manufacturing strong, competitive, passage of this legislation is very important.

We all have amendments we want to get adopted. We want the Senate to consider amendments, whether germane or nongermane. There is plenty of opportunity between now and adjournment of this Congress to consider these amendments. In the meantime, if we don't pass this legislation this week, we are going to have a 6-percent penalty in April, a 7- percent penalty in May. I hope we can get this legislation passed very soon so we can get rid of all those sanctions against our products.

In the meantime we have reduced the corporate tax for manufacturing in America by 3 percentage points, and that is going to make it possible for the cost of capital in America to be less expensive and make American manufacturing much more competitive and, in the process, preserve jobs and create jobs.

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