Floor Statements

Mr. President, in the book of Ecclesiastes, the Preacher spoke of how there is ``a time to plan, and a time to uproot.'' The American farmer has known this truth from the first days when Indians first walked to this continent.

Those of us who are privileged to represent rural States know well the times of American farmers and ranchers. No matter what the time, their concerns are never far from our thoughts.

Times have changed for American agriculture, and for American jobs. In 1900, 37 percent of American workers worked in agriculture. Now, only about 2 percent do.

Of course, it doesn't seem like 2 percent to rural States such as Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, where agriculture can still account for as much as 50 percent of the economy.

But that is the reality: American farmers are more productive than ever. And because productive American agriculture produces more than American households consume, exports are as important as ever. That is why American farmers have been among the strongest supporters of international trade.

And it is about that intersection between American agriculture and international trade that I rise to speak today.

Last month, the United States and Australia signed a free trade agreement, taking an important step to connect two of the world's most vibrant economies. This agreement creates opportunities for both countries. For Australia, it offers integration with the world's largest economic power. For the United States, it offers a link to an Australian market that has one of the highest standards of living in the world--and is a key platform to markets in Asia.

In the coming weeks, we will hear about the significant economic benefits of this agreement. But I think we should also look at this agreement in a broader context. First, we need to take a balanced look at the agreement and assess its costs and benefits. Second, we need to view the Australia agreement in the context of our larger trade agenda.

The benefits of the Australia agreement are compelling--particularly in the context of the current debate over jobs moving overseas.

When compared to some of the other agreements that the administration is negotiating, Australia offers real benefits. And it is not subject to some of the traditional criticisms.

Compare the debate over the Australia agreement to the debate over the Central America agreement. Critics of CAFTA contend that Central America's lower labor and environmental standards will undercut jobs here at home. I share some of these concerns and continue to work hard on strengthening these standards.

Yet, with the Australia agreement, this tension disappears. Australian workers enjoy high labor standards. Australia protects its environment.

More importantly, Australian consumers want U.S. manufactured goods. Australia is one of the few countries where the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus. This fact helps explain the strong support of U.S. manufacturers for this agreement--which they estimate will result in $2 billion more in exports every year.

This free trade agreement offers clear benefits to the U.S. economy and to U.S. workers.

Thus the Australia agreement does not raises the usual concerns over labor and the environment. But it does raise concerns over agriculture. And farmers are usually stalwart supporters of free trade.

Their anxieties are understandable. Australia is a major exporter of many of the same commodities that Americans produce--particularly beef, dairy, and sugar. Yet, Australia offers a relatively small consumer market in exchange. So, while Australian farmers would get increased access to our consumer market of around 250 million people, our farmers would get increased access to an Australian consumer market that is much smaller.

So when the administration announced late in 2002 that it intended to enter into negotiations with Australia, agriculture groups immediately voiced concern.

As I looked at the negotiations, I saw two options. I could sit back, say nothing, and hope for the best. This might have been politically expedient, given the anxieties within the agriculture community, but it would have risked getting a worse product, as a result.

Instead, I decided to engage the process, using my position as the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee to help shape the best possible agreement for our country and our farmers. After consulting with the agriculture community in Montana, I decided that to do otherwise would be a disservice to the many farmers and ranchers back home who look to me to fight for them.

As I looked at this agreement, the potential concerns for beef, dairy, and sugar producers were clear. But I also saw potential gains for Montana--including wheat farmers and pork producers, as well as Montana's growing technology manufacturing industries. With this in mind, I set out to help Ambassador Zoellick find ways to mitigate the dangers and maximize the gains.

My staff and I worked closely with the U.S. Trade Representative throughout this process. And I met personally with the Australian Prime Minister and other officials. As negotiations entered a critical phase last December, I spelled out to Ambassador Zoellick the sensitive areas for Montana agriculture that needed his greatest attention. I also offered some ideas for how to manage them.

My staff and I worked tirelessly to ensure that negotiators--from both countries--understood and accommodated the needs of Montanans. In early February, the negotiators concluded an agreement that addressed sensitive Montana products with great care. The U.S. Trade Representative addressed my concerns on virtually every commodity.

While Australia agreed to the immediate elimination of all tariffs on many U.S. agricultural products, the U.S. received important protections.

Beef. On beef, my first concern was ensuring that the U.S. gets what is called ``access for access.'' In other words, the U.S. Trade Representative should undertake new agreements and find new export markets to offset potential increased imports from Australia. The proposed U.S.-Thailand agreement, for example, will help us reach that goal. Thailand's population is three times larger than Australia's, with a consumer market that is growing quickly. We need to build on the Thailand agreement by opening other significant markets--particularly in Asia.

But we are several years from finishing the Thailand agreement. And we are likely several years from completing the current round of negotiations in the WTO. So we need to make sure that increased access to our market is far enough down the road that it will be offset by other agreements. To address this, I worked with USTR to ensure a significant transition period. As a result, access for Australian beef will increase very slowly, with duties in place for 18 years. Importantly, the agreement only provides increased access for manufactured beef--other beef products will continue to face the same duties they face today.

I also worked to ensure the agreement contained special safeguards-- so that there is not a surge of Australian imports into the U.S. market. As a result, the agreement contains two safeguards--one in effect during the 18-year transition, and another taking effect in year 19 to remain in place indefinitely.

Dairy. For dairy, this agreement recognizes the sensitivity of this industry by retaining existing tariffs indefinitely. Most importantly for Montana, tariffs for milk protein concentrates are unaffected by the agreement.

Sugar. Perhaps the most difficult issue in the agreement was how to address the concerns of the U.S. sugar industry. This industry faces extreme distortions on the global market, for example, high export subsidies in Europe. These distortions chronically depress the world price far below the world's average cost of production. For these reasons, sugar policy must be addressed multilaterally in the WTO negotiations.

In this agreement, Ambassador Zoellick took a difficult and controversial step in excluding sugar entirely from the agreement. Some have criticized him for this. But not this Senator and those I represent.

Sheep. Even for Montana sheep ranchers, who already face free trade in lamb, the agreement delays the elimination of the few remaining wool tariffs, rather than providing for their immediate elimination. This comes on the heels of initial efforts by the U.S. and Australian industries to establish a joint marketing effort aimed at increasing consumption of lamb.

Wheat. On wheat, which is a major Montana export, the agreement makes some progress toward our ultimate goal of reforming global markets. The U.S. industry and I had both hoped to secure an Australian commitment to restructure the Australian Wheat Board, a state trading enterprise, or STE, that acts as a monopoly trader controlling the Australian market. Because Australia is a significant exporter of wheat, their artificially low prices distort the world market and make it harder for U.S. wheat growers to compete.

While Australia did not agree to immediate changes to its Wheat Board, it did agree to reverse its position in the Doha Round negotiations and work with the U.S. to mandate global reform of STEs. This is an important step. It further isolates and undermines the Doha negotiating leverage of other countries that use STEs to distort agriculture markets.

This will particularly help us in our efforts to force reform in Canada. Montana wheat producers are affected daily by the distortions introduced into the U.S. market by the Canadian Wheat Board. This part of the Australia agreement is thus a very positive development, and a clear improvement compared to the status quo.

SPS Issues. Finally, I reminded Ambassador Zoellick of the crucial need for Australia to resolve its sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, barriers to U.S. products. In response to U.S. concerns, the Australians agreed to resolve SPS disputes as soon as possible. I am pleased to note that the Australians have made good on this promise in the high-profile dispute over pork. Last month, Australia lifted regulatory barriers to U.S. pork. That one action could mean an additional $50 million in U.S. pork exports.

U.S. negotiators understood my concerns in this agreement. I thank Ambassador Zoellick and his staff--particularly Al Johnson--for addressing them.

Of course, it would be a mistake to think that free trade agreements affect only farmers. For the great swath of American and Montana manufacturing workers hit hard by the more than 3 million jobs lost over the past 3 years, this agreement couldn't come at a better time.

Australia is one of the few large economies with whom the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus. With a standard of living higher than Germany, France, and even Japan, Australia has one of the most robust and fundamentally sound economies in the world. Guaranteed access to a market like this is crucial if we are serious about rebuilding the U.S. economy.

Industrial trade with Australia is already strong, but with this agreement, it will get even stronger. This agreement will eliminate tariffs on more than 99 percent of U.S. goods immediately. Mr. President, 93 percent of current U.S. exports to Australia are manufactured goods, so further economic integration is bound to help U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers.

These benefits will extend to all parts of the country. Montana industries already export $3.4 million worth of industrial goods to Australia. This number will only grow higher, as a result of this agreement. Montana will benefit not only from increases in direct exports, but from increased demand for other goods that require Montana inputs.

Further benefits would accrue to U.S. exporters from using Australia as a platform for more efficient access to Asian markets. This agreement will thus provide net benefits across a vast spectrum of the U.S. economy--manufacturing, services, investments, and workers.

But let me return to how international trade will help U.S. farmers.

This is always a fundamental question, particularly for those of us who represent rural states.

As a Montanan, it is hard to talk about international trade without thinking about agriculture. Over the years, U.S. agriculture has undergone enormous changes, for reasons that are much broader than globalization. The U.S., as a whole, has changed dramatically. Where we live, where we work, the things we make, the technology we use to make things--all of these have changed since our parents' time.

We need a rural America that is not only stable and prosperous; we need a rural America that is compatible in the long-term with a 21st century characterized by mobility and rapid technological advancement. We need a farm economy that is highly adaptive and aggressively focused on competitiveness.

To accomplish this, we need sweeping changes in several areas. We will need more agricultural research--an area suffering from an appalling decline in federal support. We will need a farm policy that facilitates, rather than simply underwrites, the farm economy.

And we will need a vigilant search for new and growing markets.

Of course, many of these needs are beyond the ken of trade policy, but the search for new markets is not. That is why fundamentally we need a strategy that embraces the global trading system.

For the U.S. to remain a superpower in agriculture, we must see the world as it is, not as it used to be. That means we need to focus our attention on global negotiations that will create real fairness in agriculture trade. I share the concern of many about a trade policy agenda that focuses too much attention on bilateral agreements, at the expense of our broader efforts in the World Trade Organization.

Yet, in the trend toward globalization, the industrial world is moving ahead. We should not allow agriculture to be left behind. Leaving agriculture behind in the 20th century trading regime would be disastrous for U.S. farmers, if for no other reason than they are, on the whole, the most productive and technologically advanced in the world. A globalized economy and its institutions are the only forum in which American farmers' technological advantage is most powerful. American agriculture must move ahead to prosper.

We cannot shut agriculture out of the globalizing process. We cannot settle for the status quo, hoping that it will sustain us indefinitely. As the rest of the world's agricultural producers rapidly develop, we cannot hide behind high tariffs and high subsidies.

The U.S. represents only 5 percent of the world's consumers. Yet, in commodity after commodity, we produce far more than Americans can consume. That is true of beef and wheat, for example. And demand from our own 5 percent will likely grow much more slowly than demand from the other 95 percent. There are only so many steaks any one well-fed American can eat. But in the developing world, demand for food still has much room to grow. The more their wealth grows, the more that consumption patterns will shift from low-cost, starchy foods to high- value sources of protein such as beef and wheat.

We are faced, then, with a simple choice: Either we try to turn back the clock to a time of inferior technology and a more insular world or we seek greater access to the markets of the other 95 percent of the world. The choice is clear.

As a nation, we have embarked on a policy of opening markets. This is a wise policy and a sound one. The fruit of this effort should be more and higher-paying jobs for U.S. workers, more abundant choices for our consumers, and greater markets for our farmers and ranchers.

Yet, if we are going to sell our products overseas, then we have to engage global markets. And we can't do that in a vacuum. This means negotiating trade agreements and fighting the distortions--such as high tariffs and high subsidies--that other countries use to undermine our competitiveness. In that fight, we have no better ally than Australia.

At the heart of the matter, engaging global markets means opening doors. And we won't succeed in opening doors to other markets if we won't open our own. We can't insist that China, Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan open their markets to our products, if we aren't also willing to open our markets to theirs. And I can't insist that Ambassador Zoellick accommodate my concerns in a free trade agreement, if I am not willing to offer my support in return.

When Ambassador Zoellick announced the administration's intention to negotiate a free trade agreement, many of us harbored concerns that he would negotiate a far different agreement than the one we have before us today. But the protections that American negotiators built into this agreement are strong. And I congratulate the Trade Representative's office for its skill in negotiating such a tough agreement.

Mr. President, I will support the U.S.-Australia free trade agreement. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that this agreement is implemented fairly. And I look forward to working with the U.S. Trade Representative to make sure that all trade agreements are the best possible deal for Montana.

This is the time for engaging our allies and for opening the door to new markets. This is the time for planting the seeds of a greater world trade system. As the American farmer has done down through the centuries, we should labor today for a future of growth.

I agree with Chairman Grassley. It is our intent with the Free File provision to protect the integrity of our voluntary tax system by providing lower income, disadvantaged and under-served taxpayers the ability to meet their filing obligation without subjecting themselves to unwanted marketing. I also commit to work with Senator Allen as we conference with the House.

I agree with the chairman. There is no intent to alter the treatment that the IRS has historically provided for CCRCs that are not described in section 7872(g). This is a critical point that could affect a large number of seniors. We do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this issue since the immediate consequences could be significant--with large numbers of seniors potentially having to pay additional taxes. I also know that Senator Mikulski has expressed an interest in this provision. I give my commitment to both Senators Graham and Mikulski to work with them on this provision as we go to conference with the House.

I agree with Chairman Grassley. It is our intent with the Free File provision to protect the integrity of our voluntary tax system by providing lower income, disadvantaged and under-served taxpayers the ability to meet their filing obligation without subjecting themselves to unwanted marketing. I also commit to work with Senator Allen as we conference with the House.

I agree with the chairman. There is no intent to alter the treatment that the IRS has historically provided for CCRCs that are not described in section 7872(g). This is a critical point that could affect a large number of seniors. We do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this issue since the immediate consequences could be significant--with large numbers of seniors potentially having to pay additional taxes. I also know that Senator Mikulski has expressed an interest in this provision. I give my commitment to both Senators Graham and Mikulski to work with them on this provision as we go to conference with the House.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, in introducing the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. I applaud Senator Pryor for his commitment to our Armed Forces. The study and the bill that he has unveiled today provide just one example of that commitment.

Last year, Senator Pryor asked me to join him in requesting a study on the compensation received by our military personnel, and the tax treatment of this compensation. This study has been completed. Many of the results are encouraging. But the study reveals one significant glitch in the tax law that is hurting many of our low-income military personnel.

For the most part, the compensation packages received by our military personnel are competitive with the private sector. And the Tax Code provides many incentives for military service. But as the GAO study reveals, some low-income military personnel are losing out because they have been called to serve in a combat zone.

Now this just does not make sense. Why would we penalize those military personnel who are serving our country in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world?

Let me explain. Under current law, compensation earned by military personnel while they are serving in a combat zone is exempt from income tax. This provides most military personnel in these areas with a very significant tax benefit. Because of a glitch in the tax law, however, certain individuals may actually end up losing money because of this exemption.

This is because the law is preventing them from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit and Refundable Child Tax Credit that they would otherwise been entitled to. These credits are based on earned income, and the law says that combat zone income does not qualify as earned income. GAO has found that as many as 10,000 men and women serving in combat will see a reduction or elimination of their EITC or child credit, they will, in effect, lose money.

This bill would fix that glitch in the law, and provide these individuals with the tax credits to which they are entitled.

Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces put their lives on the line for our Nation every day. It is the least we can do to ensure that they are being properly compensated and receiving all the tax benefits that are due to them under the law. Given the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the war on terrorism, it is more important than ever that we vigilantly oversee the tax system to ensure that our troops are being treated fairly.

I applaud Senator Pryor for taking the lead. I am proud to join him in introducing legislation to correct these errors and ensure our service men and women receive the proper level of tax relief they deserve. Serving our country is one of the most honorable services a citizen can provide. Now it is up to us to provide them with the tax compensation they are due.

I hope that the Senate will take up and pass this bill at the earliest appropriate time, and make sure that our men and women in uniform receive the tax relief to which they are entitled.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, in introducing the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. I applaud Senator Pryor for his commitment to our Armed Forces. The study and the bill that he has unveiled today provide just one example of that commitment.

Last year, Senator Pryor asked me to join him in requesting a study on the compensation received by our military personnel, and the tax treatment of this compensation. This study has been completed. Many of the results are encouraging. But the study reveals one significant glitch in the tax law that is hurting many of our low-income military personnel.

For the most part, the compensation packages received by our military personnel are competitive with the private sector. And the Tax Code provides many incentives for military service. But as the GAO study reveals, some low-income military personnel are losing out because they have been called to serve in a combat zone.

Now this just does not make sense. Why would we penalize those military personnel who are serving our country in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world?

Let me explain. Under current law, compensation earned by military personnel while they are serving in a combat zone is exempt from income tax. This provides most military personnel in these areas with a very significant tax benefit. Because of a glitch in the tax law, however, certain individuals may actually end up losing money because of this exemption.

This is because the law is preventing them from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit and Refundable Child Tax Credit that they would otherwise been entitled to. These credits are based on earned income, and the law says that combat zone income does not qualify as earned income. GAO has found that as many as 10,000 men and women serving in combat will see a reduction or elimination of their EITC or child credit, they will, in effect, lose money.

This bill would fix that glitch in the law, and provide these individuals with the tax credits to which they are entitled.

Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces put their lives on the line for our Nation every day. It is the least we can do to ensure that they are being properly compensated and receiving all the tax benefits that are due to them under the law. Given the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the war on terrorism, it is more important than ever that we vigilantly oversee the tax system to ensure that our troops are being treated fairly.

I applaud Senator Pryor for taking the lead. I am proud to join him in introducing legislation to correct these errors and ensure our service men and women receive the proper level of tax relief they deserve. Serving our country is one of the most honorable services a citizen can provide. Now it is up to us to provide them with the tax compensation they are due.

I hope that the Senate will take up and pass this bill at the earliest appropriate time, and make sure that our men and women in uniform receive the tax relief to which they are entitled.

Madam President, I ask to speak for 5 minutes in favor of the amendment.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Delaware. I agree with him. I believe we should have pay-go principles in the Senate. I hope the Budget Committee adopts pay-go. I think it would be a dereliction of duty not to. I also support his view on this amendment.

For the last 10, 15 minutes I have heard a lot of complaints against the Clinton administration, against Democrats, how they have not really helped special education. One can use that argument and point the finger, playing one party against the other. I have all kinds of data that resoundingly refute the allegations made by the chairman of the committee. It is just not accurate. But I will not get into that. That is not why we are here.

We are not here to blame and say who is doing a better job, Republicans or Democrats. People back home don't care two hoots about that. They care about whether we are doing our job as a body. I submit that we are not doing our job with respect to providing the dollars for special education. I don't know about you, Madam President, but when I am in my State, I hear constantly from school districts, school administrators, about how pressed they are and their inability to meet costs and the cost increases.

As you well know, we have in America a system where elementary and secondary education is paid for basically by taxpayer dollars, property taxes. That is what it comes down to. People are stressed, with the economy not doing too well in our States. School levies are not going through. People cannot pay more property taxes to support anything. They would love to support their schools, but they cannot afford it.

Costs for school districts in Montana have gone up over 1,000 percent in the last 20 years; that is for special education and elementary education in general. That is the cost increase. School districts in Montana--and I daresay most school districts across the country--are facing this. What do we do about it?

As you know, Madam President, back in 1975, Congress passed a law-- IDEA--regarding special education. What did that law provide? It provided for ramping up 40 percent payment of IDEA, of special education costs. That was the law in 1975. Beginning in 1978, there would be a 5-percent increase; in 1979, 10 percent of the funding; in 1980, 20 percent would be paid; up to 1982 when 40 percent--the full amount--of special education costs would be provided for by Uncle Sam. That was back in 1975 when that statute was passed.

Here we are in 2004, and I think we are only at 18 percent. We have not made good on our promise. We are way off base. So a lot of the data we have heard about a 365-percent increase is misleading. You can do anything with statistics. Those statistics start from a very low base, and I am just telling you what the law is. The law was that back in 1975 we would ramp it up to 40 percent by 1982. That is why it is our failure to do so. We are only at 18 percent; that is all we come up with. With costs going up so much at home, that is why I believe the Harkin approach makes sense. We need mandatory increases up to 2014-- not discretionary, because it has been discretionary. And when the President is given discretion what has happened? Virtually nothing.

Sure, we are getting some increases, just a little bit, but it is virtually nothing. Congress always finds a way, Presidents always find a way, not to spend money on education. Other things seemingly are more important.

If we do not pass the Harkin amendment, mark my words, there is no way we are ever going to get up even close to 40 percent. We are not going to get up to 25 percent by the year 2014. It is not going to happen. It is only going to happen if we keep our feet to the fire and force the President and the Congress to come up with the promise that we should fulfill. We should fulfill it because we made that promise.

I ask for an additional 2 minutes.

That is a promise we made. We should live up to our promise. No. 2, we are coming nowhere near living up to our promise. No. 3, costs are going up dramatically in all our States for special education, and we are not helping address that. And No. 4 is the tremendous importance of education in this country. We are competing worldwide with elementary and high school students in Pusan, Korea, in Czechoslovakia, high schools and elementary schools all around the world. Education is going to be the key to America's economic success in the future. It is going to have to be education. It cannot be anything else.

We need to educate our kids. We ought to set priorities for educating our kids rather than spending money elsewhere.

We have a lot of programs on which I do not think money should be spent. I think most Americans think our priorities are a little askew and that we should spend more on education, helping our kids, than we are thus far.

I heard the argument, well, gee, if it is mandatory, first, that is not necessary. That is the main argument to be made. I have shown how necessary it is.

The second argument I hear is, well, it is illusory, that perhaps the discretionary portion will not be provided. That is a false statement. First, we are talking about the very worst case scenario. The mandatory portion will be provided for. It is possible that the discretionary portion may not be provided for by Congress. That is possible. The very worst possible situation is that we only get the mandatory increase under this amendment, but sure as I am standing here, my colleagues know doggoned well that Congress is not going to provide the discretionary money, too.

We are talking about education, and with the mandatory increase provided for we are certainly going to provide for the discretionary portion, too. This amendment is a no-brainer. It is clear to this Senator this amendment must and should pass, for the sake of our kids. We have a duty on the face of this Earth, I believe a moral obligation, to leave this place in as good a shape or better shape than we found it. Clearly, that includes making sure our kids, special education students, are in as good a shape or better shape than we had when we were being educated, particularly given the competitive forces in the world.

I strongly urge the passage of this amendment.

On behalf of Senator Kennedy, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the time I have under the unanimous consent agreement.

The ancient Theban poet Pindar wrote: ``The test of any man lies in action.''

That was a very provocative, very prescient, and very wise statement. The test of any man, or woman, lies in action.

Today that test will be for the Senate. Today we will test whether the Senate can act to create and keep good manufacturing jobs in America. Today we will test whether the Senate can act to end European tariffs that hobble American businesses, and today we will test whether the Senate can act to extend vital benefits to the nearly 1.5 million jobless Americans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

The coming cloture vote is the defining test for the JOBS bill. If the Senate cannot vote today to complete action on this bill, then the majority leader will move on to other business. Yes, in a perfect world every Senator would have the opportunity to offer and debate every amendment. In a perfect world, every amendment would get a vote. In a perfect world, every Senator would get home for family dinner at 6. But by the standards of the modern Senate, I believe the Senate has given this bill fair consideration.

Over the course of 5 separate weeks, we have considered 28 amendments and adopted 17 of them. I think that is a respectable record. The coming cloture vote is now the test of whether we can pass the JOBS bill. The coming cloture vote is also a test of whether Senators on this side of the aisle can take yes for an answer. We on this side demanded a vote on Senator Harkin's overtime amendment, and the Senate did consider that amendment. The Senate adopted that amendment. We demanded a vote on Senator Dodd's offshoring amendment, and the Senate did consider that amendment and the Senate adopted that amendment as well. We demanded a vote on Senator Wyden's trade adjustment assistance amendment, and the Senate did consider that amendment but regrettably did not adopt it. However, Senators Wyden, Coleman, and I intend to bring that effort back to the Senate on another day. And we demanded a vote on Senator Cantwell's unemployment insurance amendment. Under the unanimous consent agreement governing this bill, in order to get a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment the Senate needs to invoke cloture.

If we invoke cloture, the Senate will consider that amendment, and I hope the Senate will also adopt it.

I believe that invoking cloture to get a vote on the Cantwell amendment is now a fair deal for Democrats, and I think we should take it. We should say, yes, for an answer. We should vote to invoke cloture so that we may vote on unemployment benefits.

After the cloture vote, the vote to waive the budget for Senator Cantwell's amendment will be a test for the entire Senate. Our vote on the Cantwell amendment is a test as to whether we can respond to the record number of jobless workers who have exhausted their benefits. America's free and open market economy has yielded unparalleled growth and vitality. Part of the genius of our economy is that we allow the private sector the freedom to adjust rapidly to changing circumstances. It helps our country grow. That freedom and vitality comes also with disruption and pain for workers who lose their jobs in hard economic times like those we have had in the last 4 years.

When, nearly 70 years ago, Congress created the unemployment insurance program, our society struck a deal. American workers agreed to participate in open and volatile markets, and the Government agreed to cushion the blow when markets turned rough. Unemployment insurance is the result of a vital social compact.

In past recessions, Congress has acted to extend those benefits, and the evidence is that in this recession more workers are remaining unemployed much longer than in previous recessions.

The share of the unemployed who have been unemployed for more than 6 months has hit its highest level in more than 20 years. Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan said recently ``an exceptionally high number'' of unemployed are losing their unemployment benefits, and he supported resuming temporary Federal benefits, saying:

I think it's a good idea largely because of the size of the

degree of exhaustions.

Thus, the coming vote on the Cantwell amendment will test whether the Senate can respond to this human need, keep our social compact, and extend these needed unemployment benefits. Finally, this coming cloture vote will be a test of whether the Senate can work.

This bill began as a venture of Democrats and Republicans working together in the Finance Committee. Its major provision, the heart of the provision--tax cuts for American manufacturing--is really a Democratic priority. Democrats sought all along to create and keep good manufacturing jobs here in America. This bill advanced in the Finance Committee as a cooperative venture. The chairman of the Finance Committee and I, working together, included many of the provisions of the bill in response to the request of Senators on this side of the aisle--on both sides of the aisle, but especially on this side of the aisle. This bill reflects an open, democratic process.

Once we came to the Senate floor, we tried to ensure the Senate consider the maximum number of amendments. Now the Senate has considered 28 amendments and adopted 17 amendments. Even after the Senate invokes cloture, the Senate may still consider germane amendments and there are going to be several of them, and I believe the Senate will be able to take them up and deal with them postcloture.

The time for talk is coming to a close. Soon will be a time for action. The coming vote will be a test of whether the Senate can act. Let us act to advance this bill to create good manufacturing jobs here in America. Let us act to extend unemployment benefits to jobless workers who need them. Let us act to show we can at least work together in the spirit of that great poet Pindar, again, who said, ``The test of any man lies in action.''

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask the Senator from Oklahoma if he wishes to speak. There are several speakers on this side. As I understand it, on the other side of the aisle, the time is divided between 10 and 15. If the Senator from Oklahoma has 15 minutes, now will be an appropriate time for him to speak.

You have 9 minutes left. Now would be an appropriate time. We have a lot of speakers here--not a lot, three more.

Maybe you can set a precedent here.

I yield 1 of my minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I will not use all that time.

I compliment Senator Cantwell. She has been dogged in her effort to bring up this amendment. I remember it was not too long ago when we were working, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and others in the leadership, to try to sequence amendments, to figure out how we would process this bill.

The Senator from Washington said she wanted to offer her amendment and we told her, absolutely she could. We were trying to work out some other amendments and asked if she could delay in pressing her amendment even though she had the right to offer it, and she said she would. She has been very good in, first, pushing to get her amendment passed and, second, working with Senators to try to figure out the very best circumstances under which her amendment could be brought up and passed.

It has been somewhat difficult because Senators on this side of the aisle have been standing up for her rights. This Senator, certainly, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, are standing up very strongly for her rights. Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts also assisted her and worked with her to help get this amendment up.

There have been some Senators on the other side of the aisle who did not want to vote at all on Senator Cantwell's amendment, but she has persevered. She has done a great job representing people who are out of work and unemployed, especially for her State of Washington. That is why we are here today. Were it not for the perseverance of the Senator from Washington, it is problematic whether we would be at this point. We will have a vote first on cloture and then a vote on her amendment. I thank the Senator for that.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, we have so many Members on this side who want to speak in opposition to the amendment, as well as Senators on the other side, but we are quite restricted as to the time to allocate. First, I will begin with Senator Bunning, 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow.

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

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

How much time remains on our side?

I yield 3 minutes 22 seconds to the Senator from Delaware, and 3 minutes 22 seconds to the Senator from Alaska following the Senator from Delaware.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, as has been ordered, after the Hollings amendment, there are three more. I am not sure any votes are needed on the three amendments the chairman just mentioned, by Senators Kyl, Landrieu, and Levin. We have times, but we are trying to work with the Senators. For example, it is my understanding that the Kyl amendment will be offered and withdrawn. We may be able to work out the others as well. Nevertheless, that is the order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent the pending Kyl amendment be recalled.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment by the Senator from Texas be temporarily set aside so the Senator from Louisiana may offer her amendment.

Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Louisiana. This is a very important amendment. The reservists clearly, particularly under the current circumstances, deserve at least the provision suggested by the Senator from Louisiana. The Senator can be assured this Senator will fight vigorously for her amendment in conference. It is a very important amendment.

Madam President, I believe there is no more debate on this amendment.

All time is yielded back.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the continuing activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on

terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's businesses, especially our small businesses. Too many small businesses, when their employees are asked to leave their jobs and serve the Nation, are unable to continue operating successfully and face severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. That is why I am pleased to join Senator Landrieu to provide all American businesses with a tax credit to help them continue to pay their employees who are called to active duty and to help small businesses temporarily replace reservists who are called up.

This amendment expands upon the Small Business Military Reservist Tax Credit Act that I introduced last year which provides help to small businesses in paying the difference in salary for their reservist employees called up to active duty. My legislation, S. 1595, also provided a tax credit to help small businesses cover the cost of temporarily replacing that employee while he or she is serving our Nation.

I worked with Senator Landrieu to develop this amendment which honors all patriotic employers who continue to pay the salaries of their employees who are members of the National Guard and Reserve and are called up to active duty in the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I believe this amendment will encourage all employers, especially small businesses, to pay their reservist employees when they face a reduction in salary due to their activation. Employers who continue to pay their reservists will be eligible to receive a tax credit up to $15,000 of the wages they pay to members of the Guard and Reserve for as long as the reservist is on active duty status. The JOBS Act, which we seek to amend, only provides a tax credit for reservists on active duty status for 1 year and does not provide any assistance for small businesses to help temporarily replace their reservists. I believe this approach is insufficient and that our amendment is needed to help reservists for each day of their service to our Nation and to provide important assistance to small businesses.

I am very pleased that Senator Landrieu has included provision of my bill to help small businesses cover the cost of temporarily replacing the reservist employee while he or she is serving our Nation. Today, many small employers are currently having a difficult time hiring temporary workers to replace their employees who have been called up to active duty in the national Guard or Reserve. The United Sates Chamber of Commerce estimates that 70 percent of military reservists called to active duty work in small- or medium-size companies. The Landrieu-Kerry amendment will provide a tax credit of 50 percent up to $6,000 to help small employers defray the costs of hiring a worker to replace a guardsman or reservist who has been called up to active duty. Small manufacturers will be eligible for a tax credit of 50 percent up to $10,000 to assist in hiring a temporary worker.

To fight our wars and meet our military responsibilities, the United States supplements its regular, standing military with reservists, citizen soldiers who serve nobly. Not since World War II have so many National Guard members been called to serve abroad. President Bush authorized the activation of up to 1 million military reservists for up to 2 years of active duty. Today, there are about 170,000 reserves on active duty in the war against terrorism--nearly half of the more than 350,000 called to duty since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many are serving admirably around the world, performing critical wartime functions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Our Nation does not go into battle without members of the National Guard and Reserve, and we are all grateful for their service.

Just this week, the Bush administration authorized the activation of an additional 47,000 reservists. The extension will cause significant economic difficulties for the reservists, their families and their employers that are left behind. Beyond the hardship of leaving their families, their homes and their regular employment, more than 41 percent of military reservists and National Guard members face a pay cut when they are called for active duty in our Armed Forces. Many if these reservists have families who depend upon that paycheck to survive and can least afford a substantial reduction in pay.

The large number of reservists being called up to active duty has hurt many small businesses across the Nation and may impact the number who are willing to re-enlist in the National Guard and Reserve in the future. In January, the Commission of the Army Reserve, Lt. General James R. Helmly, warned of a recruiting-retention crisis in the future for the National Guard and Reserve. A recent U.S. military questionnaire of returning Army National Guard soldiers projected a resignation rate of double what it was back in November 2001. From October to December 2003, almost one-quarter of the Guard members who have had the opportunity to re-enlist have opted not to do so. Recently, the U.S. Army developed a plan to pay reservists up to $10,000 to re-enlist to stop a developing problem.

That is why the Federal Government must take action to help businesses weather the loss of an employee to active duty and protect employees and their families from suffering a pay cut to serve our Nation. It is imperative that we help families of reservists maintain their standard of living while their loved one serves our Nation. We must also ensure that the cost of that service does not force businesses into financial ruin. We must ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or cease because of the effect that service has on work and family. The Landrieu-Kerry amendment will help achieve their important goals and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

I call for regular order with regard to the Hutchison amendment.

I believe there is no further debate.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote on the previous two amendments en bloc.

Mr. President, my colleague from New York and my colleague from Minnesota have filed a noteworthy amendment to the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act, S. 1637. The amendment raises the very important issue of how in this global economy we can protect the privacy of personally identifiable information that is transmitted abroad. Senator Clinton and her staff have worked diligently with me and my staff to find a way for the Senate to address these issues. The amendment raises significant issues that I believe will benefit from being made part of any appropriate hearing this session in the Finance Committee. They have graciously recognized the importance of moving forward on the JOBS bill. That is why I have agreed to invite Senators Clinton and Dayton to testify on this issue during the Senate Finance Committee's hearing on offshoring. My hope is that we will schedule that hearing soon.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator and share his commitment to the new markets tax credit.

The Senator is correct. The intent of the economic substance provision in the JOBS bill is clearly to uphold and protect congressionally mandated tax benefits while curtailing unintended abuses of the tax code. I assure the Senator that the new markets tax credit would not be adversely affected by this provision.

As the Senator knows, our intent in codifying the economic substance doctrine is to curtail the use of abusive tax shelters that have no economic substance or business purpose other than reducing the Federal tax liability of the taxpayer. This is clearly not the case of the new markets tax credit.

We attempted to clarify the intent of this provision in the Finance Committee report, 108-192, in a footnote that states:

If tax benefits are clearly contemplated and expected by

the language and purpose of the relevant authority it is not

intended that the tax benefit be disallowed if the only

reason for the disallowance is that the transaction fails to

meet the economic substance doctrine as defined in this

provision.

The report also specifically identifies the low income housing tax credit and the historic rehabilitation credit as examples of tax benefits that would not be taken into account in measuring potential tax benefits. These credits were noted as examples of the types of tax benefits that would not be considered in applying the economic substance doctrine.

The new markets tax credit was authorized with the clear intent of using a tax subsidy to attract private investors to business and economic development opportunities in poor communities--investment opportunities that otherwise might not be able to secure such investment capital. It is our intent that the NMTC be treated like the LIHTC and the HRTC and protected as a congressionally mandated tax benefit.

canadian softwood lumber dispute

I want to join my colleague from Oregon in support of this amendment, which cannot be considered for inclusion in the legislation at hand. I concur that action must be taken to ensure the integrity of the Chapter 19 Panel Process. There is a clear breakdown of due process with respect to Chapter 19. The decision by the NAFTA Panel to reject the UTC's injury analysis in the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada proves to me that the credibility of the NAFTA Panel process is in serious jeopardy. By imposing an impossible standard for proving ``material injury'', this NAFTA Panel seems to be saying that it will reject any antidumping or counterveiling duty in any circumstance. If the ANFTA dispute panel process wants to maintain its credibility, the panelists themselves must respect the limits of their responsibility. No country will allow the dispute panel process to undermine the integrity of perfectly valid trade remedies. Action must be taken to address this situation, and I can give my colleague my assurance that I will work to find an opportunity for the Senate to consider his amendment in the near future.

I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. The disputes resulting from any uncertainty regarding the proper application of the income forecast method are extremely unproductive and wasteful. To avoid further waste, resolution of any disputes must be resolved in a manner consistent with the clarifications contained in the bill.

Mr. President, I raise an issue with regard to the car donation provision included in the JOBS bill. Under the provision donors are limited to deducting the actual sale price of the vehicle that is donated to charity, unless the charity uses the car, in which case donors a get fair market value deduction. This is a good rule. It will cut out abuse of this charitable giving device, and make it easier for donors to comply with the tax law. However, I am also concerned about the potential for charities that intentionally sell/transfer donated vehicles at a low or no cost to low-income recipients as part of a charitable program to be unintentionally hampered from doing so. I believe the law is written in such a way that if the car is given by the charity to a low income family, or used for parts to repair a different car, there is no sale that triggers the sales proceeds limit, and the donor gets a fair market value deduction. I agree with some folks' suggestions that the sales to needy families case does not fit within the ``use by the charity'' rules as presently drafted. But trying to modify the proposal to move away from the sale bright line rule can be tricky, and I fear we would be opening up the proposal to abuse. I pledge to charities that do sell cars to low-income or needy individuals at reduced prices as part of a charitable program, that we will expand regulatory authority during conference or a preconference period with the House to permit Treasury to issue rules excepting certain sales from the sales proceeds limit and certain reporting rules if the sale furthers a charitable purpose.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have looked at this amendment on this side, and we are agreeable that this amendment should be adopted.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.

Mr. President, I am very proud of the Senate. The Senate worked its will through a very involved and complex tax bill. I might add--I don't have the final figures here, but in the case of first impression, this probably is one of the largest tax bills the Senate has taken up and passed, outside of reconciliation--we don't know yet-- in maybe a decade, or maybe close to two decades.

I say that because of the importance of protecting Senators' rights. I know this sounds like a little inside baseball, but when I say ``outside reconciliation,'' all of us in the Senate know this means the bill was taken up under the usual Senate process, which means Senators have the right to offer amendments, have the right to speak as long as they can stand on their own two feet, and have the rights Senators usually have in taking up bills. Whereas, if this were to be taken up under the process we call ``reconciliation,'' then amendments would have to be passed very easily; that is, there is no right for extended debate. Germaneness rules do not apply; that is, unless cloture is invoked.

So the main point I want to make is that the Senate has done a good job. The Senate has taken up a very complicated, very large tax bill, and done it the way the Senate should ordinarily do business; that is, outside of reconciliation. We are responsible. We can do it. We did it.

I very much thank my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who led us in a way to help make that happen. He basically did it by being so gracious, by being so fair. He has a reputation, we all know, of being one of the most honest and fair persons you would ever have the privilege to meet, not only in the Senate but in life. His credibility is unquestioned. That is a substantial reason why we were able to pass such a messy bill outside reconciliation. I thank my friend for his leadership, for his friendship, and for all he has done.

I also especially thank Senator Reid of Nevada. We all know Senator Reid is probably one of the masters of the floor. He knows procedure, and his main goal is to get things done. He, too, is a man whose word is his bond. He is invaluable here. If not for the efforts of not only the chairman but Senator Reid, I am not so sure we would be here today. He has done a super job.

It is also very appropriate to thank a lot of my staff, and Senator Grassley's staff, and many others, which I will do. But before I do that, I would like to do something a little bit differently and thank some people who helped me with this bill; that is, the people I talked with back home who provided ideas on how to structure the FSC/ETI replacement bill in a way that made the most sense for our manufacturers, not only throughout the country but in my home State of Montana.

This was a great chance for me to learn even more about manufacturing in my State, by going to manufacturers in my State and saying: What do we need? What can we do to help make this happen?

Let me give you a few examples.

The timber industry, for example, has faced very tough economic times during the last several years. In the years 2000 and before, many of these businesses paid very high taxes on solid profits.

So a provision in this bill will permit businesses in industries with cyclical profits to smooth out their tax rates. This is accomplished by permitting a loss to be carried back for up to 5 years. That will help a lot.

I thank Jim Hurst at Owens & Hurst, a small timber company located in Eureka, MT, for helping us better understand the economics of the timber business. The JOBS bill will help this company and many other companies that have very cyclical incomes.

I might add, too, that the people at Mountain Harvest Pizza Crust Company, from Billings--that does not sound like a huge American manufacturing company but they are extremely important to Montana, to Billings, and to me--helped educate me about the challenges of rising costs facing small businesses, and about how the cost of health care was getting to be too much to handle.

I might say, too, not all exporters are large corporations. We learned this from Sun Mountain Sports in Missoula. They are an S corporation. They export golf bags and other sports equipment. They are just the kind of company we want to stay strong so they can keep those manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. and so they can continue to export overseas.

Because of discussions with many small businesses such as Mountain Harvest Pizza Crust and Sun Mountain Sports, I made sure that every manufacturer would get this deduction. So we in the Finance Committee produced a bill that gives a deduction not only to C corporations but to S corporations, to partnerships, and to sole proprietorships so they all could have help and not be left behind by this legislation. The tax relief they are getting in this bill will help defray those and other rising costs.

Again, by consulting with the people at home, we were able to realize what the FSC/ETI replacement bill should be. It should not be just for big C corporations--those are large, publicly held corporations--but, rather, for any organization that manufactures, including proprietorships, small businesses, et cetera.

I also thank the people at CHS--that is Central Harvest--who showed us the role that cooperatives play in rural America and helped us better understand the importance of making this tax deduction pass through to the members of cooperatives. Agricultural cooperatives are a crucial part of the economy of my State and a lot of the West, and, I might add, a lot of other rural parts of America.

CHS helped to make sure their important contributions were not overlooked in this bill. I wanted, as I said, the bill to include all American manufacturers, and I have made sure the bill includes the agricultural cooperatives that are so important to so many States.

Also, I thank Elvie Miller at Mountain Meadow Log Homes, who talked to us about how integral good research and design is to their business. Frankly, with the addition of the amendment by the Senator from Texas, we were able to add that provision.

I also want to thank Leland Griffin and the good folks at Montana Refining Company in Great Falls. They pointed out that under the export credit this bill will repeal, oil refining operations are not eligible for tax benefits. But Montana Refining pointed out that if we are converting the laws to a manufacturing deduction, then it should cover oil and gas refining operations. Those operations are manufacturing. They take raw material, crude oil, and convert it to a usable product-- gasoline and other petroleum products. I offered an amendment in committee to include refining operations in the definition of manufacturing.

All of these companies, and many more, were invaluable in passing such a strong bill in the Senate. I thank them. I thank them very much for adding their part to this bill. Were it not for their very valuable contributions, this legislation would not be as good.

I also thank a lot of people from my office. I don't have the whole list. There are so many of them. If we turned the camera over, we could see them lined up against the wall over there. Starting with Brian Pomper on the far right, he does a very good job, handles a lot of trade work. We have Pat Heck over there; Russ Sullivan; Matt Genasci; Liz Liebschutz, Matt Stokes, Jon Selib. We have Scott Landes there in the corner, Simon Chabel, many others. Wendy Carrey is there; Mac Campbell. They are our folks. They do the work. My guess is

that if I talk much longer, they are going to fall asleep, they are so tired. We all very much appreciate, deeply appreciate what they do.

I have often said that the most noble human endeavor is service-- service to church, to community, to mankind, service to whatever makes the most sense to us as human beings. A lot of us who run for public office get some of the psychic rewards of service. We see our names in newspapers and on TV. Usually that is good, not always but usually.

However, the folks who work in the Senate, on Joint Tax and elsewhere, work harder. And they don't get public recognition for what they do. They are the real servants. They are the ones who really provide the most noble kind of service. I know I speak for everyone listening, for everyone else who stops and thinks about these things if only for a nanosecond, when I say how true that last statement is. They are the most wonderful folks. I take my hat off to all of them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and use such time as I might consume.

Mr. President, Albert Einstein once advised, everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. In other words, know when you have done enough.

On the JOBS bill that will soon be before the Senate today, we are near time when we have done enough. The Senate has returned to the JOBS bill now for the 14th separate day over the course of 5 separate weeks. The Senate has considered 28 separate amendments. It adopted 17 separate amendments. Many of the amendments the Senate considered, such as Senator Harkin's amendment on overtime regulations and Senator Wyden's amendment on trade adjustment assistance, have not been strictly germane to the bill at hand.

The modern Senate does not regularly devote such time and freedom of amendment to major bills. It is really not that normal for the Senate to consider every amendment until no other Senator seeks to offer amendments.

My colleagues will remember the Senator from Louisiana, Russell Long. Senator Long served as chairman of the Finance Committee from 1965 to 1981. When Russell Long would bring a major tax bill to the Senate floor, he would frequently file cloture early, just to require that amendments be germane.

With the advent of the budget reconciliation process in 1981, the Senate began considering major tax increases in Senate reconciliation bills. The reconciliation process, as we know, limits debate to a maximum of 20 hours, pretty much 2 or 3 days, and reconciliation restricts Senators to only germane amendments.

In 1996, the Senate began considering tax cuts under the tight rules of the reconciliation process. Since then, almost every major tax bill has been a reconciliation bill. This year, a number of Senators sought to have this JOBS bill considered in reconciliation. To his credit, the chairman of the committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, fought these efforts. He and I talked about this several times. He frankly prevailed on many on his side of the aisle in arguing that this tax bill, the FSC/ETI bill, should not be under reconciliation under those very tight conditions but should be a regularly considered bill, and he prevailed. I commend him for that.

Let us now look at this bill. This bill began as a venture of both Democrats and Republicans working together in the Finance Committee. I might add the vote was 19 to 2. Only two members in the committee voted against this bill, and they were on the other side of the aisle.

This bill's major provision, tax cuts for American manufacturing, is really a Democratic priority. Democrats have sought all along to create and keep good manufacturing jobs in America. We advanced this priority when many House Republicans sought to maximize tax breaks for international businesses or, to put this another way, the Finance Committee decided after consulting with Members on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, that it made more sense for the FSC/ETI placement bill to have a deduction for manufacturing produced in the United States rather than the approach taken by the majority party in the other body, which wanted a corporate tax reduction, international tax reduction bill, not a domestic manufacturing jobs bill. So it is a very different approach.

Again, to his credit, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, agreed with Members on both sides of the aisle that the best solution is the Republican and Democratic approach, the bipartisan approach, to help create more jobs in America by providing for the 9- percent manufacturing deduction. Contrast that with the House majority approach, which is much different, and I am quite certain a majority of our Members, certainly on this side of the aisle, are against it.

When it comes to the question of how much and how long we need to fight for amendments on the Senate floor, I think it matters whether we are talking about a partisan bill where the majority has closed the minority out of the process or are we talking about a bipartisan bill where Senators have worked together across the aisle. This clearly has been a bipartisan bill.

Our bill advanced the Finance Committee as a cooperative venture. The chairman of the Finance Committee and I working together included many of the provisions in the bill in response to requests from Senators on this side of the aisle. I daresay many provisions in this bill are in response to a request by Senators on this side of the aisle, although a good number are in response to Members on the other side of the aisle. So therefore this bill reflects a very open and democratic process.

Once we came to the Senate floor, this Senator tried to ensure that the Senate consider the maximum number of amendments, as many as we possibly can. Twice before on this bill, I have fought cloture, worked against cloture, to ensure that the Senate could address, for example, Senator Harkin's overtime amendment and others. The Senate did consider that amendment. The Senate adopted that amendment. Over the course of last week's Senate consideration, the chairman of the Finance Committee and I have attempted to maximize the number of amendments the Senate could consider, and now the Senate has considered 28 amendments. It adopted 17 of those. That, I believe, is a very respectable record.

Now, when the Senate appears to be stymied over whether to vote on the amendment of the Senator from Washington on unemployment insurance, I continue to work for a vote on that amendment.

So here is where we stand: If the majority can see that there is a prospect that the Senate will invoke cloture on this bill, then I believe the majority will allow a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment; but if the majority sees that Senators on this side of the aisle are united against cloture, regardless of whether they allow a vote on the unemployment issue, then I believe the majority will not allow a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment. That is where we are. It is that simple.

If Democrats want the Senate to vote on unemployment insurance, then we need to show some prospect of bringing this bill to a close. I believe we should accept that offer to get a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment. To do so, we should support cloture.

We should acknowledge that we are near the time when we have done enough. I say ``near time'' because even after the Senate invokes cloture, the Senate may still consider germane amendments. There are several amendments I believe the Senate will be able to consider postcloture. For example, there is the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, to strike the international provisions. There is the amendment by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, on tax shelters. There is the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, to provide tax benefits to reservists. There are amendments by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to strike energy tax provisions. There may be other germane amendments. Based on my understanding of the intention of the two leaders and the two managers, I believe that if the Senate invokes cloture, the Senate will work through these and other germane amendments postcloture. In fact, the majority leader has publicly indicated so.

Thus, I do believe we are near time when we have done enough. I support efforts to get a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment, and I support invoking cloture thereafter. So let us make this bill as good as possible but not better. Let us advance this bill to create and keep good manufacturing jobs, especially in America. Let us invoke cloture on this bill tomorrow.

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

Will the Chair state the current parliamentary situation.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota on both subjects he just addressed. First, the American policy toward Cuba.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the U.S. Treasury Department, as the Senator so clearly explained, devotes 80 percent of its financing resources--that is, investigating financing--to tracking down American tourists who travel to Cuba, rather than Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. It is amazing.

I have gone to Cuba a couple times with Montana businessmen. We signed a contract to sell agricultural products to Cuba.

If more Americans could travel to Cuba, it would be more likely that we would be able to have a much better relationship with that country than we now have.

Frankly, I also believe very strongly that the current U.S. position with respect to Cuba--namely, prohibiting most Americans from traveling to Cuba--and the export embargo the U.S. Government has against Cuba helps Fidel Castro. It is something he uses to rail against Americans. Ironically, if the embargo was lifted and the travel ban was lifted, if we were not investigating Americans going to Cuba, it would hasten the day for democracy in Cuba. It is clear to me that is what would happen.

You might ask, Why is the American Government taking such an inane view, with most of its resources tracking down good, law-abiding Americans visiting Cuba, rather than trying to track down Osama bin Laden and his network? The answer is simple. It is basically politics. This administration is being ruled by a community in the U.S. that wants to get back at Cuba. I think it is regrettable that the Government would not adopt a policy that is good for all America, but rather one that just helps the interests of a very small group in southern Florida. It is an outrage. I, frankly, think the administration should be serving all of America and the Treasury Department should be devoting its resources to finding terrorists rather than checking up on American tourists traveling in Cuba.

The second subject the Senator talked about needs to be addressed over and over again; it is the abominable plight and economic conditions on America's Indian reservations. The Senator from North Dakota mentioned poverty in many reservations in North Dakota. The same can be said for many reservations throughout the country. In Montana, we have several reservations and the conditions are, in some cases, just as bad. In other areas, it is getting a lot better. Fifty percent of all the welfare cases, TANF cases, are on Indian reservations. We have an obligation to address that in a solid and constructive way.

I wish to explain a few of the positions in the bill that will be before us. It is not before the Senate at the immediate time, but we have considered the bill over the last week, the JOBS bill.

Some of the provisions in that bill relate to helping people who live on Indian reservations to live a much better life. These are provisions to help build schools, provisions to help create good jobs on the reservations, and provisions to keep businesses investing on reservations.

Let me explain a couple of them. First, the JOBS bill includes the extension of two provisions which allow tribes to issue tax-exempt bonds to build facilities just like the authority that State and local governments have. We believe, those of us who wrote the JOBS bill, treating tribes like State governments makes good economic sense; that it is just plain fair and it is the right thing to do. If State and local governments can issue tax-exempt bonds to construct facilities, so should reservations. I am glad we have that provision in the JOBS bill.

It also includes a special allocation of what is called new markets tax credits for reservations. This provision allocates $50 million in new markets tax credits where poverty rates exceed 40 percent. The new markets tax credits are designed to spur investment in economically depressed areas. They are not going to solve all the problems that exist on reservations but they are certainly going to help, help bring jobs, help businesses, help spirit entrepreneurship that is so needed around our country.

This allocation will apply to only the poorest reservations. Lifting these reservations out of the grip of poverty is a moral obligation that all of us in the Senate have.

Finally, the JOBS bill addresses school construction on reservations. Education is the key to success in many areas of the country. Many of the jobs we hear about going overseas would probably not go overseas if there were more than high school diplomas and better education in America.

We have good education but it has to be much better. Without properly educated citizens, we cannot compete in the 21st century.

Many of the schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are woefully dilapidated and often dangerous, literally dangerous for students and teachers. The Bureau of Indian Affairs schools are in generally poorer physical condition and have a much more unsatisfactory environment, and more often lack key facilities requirements for education reform, and are less able to support computer and communications technology. The Bureau of Indian Affairs schools are that bad.

The JOBS bill includes a provision that will allow tribes to issue tax credit bonds to raise funds for construction, rehabilitation, or repair of tribal school facilities funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This provision gives hope to children stuck in third-rate schools. Every child deserves a decent place to go to school. This provision, again in the JOBS bill, will help tribes to raise the funds necessary to provide them.

This bill will also bring opportunity to all Americans, an opportunity for jobs training, and entrepreneurship, and I am proud the JOBS bill also includes provisions aimed at bringing opportunity to reservations and tribal communities across the country.

A provision I did not really explain in sufficient detail has to do with an employment credit that gives employers a payroll tax offset for hiring people on reservations, that would allow jobs to stay on reservations. In addition, the JOBS bill includes an extension of accelerated depreciation for equipment

purchased by businesses that are located on reservations. This is a huge benefit for small businesses on reservations and gives these businesses the incentives they need to expand.

The JOBS bill also includes several new provisions to give an economic lift to tribes. Many tribes have difficulty raising capital in order to attract convention centers which work attract tourists to reservations. Unlike State and local governments, as I mentioned earlier, tribes do not issue bonds for many infrastructure investments.

I spoke earlier about that provision and wanted to restate that the basic provisions allow tribes to issue tax exempt bonds to build facilities just as State and local governments now have the authority to do. I believe treating tribes as we do State governments makes good economic sense; it gives them an even greater sense of responsibility and destiny in controlling their own future. They should have that same ability just as State and local governments.

So for all those reasons I think those Indian reservation provisions in the JOBS bill, which are designated to help Indians, will help. It is not going to solve all the problems on reservations, but it will certainly give a little more help, a hope, a future to some very depressed parts of our country, and if we fulfill our obligations to help out, I think we will have done a lot through the provisions of the JOBS bill directed at reservations. There are many other provisions in the JOBS bill, obviously, but those directed toward Indian reservations will certainly help those folks. I thank all members of the committee and the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, for including them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I very much commend and thank my colleagues, the majority leader and assistant minority leader, in trying to work through this bill as we are approaching the endgame. We are about there. We are very close to being there.

I might recall, a few weeks ago many observers had written off this bill and said the bill was deadlocked--for example, over the overtime provision. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, his comment to the New York Journal years ago: The report of this bill's death was an exaggeration.

Instead, we are now back to doing what the Senate does best; that is, working through amendments, doing our work, doing our business, doing what we should do. We have considered 28 amendments. We have already adopted 17 amendments to this bill. I will not read them all, but they are very important amendments. We have been on the bill 13 separate days over the course of 4 separate weeks.

It has been the desire of this Senator to have the Senate consider as many relevant amendments as possible. Since we have already adopted 17, I think we are virtually there. Regrettably, we are at a point where several Senators are not agreeing to the setting aside of pending amendments so other Senators may offer amendments, which is making it a little difficult to move forward. But nevertheless, I believe that the resolution that has been worked out by the majority leader and the assistant minority leader and others of us who have been working on this, by having a vote on the pending Cantwell amendment on unemployment insurance, is a real key. It is very important to the successful conclusion of this bill. It is something we sought all along on our side, and I think it is also something that would be presumptively in the best interests of the majority side as well. Now that a cloture

motion has been filed, we still expect to proceed to additional amendments--there are not many--that will be germane: the Hollings amendment, the Levin amendment, the McCain amendment, also Senator Landrieu's amendment, and maybe one or two others. We will continue to seek agreement on the amendments and, therefore, we will be doing what the Senate should be doing--simply facing the issues and voting. That is when the Senate is at its best.

Let me also make it clear that this Senator believes it is entirely reasonable to bring this debate to a close. We have worked hard on the bill. We have done a great deal of work, much more than many expected. This is an important bill. It is important to creating jobs in America. It is important to ending the European tariffs that mount on American businesses, growing higher.

The coming cloture vote will be a true test on this bill, a test of whether we do address the jobs problem, whether we address the European tariffs. It is our duty to do so. Thus, when the roll is called, I will vote for cloture. I will also urge my colleagues to do so as well. If we do so, we may best hope to conclude action on this bill by next Tuesday or perhaps on Wednesday.

I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

I say to my good friend, it puts me in a very awkward position, frankly. I say awkward because it is a hypothetical which I hope does not occur. It is very important.

It is very important that the Cantwell amendment be brought up.

Mr. President, I rise to express my great admiration of our brave Montana servicemen and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. These brave men and women have put their lives on hold and on the line. Their families and their communities--our communities--support them. These Montanans and all American soldiers are in our thoughts and prayers. We want them to come home quickly and safely.

We need a plan to bring their mission in Iraq to conclusion. And we need the administration to communicate that strategy clearly to the world, and to our brave troops.

I am deeply troubled by the allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners. I was

horrified by the images we have seen over the last week. Our nation, which our men and women are serving with such honor, must lead by example if we want to win the global ``war of ideas''.

Although we know the vast majority of our men and women in uniform are serving honorably, these allegations of abuse demonstrate that we are not giving our troops all of the support that they need.

These images of prisoner abuse are not at all consistent with the principles I know our men and women in the Armed Forces hold clear. Our men and women went to Iraq to protect this Nation, to make the world a safer place. They have performed admirably under harsh conditions, sometimes with insufficient equipment, because they believe in their mission. I believe in them and I will continue to make sure that they get the support they need.

What our troops need now more than ever is visionary leadership. They Need to know what their mission is and when that mission has changed. They must be trained for that mission and given all of the resources they need for it, be it body armor or bottled water.

In order to win the war of ideas and make the world safer, we must share our vision of how to win the global war on terrorism. Sharing the vision to win means building effective, lasting partnerships with not just other countries and governments, but international institutions. The whole world benefits from a stable Iraq. The U.S. needs to work together with other nations to share the risk and responsibility U.S. forces face today.

Sharing our vision of how to win the war on terrorism also means ensuring exemplary leadership for every private first class in the United States armed services. We want to ensure that the unconscionable actions of a few misguided soldiers do not endanger the mission of the thousands who work day in and day out to fulfill that vision.

This is why I supported the President's nomination of Ambassador Negroponte to be Ambassador to Iraq. This administration must demonstrate that it has not only the determination but also the vision to win the war on ideas that the war on terror truly has become.

Now is the time when we must share our vision with the troops who serve with dignity and honor, with the American people and with the world.

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