Floor Statements

Mr. President, I admire my dear friend from Nevada, but I have to take issue with him with regard to if this bill is pulled down it is not their fault. Let's be honest about it; the overtime regulations have been put out for comment. They are not in place. They are not regulations that are going to bind anybody.

They are put out for comment so people can write in and say what is wrong with them. I am sure every word that has been said by my friends on the other side is going to be taken into consideration by not only the Secretary of Labor but the whole Department of Labor.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand some 81,000 comments have already come in either for or against this proposed set of regulations. Now, what our friends on the other side want to do is amend the FSC/ETI bill, which is a jobs bill, parts of which we have worked on for years in the Senate Finance Committee. I, in particular, have worked on the international provisions for years. It is being worked on in the House, led by Chairman Thomas. We know if this overtime provision is added to this bill there is no way the House is going to take it. The House will refuse to take it for very good reasons, the best being the rules are not even put in place at this point. What they want to do is rigidify and tell the Department of Labor, which is the expert in this area, what rules to put in place and to do it all on a one-sided basis without taking into consideration jobs, the economy, other people's jobs, and the unfairness of aspects of the system, all of which are being considered during this comment period.

So by trying to add this provision to this bill, they basically are killing a bill that would, over the years, amount to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs. So it will be their fault if the jobs bill fails, and anybody who does not understand that is in grave error.

This is a cheap vote for those on that side because they do not care what the Department of Labor does as long as it is more and more regulatory in favor of the trade union movement. I do not want the trade union movement hurt. There has to be a delicate balance, but they are consistently working to try to upset that balance. This is a perfect illustration of how that works. If this amendment is added to this bill, assuming we pass this bill, the House will not take it. That means the House will pass its FSC/ETI bill and not take ours. If the House passes its FSC/ETI bill and they do not take our bill, then there is another game being played by the other side, and that is they are being very selective as to which bills they will allow conferees to be appointed by the Senate so they can work with conferees from the House and come up with a conference report on which both Houses can vote.

So if we want to talk about fault, it is easily laid at the feet of those on the other side, and I think rightly laid there.

All this holy war on jobs that they have been raising, which is nothing but Presidential politics--and I think I can make that case in just a few seconds--they are basically undermining jobs in this country by not allowing this jobs bill that not only would save us $4 billion in unnecessary tariffs by the European Union--$4 billion that we can save for our benefit, which would create jobs, by the way--but also is preventing a bill that would create jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, which we are gradually losing because we are not competitive because we have not passed this bill.

Now they can make all the arguments they want about how important overtime pay is. I think sometimes those are good arguments. I think sometimes we ought to give consideration to the good arguments that are made, but we ought to do it after the regulatory process is completed and see what the Department of Labor does with the comments they are receiving, which is the way the real system works. The other side understands that.

So this is a political game during a political year, scoring what I think are ridiculous points on jobs, against a jobs bill that will make a real difference. They know that if they put this provision on this bill, it is going nowhere, and over time it is going to cost the American taxpayers at least 4 billion unnecessary dollars and a loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs.

So do not give me this business that we must do something about these overtime regulations right now because those regulations are not permanent or final, as far as I can see.

Right now we have one of the lowest unemployment rates that we have had in many years. I remember during the Clinton administration when unemployment was 5.6 percent, which is what it is today. They on the other side controlled the floor of the Senate, and they knocked out unemployment compensation benefits. They took them away because they knew 5.6 percent is close to full employment because when we count those who cannot work, those who will not work, and those who would not take a job if you offered it to them, we have a lot of the American people who make up the unemployment rolls.

Having said that, let me be fair to my friends on the other side. There are pockets of high unemployment in this country where people are suffering. There is no question about it. There are some of our bigger industrial States where people are suffering, where there is a job problem, where manufacturing jobs have been leaving. I would like to suggest a few reasons why.

No. 1, we have not passed this bill because the other side keeps playing around with it and would not even let it go to cloture today, filibustering even the motion to recommit. We have learned this on judges. We have learned this on innumerable pieces of legislation. Once they decide to go ahead and be obstructive, unless we can make some sort of deal with them, then they will try to add amendments to the bill they know the House will not take. They know if we want to go to conference because the House passes a different bill, then we cannot get Senate conferees appointed under the guise that they are not being consulted when it comes to conferences.

They should have gone back to those years when there were 62 Democrats and only 38 Republicans and we were never consulted unless we were the liberal Republican Senators. Yes, then they would not ignore the Jacob Javits of this world or some of the others who were extremely liberal, who were as liberal if not more so than they were, but discount any conservative being considered for any ideas or any conferences. It was run lock, stock, and barrel with an iron-handed rule. I was here. I lived through that.

We did not mouth off and whine and moan and groan every step of the way like we are getting on this particular important bill. Nor did we always come up with phony amendments that basically should not be considered until the rule comes into being.

If there are, in fact, 81,000 comments about the rule, the Department of Labor is going to take those comments into consideration, modify the rule, and hopefully make it work for the benefit of mankind, for the benefit of this country, and for the benefit of jobs.

So to stand here and say we will not give them a vote on this very premature amendment, which we know would kill this bill, is disingenuous at best. I get tired of this. I have been here 28 years, and I have never seen it worse than it is right now. These are little stupid games that are being played. I have seen it played by both sides, and I think it is despicable. But

that is what is going on. Frankly, we have had nothing but that since we have taken over. There is a feeling on the other side that President Bush was not even legitimately elected, even though he was. I can make the best case for why we need the electoral college and did make it back when others thought they were going to pass the so-called election reform constitutional amendment. It lost overwhelmingly because when people understand the great nature of our system, they are not going to take some of these two-bit solutions that would change our Constitution in ways that literally undermine everything for which it stands.

This JOBS Act is an essential component in the agenda to accelerate job creation. American exports are being jeopardized by European tariffs. I have mentioned that. In January of 2002, the World Trade Organization authorized the European Union to impose tariffs on nearly 100 types of U.S. exports if a tax provision known as FSC/ETI was not repealed.

That is what this is all about. We have worked our guts out on the Finance Committee to repeal FSC/ETI so it is acceptable to the EU and to the WTO, so we don't suffer trade sanctions and all the jobs losses that go with that. People wonder why we are losing our manufacturing establishment. It is because of high taxes. It is because of more Government regulation. It is because of ridiculous arguments we hear from the other side on elements like this, where this amendment is so premature.

The punitive tariffs started at 5 percent on March 1 of this year, and they are scheduled to go up 1 percent each month until reaching 17 percent in March of 2005. The net effect of the new tariff would be to raise taxes on exports by 3.8 percent, jeopardizing $4 billion of U.S. exports and, I might add, job after job after job, which the other side claims they are for--jobs, that is. They are undermining one of the most important jobs bills in the last 15 years.

Among the U.S. sectors facing retaliation if we do not repeal the offensive FSC/ETI tax provisions are agriculture and food, wood and paper, textiles and apparel, glass and precious metals, iron and steel and manufacturing.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says 89 percent of FSC benefits go to manufacturing companies. You wonder why some of these bigger States are having problems? It is because of ridiculous approaches to legislation such as we are going through right now. That is what you have committees for, to work their guts out and try to get these problems solved in a bipartisan way. The JOBS bill is a bipartisan solution. I know; I helped to write the bill, as have, of course, the distinguished chairman and so many others, including the ranking member on the committee and others on the Finance Committee whose names deserve to be stated.

The remedy is Jumpstart Our Business Strength, or the JOBS Act. This act brings U.S. exports in line with the WTO, saving American businesses the European Union tariff of $4 billion over time. It creates a new phased-in deduction that would allow corporations, primarily those involved in manufacturing, to permanently deduct as much as 9 percent of their U.S. income from their taxable profits. That is equivalent to lowering their top tax rate from 35 percent to 32 percent. That will help keep our manufacturing jobs here.

It makes the deduction available to all businesses that manufacture in the United States, regardless of size or type. It targets tax shelters, and punishes the relocation of corporate headquarters to Bermuda and other offshore tax havens--something we have heard a lot of discussion about in these last couple of months from people on the other side of the floor. This helps accomplish what they have said must be accomplished. It imposes an excise tax on wealthy individuals who renounce their U.S. citizenship. It is about time we did that. This bill does it.

I have heard nothing but mouthing off from the other side. Here they have a chance of getting some of the things they would like to have. It is not in the wordage they want, which is more and more pro-union and less and less pro-jobs.

The JOBS bill is an important part of the jobs agenda, but Senate Republicans are looking into creating more jobs with a number of tools. The Senate Republicans' accomplishments are helping to put our people to work. I have to say in supporting this bill it is not just Senate Republicans, it is also a number of Democrats, Senators from the other side, who have been willing to open up and do what is right here, led by the distinguished ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who I hope will stand strong on this bill.

What we are trying to do is encourage entrepreneurship. We have done it by passing a strong small business administration bill. We are trying to improve infrastructure and create jobs through the highway bill. We are introducing new worker training incentives with the workforce investment bill. We have initiated a blueprint for responsible spending by passing a budget in the Senate, the earliest passed budget in history. We have extended unemployment benefits for the jobless and we have kept taxes low, created jobs, and we have grown savings and investment by enacting the jobs and growth bill.

On the ``to do'' list we are working on, we are working to prevent future tax increases on the marriage penalty, the per-child tax deduction, and the 10-percent low-income tax bracket. We want to stop those increases that would occur if these provisions expire. We want to create and protect American jobs by passing an energy bill which has been stymied by filibuster--again, another one. We want to create jobs and defend against junk lawsuits by passing class action reform. We have 62 votes for that, and we had 3 Democrats agree to support that bill--which means against all amendments, unless those who made the deal agree otherwise. Now we are finding they are not living up to that.

We have always had around 58 or 59. The last time we voted, we had 59 votes in the Senate--again, another filibuster stopping a jobs bill.

One of the most important ones is class action reform. We want to protect jobs, pensions, and shareholders, by passing an asbestos reform bill, but we have been told that will be filibustered as well because the unions don't want it, even though they are going to be the major beneficiaries of that bill the way it is outlined. We have written it that way, giving their workers the benefit of the doubt.

We are trying to create jobs by passing the Homeland Investment Act to encourage foreign reinvestment in the United States, and we are trying to create jobs by passing a strong economic development agency bill.

I can go on and on, but let me tell you, this filibuster of the JOBS bill is mind-boggling to me. We worked so hard. We worked in a bipartisan way. There is no reason any Democrat should say we haven't been fair to them. They may disagree with certain provisions, as some of them undoubtedly will, but overall it is a bipartisan bill.

I am very unhappy we were unable to get cloture today. When this bill first came to the floor it appeared to me the Senate leadership on both sides recognized the urgency and the importance of addressing this matter as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we quickly became mired in unrelated and partisan amendments. As many of our colleagues know, the European Union this month, as I said, began assessing 5-percent trade sanctions on certain U.S. exports because we have not yet been able to repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation, or FSC, and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion, or ETI, provisions that are in the Internal Revenue Code. So we are dealing with a matter of real urgency here.

This bill was reported by the Finance Committee last October. I believe it is important to note the strong bipartisan support this bill received in the Finance Committee. I congratulate Senator Grassley, the chairman of that committee, along with Senator Baucus, its ranking Democrat, for their bold leadership in insisting this bill be bipartisan from its inception. This is a key attribute, because it is clear to me anything less than a bipartisan approach in the Senate will not result in success in passing this bill during this election year.

This bill represents the solution to a very difficult situation in which the United States finds itself. By successfully challenging the U.S. in the World

Trade Organization, first on the Foreign Sales Corporation provision, and subsequently winning another victory on its replacement, the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion, the European Union has put us in a very tight spot. I think most, if not all, of us believe we must honor our obligations under the World Trade Organization. After all, we were present at drafting of the WTO rules. WTO rules overwhelmingly manifest principles of commerce and trade we have advanced, and embody a system that benefits us. As a result, most rulings in response to appeals before the WTO have been decided in our favor.

Yet few of us, if any, are eager to raise taxes on our exporting companies. Because any kind of solution that merely replicates the tax benefits of the FSC and ETI provisions will be ruled as another impermissible trade subsidy by the WTO, we are in the uncomfortable position of having to create winners and losers among U.S. companies.

However, because of the trade sanctions that are already upon us, which are scheduled to increase by 1 percentage point each month that these provisions remain in our Tax Code, we have little choice but to repeal them. The choice we do have, I believe, is to choose to repeal them in a way that leads to the greatest potential for future growth in our economy--future growth in jobs, if you will, which is what this bill is all about.

One might say that in this situation, the Europeans have handed the U.S. and its economy a bushel of lemons. However, I am pleased to say that the bill before us does a pretty good job of turning those lemons into lemonade.

It does so by taking this opportunity to put forward provisions that would improve tax incentives for manufacturing activities in the United States. And it does so by putting forth provisions to reform and improve the tax rules that govern international trade.

Is this bill perfect? No. It isn't. Anytime you make lemonade, something has to get squeezed. In this case, there is unfortunately not enough revenue raised by repealing the FSC/ETI provisions to make everyone who loses those benefits whole. This is because we are forced to spread the benefits of the tax provisions we improve in this bill over a wider group of companies than those who have been benefitting from the export provisions.

There are several ways this difficult situation could have been addressed. The easiest way would have been to merely repeal the FSC and ETI provisions and not tried to replace them. Of course, this would have resulted in a $56 billion tax increase on our economy, and one specifically targeted to American companies that are selling U.S.-made goods overseas.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would want to do that but that is what is going to happen if our friends keep playing games on the other side of the aisle.

Just as the tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 have been greatly beneficial to our economic growth, this tax increase would have been greatly detrimental to economic growth. I am happy to say that this bad idea was simply not an option considered in the Finance Committee.

Another approach might have been to repeal the export provisions and replace them with an across-the-board corporate income tax rate cut. This was an option brought up in the Finance Committee and we shall likely be seeing a floor amendment to do the same, if we can ever get back to this bill. While this idea has some merit and enjoys the virtue of being simpler to compute and administer, I believe it diffuses the tax benefits over too many businesses.

Such an idea, in my view, would create an undue hardship for many of the users of the export tax benefits in the current law. At a time when our U.S. manufacturers, who are, of course, our main exporters, are just recovering from a most difficult downturn, I do not think it is wise to hit them any harder than we have to with a net tax increase. Therefore, I will vote against any amendments to convert the tax benefits of this bill into a net corporate tax rate cut.

The situation handed to us by the Europeans also presents us with a rare opportunity to reform, in a limited way, some of the worst of the broken provisions that make up our international tax rules. These rules are badly outdated and are often harmful to U.S. companies engaged in an ever-increasingly global economy.

By enacting even a limited amount of reform, we can improve the rules and help all U.S. companies that face unfair tax competition with firms from other nations. Increasingly, even many small U.S. companies can and even must export their products. Therefore, many of the same companies that will be losing the FSC and ETI benefits under this bill will be gaining an increased ability to better compete internationally under the international tax reforms included in the bill.

I recognize that there are some Members of this body who do not readily recognize the need for this bill to improve the international tax rules. I have even heard some people intimate that improving these rules could encourage companies to move jobs offshore. I believe this is a phony argument based on a lack of understanding of the business world today.

In reality, business is done on a worldwide basis. Our firms are in competition with companies headquartered all around the world. We cannot close our eyes to this fact. To limit the ability of our U.S. businesses to compete fairly in the global marketplace might, at first glance, seem to some to add security for domestic jobs.

In the same sense, an ostrich sticking its head into sand might seem to think it has found security from danger. But, like that ostrich, a U.S. company that is effectively kept from competing in the global market will find itself far more vulnerable to danger, and could lose everything, including 100 percent of its jobs.

Our job is to do everything we can to help our U.S. companies succeed. We cannot change the fact that more and more of them compete in a worldwide market. So we should recognize it and help them deal with it. This means we must bring our tax rules up to date. Those who are unwilling to do so in the name of protecting U.S. jobs are just fooling themselves and failing to deal with the real world.

In conclusion, it is a tragedy that progress on this bill has been stopped. This is important legislation. It is too important for these political games that are being played on it. While there are many legitimate amendments that could and should be brought forward, we cannot afford to bog this issue down and stop progress on it. This bill is important for U.S. jobs. This bill is important for eliminating those trade sanctions that are even now pinching some U.S. industries and costing us sales and production. And, this bill is important for our long-term economic growth. I hope my colleagues on the other side will re-think their obstructionism and let us go forward with this important bill.

Let us be understanding. If the Department of Labor issues regulations and allows for a period of comment, we ought to at least allow that period of comment to finish and allow them to make the necessary changes the comments suggest--at least the good changes the comments suggest. We should not be playing political games here on the floor of the Senate on a bill we simply must pass because it will cost jobs not to pass this bill. In the end, it would be detrimental to our economy and our society at a time when we need help, at a time when we need jobs, and at a time when we are losing manufacturing jobs. This particular bill will help. It will help greatly, and it will help keep the United States of America at the forefront as the premier nation in the world on jobs and economic growth.

To have our colleagues refuse to even allow debate to end on the floor by not invoking cloture just shows how far they will go to use the filibuster rule as they have on countless bills and judges through the years to stymie what really should be done in this very important body.

I think we ought to get rid of political games and start working on this bill in a way that will improve it, if we can, but not muff it so the House won't take it; and then we have to worry about whether we are going to even be able to get to conference, assuming we have two different bills from the House and the Senate.

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not do that in this case, but we have seen it done in other

cases, and I suspect it could be done here, too, if the politics are right. I think that is what is driving an awful lot of the crap that goes on in this body. I hate to use that kind of language, but I don't know what else to call it other than crap.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, some ask what is the hardest duty that a Senator faces. This is that task. Today, I rise with heavy heart to pay tribute to another son of Utah who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that others may be free. This patriot's name was SSG Clint Ferrin, he was a member of the elite, the 82nd Airborne Division. To all that knew him he exceeded, in every way, his division's motto: He was truly an ``All American.''

We, the citizens of the State of Utah, had the privilege of knowing Sergeant Ferrin as he grew up in Garland and Ogden. His commitment to service started at a young age when he became an Eagle Scout. That commitment to service, to helping others and truly making a difference was reflected in his choice to become a solider. But he was not just a soldier, he was a paratrooper, knowing full well that when a challenge faced our Nation he would be one of the first to be called. This was reflected in where he served: Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Africa, and finally Iraq.

These will be trying times for his wife, his son, age 7, and his daughter, age 3. But they should know this: though we can do little to alleviate your loss, we will always honor Sergeant Ferrin, he was a true ``All-American'' and a hero when his Nation needed them most.

And so, another name has been added to Utah's List of Honor: SSG Clint D. Ferrin of the Army's 82 Airborne Division. His name and the service he performed is something that I shall never forget. I shall always honor him and his family.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding group of public servants--the Girl Scouts of the USA--who today celebrate the 92nd birthday of their organization.

Founded in 1912 by Juliette Gordon Low in Savannah, GA, Girl Scouts is the world's pre-eminent organization dedicated solely to girls--all girls--where they can build character and skills for success in the real world. Partnered with committed adult volunteers, Girl Scouts cultivate their full individual potential through learning and experience. The qualities they develop in Girl Scouting--leadership, values, social conscience, and conviction about their own self-worth-- serve and benefit them all their lives.

Nationwide today there are more than 3.7 million Girl Scouts--2.8 million girl members and 942,000 adult members. Through its membership in the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, Girl Scouts of the USA is part of a worldwide family of 8.5 million girls and adults in 140 countries.

Today's Girl Scouts receive interactive training and experience in such areas as: leadership; math; science and technology; diversity; financial literacy; health, fitness and sports; environmental education; the arts; global awareness; and safety. Our children's safety is a matter of great concern to me. You may remember a wave of child abductions not too long ago, including the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in my own home State of Utah, which highlighted the need to enhance our ability to protect our Nation's children. Last year, I introduced the PROTECT Act of 2003, an Act to prevent child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, which was signed into law by President Bush in April. This legislation included the AMBER Alert system program, which has proven to be a valuable tool in the rescue of abducted children. AMBER Alert systems are critical to successful search and recovery efforts because they enable law enforcement authorities to galvanize entire communities to assist in the safe recovery of child victims.

Elizabeth's disappearance raised awareness of this type of crime nationwide. Our entire Nation rejoiced with the Smart family after Elizabeth was found alive and reunited with her loved ones. Her discovery, facilitated by everyday citizens who had followed this case, demonstrates the importance of getting information about these disappearances out to the public quickly, and what accomplishments can be achieved when communities partner together.

Today, Girl Scouts of Utah will be celebrating the miracle of Elizabeth Smart's return to her family, and the Girl Scouts of the USA's 92nd birthday, by organizing a statewide safety awareness campaign--Partners In safety. Ed and Lois Smart, Elizabeth's parents, are the honorary chairs of this campaign. Although today kicks off an ongoing focus on safety rather than just a one-day event, Utah communities are invited to open house events on that date. Currently there are more than 25 open house locations in the state of Utah; and a variety of organizations state-wide have enlisted to participate as community sponsors in company with law enforcement and local governments. There will be a variety of safety-related activities at each site, and each participating agency will have a pledge poster so everyone in the community can sign and pledge safety on behalf of those they love.

We all care about the safety of our youth. The goal of Partners In Safety is to bring us all together to deliver the message of safety. I encourage everyone dedicated to safety to pledge to make a difference in your community by reaching the youth you know--talk to your children, grandchildren, students, teammates, troops, packs and church groups.

Begun by Ogden volunteers, Girl Scouts of Utah has been in existence since 1920 and has been committed to principles of pluralism, respect, and community service since inception. Utah Girl Scouts have delivered hand-made quilts to hospitals around Utah, decorated Christmas trees for the Festival of Trees, organized and attended hundreds of community service projects, increased their knowledge of finance during the Girl Scout cookie sale, learned about themselves and others, gained more respect for diversity, and participated in initiatives in science, sports, leadership, environmental education, and outdoor exploration. Recently, Girl Scouts of Utah was named a proud recipient of the 2004 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drum Major Award from the Utah Human Rights Commission in recognition of their steadfast devotion to diversity. Utah Girl Scouts have gotten a jump start on their way to becoming happy, committed, and resourceful citizens.

Throughout its long history, Girl Scouts experienced many milestones made possible by the strength and dedication of countless farsighted individuals--mostly volunteers--who tirelessly served girls and promoted Girl Scouting. We simply have no greater resource than our children; they represent our Nation's future. I commend the Girl Scouts of the USA for their tireless efforts on behalf of our children and families.

Mr. President, I speak on Senate amendment 2759, which Senator Kohl and I introduced to restore juvenile justice funding to the Department of Justice. The proposed amendment would increase the administration of justice function by $122 million and offset the allowances function of the budget.

The prevalence of justice crime continues to be among the greatest criminal justice challenges faced by our nation, and a major concern to every parent. In 2002, juveniles accounted for 16.5 percent of all criminal arrests in the United States. Persons under 18 committed 10 percent of all murders, over 17 percent of all rapes, nearly 24 percent of all robberies, and 50 percent of all arsons. Additionally, in 2002, 101 juveniles under 15 were arrested for murder. Juveniles under 15 were responsible for six percent of all rapes, 11 percent of all burglaries, and one-third of all arsons. And, unbelievably, juveniles under 15--who are not old enough to legally drive in any state--in 2002 were responsible for 8 percent of all auto thefts.

To put this in some context, consider this: in 2002, youngsters age 15 to 18, who are only seven percent of the population, committed 16.5 percent of all crimes. Even with recent modest reductions in the juvenile crime rate, I believe that there is strong potential for significant increases in juvenile crime above already too-high rates as the children of the baby boom generation are coming into the prime age for criminal activity.

The national juvenile crime problem required a change in the Federal approach, which the Congress addressed in the 107th Congress. As one of the primary authors of the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which passed last Congress, I focused this act works on reducing juvenile delinquency while adequately addressing the needs of juvenile offenders. Moreover, those reforms made federal policy on juvenile crime consistent with the realities of the problem.

As part of the reauthorization, we restructured juvenile justice assistance programs, including the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, JABG, Program. The reauthorization reformed the federal role in the nation's juvenile justice system by providing relief from burdensome federal mandates and authorizing block grant assistance to states and local governments, which includes accountability-based juvenile justice programs. These grants have been successful in reducing the recidivism rate of juveniles by up to 70%.

Another major component of juvenile assistance, delinquency prevention, was also strengthened in the reauthorization. Delinquency prevention funding supports valuable mentoring programs, after school programs, therapy and other services for troubled children. These programs offer education and community activities to deter children from drugs, gangs, and other opportunities to engage in criminal behavior.

The authorization strengthened the act, and authorized it at $350 million each year.

Despite Congressional authorization, the President has requested drastically reduced levels for juvenile justice for the past 3 years. Overall funding has been cut by almost two-thirds. According to the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2005, juvenile justice programs are to receive $150 million less than the congressionally- authorized amount. The Kohl-Hatch amendment would restore juvenile justice funding to the same level it was in Fiscal Year 2004--$320 million which is still under the authorized amount.

I urge my colleagues to support this much needed amendment to the Budget Resolution. We must put stock in our children and help them stay away from a life of crime.

amendment no. 2771

Mr. President, I discuss Senate Amendment 2771, an amendment I propose to the budget resolution. This amendment seeks to restore $600 million to the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs for law enforcement assistance.

The Office of Justice Assistance provides grants to the states and localities to aid law enforcement officers in the fight against crime. In addition to the COPS Office grants, the Office of Justice Programs offers states the Byrne Grant program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG Program, both of which have dramatically increased the capabilities and effectiveness of state and local law enforcement agencies.

Despite this tremendous help to our states, the President has not requested any money specifically for the Byrne Grant program or the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG program in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget request. As he has done for the past 2 years, the President proposes, and the budget resolution recommends, to consolidate these grant programs into one Justice Assistance Grant Program. However, in the process of consolidation, the new proposal seeks to eliminate a number of components of these grant programs. In addition, the budget proposes to reduce funding for COPS, thus reducing overall law enforcement assistance funding by 63 percent, or just over $1.035 billion.

The Byrne Grant program funds a number of successful crime reduction programs and is the Department of Justice's most flexible assistance account. Without these funds, many states would not be able to focus their resources at or operate specific programs. For example, in my own state of Utah, Byrne Grants provide the majority of funding for multijurisdictional drug task forces and DARE training. I am concerned that without these task forces, Utah's ability to wage the war against drugs would be seriously diminished.

Byrne Grants assist many states in controlling and preventing drug abuse, crime, and violence, and in improving the functioning of the criminal justice system. Currently, Byrne Grants have 29 specific purpose areas to combat drugs, gangs, financial and white collar crimes, and to improve the court system, the correctional facilities, and forensic capabilities. The proposed Justice Assistance Grant would only have six purpose areas. Many functions covered under the Byrne grants would no longer be eligible for much needed funds.

The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program has also been successful by offering state and local law enforcement agencies the ability to hire officers and purchase needed equipment. These programs have made it possible for local police and sheriffs departments to acquire efficiency-enhancing technology and equipment. Without these funds, our law enforcement offices would loose valuable equipment which has been able to enhance their crime fighting objectives.

My amendment seeks to restore local law enforcement assistance back to the Fiscal Year 2004 level. In order to do this, I am requesting that the offset come from function 800 in the budget resolution, general Government.

As many of you know, the Department of Treasury is funded under this function. The Department of Treasury has $11.658 billion in discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2005. In Fiscal Year 2001, the Department of Treasury had $10.332 billion in discretionary budget authority.

I recognize the needs of the Internal Revenue Service to modernize its systems, to fight abusive tax shelters, to reduce the tax gap, and to provide service to taxpayers. However, despite the increased needs of the IRS, because of the reorganization the Department of Treasury has lost two major components since 2001--the United States Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. These two agencies had a combined budget of $1.584 billion in Fiscal Year 2001.

With a significant reduction in resources, one would imagine that the Department of Treasury's budget would have significantly decreased as well. However, instead of seeing a decrease in budget authority, of at least $1.584 billion, the Department of Treasury's budget has continued to increase since Fiscal Year 2001.

In light of this, my amendment proposes to offset funds for the Office of Justice Programs with funds from Treasury that previously went towards major law enforcement agencies.

I hope that the appropriators will continue to fund the Byrne Grants and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants at the same level they have in the past. However, there will not be room in the budget for them to do so unless my amendment passes.

These highly successful and popular programs provide needed assistance to state and local law enforcement for a wide variety of programs and services. Eliminating these programs represents a severe blow to federal efforts to assist our communities in the war against crime.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

amendment no. 2793

Mr. President, I rise to discuss Senator Dorgan's amendment to S. Con. Res. 95, the budget resolution. Although I am highly supportive of increased funding for law enforcement assistance, I cannot support this amendment. This amendment proposes to reduce unnecessarily the tax cut in order to achieve the important goal of enhancing law enforcement efforts.

As I have stated before, I am supportive of existing Federal assistance to law enforcement officers, such as the Byrne grants, the Local Law Enforcement Block grants, and the COPS grants. These highly successful, effective and popular programs provide needed assistance to state and local law enforcement for a wide variety of programs and services.

Eliminating funding for these programs represents a severe blow to communities and neighborhoods across the country desperately in need of Federal resources to win the war against crime. In fact, I have filed my own amendment--with Senator Biden's support--to restore the Office of Justice Programs' law enforcement assistance to the same level as that in Fiscal Year 2004. However, my amendment does not reduce the tax cut. It simply allocates funds from other areas of the budget.

That being said, I cannot vote for a reduction in the tax cut. A $2.2 billion reduction in the tax cut affecting the top 1 percent of taxpayers may seem like a good idea to some. However, as many Senators on my side of the aisle have pointed out, a high percentage of small businesses pay taxes at the individual level, not as corporations. These include sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and limited liability companies. Smaller businesses are the engine of job creation in this country. Why in the world, during this time when jobs are very much needed, would we want to harm the potential for some of these businesses to expand and create more jobs?

Under today's law, the top individual tax rate is 35 percent, the same tax rate that corporations pay. Because so many privately-held businesses do pay tax at the individual and not the corporate rate, it is important that we keep this parity in the tax law. This amendment would raise the individual rate above the corporate rate and once again introduce a disparity in the tax rates on businesses in this country. This would be poor public policy so I must oppose it.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment which does not affect the tax cut, and not to support Senator Dorgan's amendment.

amendment no. 2783

Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, dedicated public servant, and loyal staff member--Mrs. Jeannine Holt. Jeannine has been my Southern Utah Area Director for 27 years, and is now retiring to enjoy the many wonderful things that life has to offer. Jeannine has done a tremendous job in serving thousands of Utahns who needed assistance, direction, or just a listening ear.

Jeannine has worked on many important issues affecting our State including lands issues, private property rights, and health care. In recent years she played a pivotal role in helping southern Utah citizens receive compensation from the government for exposure to radiation. Her guidance has helped literally hundreds of radiation exposure victims and their families navigate the complicated process to receive some financial relief for the awful illnesses many have experienced.

Jeannine is a real southern Utah ``treasure.'' She has always been an integral force in her community serving on various boards and committees including the Dixie State College Board of Trustees, the State Fair Board, the St. George Chamber of Commerce Board, and on the Rotary Bowl Committee. In addition, she has actively and energetically promoted the tourism industry in Utah's Dixie and has shared her love for the red rock canyons and sun-drenched lands of St. George and its surrounding areas with people she meets each day.

Jeannine's love and loyalty for the republican philosophy has been evident in the many years she has served promoting the ideals and values of the Republican party. She has literally donated thousands of hours working for candidates, and campaigns who share her commitment to Republican principles. For 20 years she has served as the vice chairwoman of the Washington County Republican Party, a position she has undertaken with distinction and honor.

Jeannine was also one of the founding members of the Women's Conference in Dixie, a conference which brings together hundreds of women each year from all over southern Utah to discuss important issues affecting the health and well-being of women and families. From its inception 18 years ago to today, this conference has established itself as an important forum for women from all over southern Utah to attend and enjoy.

In addition to the service she has rendered in the community and on my staff, Jeannine is a loving wife to her husband Stan. They have worked side-by-side for many years on projects benefitting their community and have buoyed each other up through life's twists and turns. Jeannine is also a loving mother of 3 and grandmother of 6.

I am grateful for the service that Jeannine Holt has given to me, to her community and to the State. She has been by my side for many years and has always been a vital component of my Senate organization. I will miss her tremendously but know that life holds many wonderful things for her to savor and enjoy. Jeannine Holt is a dedicated public servant, fervently patriotic American, and loyal and cherished friend. I want to wish her the very best in retirement and pray for her continued good health, success and happiness.

Mr. President, since the September 11th attacks against our Nation, each of us is more conscious of our individual safety and security. No example hit closer to home than when anthrax-infected letters made their way into Senators' offices. Senators, Representatives and staffers were forced to vacate offices, advised to take strong antibiotics, and faced with the uncertainty of whether they contracted a life-threatening disease.

In response to this vulnerability that is now inherent in our everyday lives, Congress has beefed up law enforcement and intelligence tools to combat terrorism better. The key to fighting terrorism is to target those planning terrorist acts and capture them before they can realize their horrific goals. Our law enforcement communities have utilized the new tools we have provided them to respond in a dedicated and professional way to these new challenges.

Unfortunately, we are beginning to see a number of instances where cruel and depraved individuals have engaged in terrorist hoaxes. For example, people have sent letters containing powder or sugar and a note stating that the recipient has now been infected by anthrax. These hoaxes are more than a bad joke. They require a substantial and costly response--evacuation of buildings, emergency medical tests or treatment, and laboratory action. Hoaxes like these, which mimic terrorist acts, undermine public confidence by spreading panic and fear, and drain valuable resources from Federal, State, and local government agencies which must respond to the hoax.

Under current Federal law, it is a felony to perpetrate certain hoaxes, such as saying there is a bomb on an airplane. It is also illegal to communicate a threat using the facilities of interstate commerce that could cause personal injury to someone. However, because hoaxes related to anthrax or other Federal crimes do not always contain specific threats, they may not be covered by current federal law. The Congressional Research Service has noted that this is a gap within the current Federal code.

Clearly, there is a need for tough legislation to reflect the seriousness of this type of crime. This is why Senators Schumer, Cornyn, Feinstein and I are introducing the Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004. The legislation criminalizes conduct that conveys false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed. The bill covers hoaxes related to biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons and other federal crimes that do not contain specific or express threats.

In addition, this bill criminalizes intentionally false statements concerning the death, injury, capture or disappearance of a member of the United States Armed Forces. During the recent liberation of Iraq, there were several cruel hoaxes played on family members of those who were risking their very lives in the service of our country. Family members sacrifice alongside service men and women who place their lives in danger in the service of our country. Those family members deserve to be treated with respect and should be free from these cruel deceptions. This bill makes sure that these malicious pranks can be punished appropriately.

America is engaged in a war on terrorisms. In addition to protecting our citizens from terrorist acts, we also need to take measures to ensure that our law enforcement resources are not needlessly wasted by responding to these offensive and expensive terrorist hoaxes. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, since the September 11th attacks against our Nation, each of us is more conscious of our individual safety and security. No example hit closer to home than when anthrax-infected letters made their way into Senators' offices. Senators, Representatives and staffers were forced to vacate offices, advised to take strong antibiotics, and faced with the uncertainty of whether they contracted a life-threatening disease.

In response to this vulnerability that is now inherent in our everyday lives, Congress has beefed up law enforcement and intelligence tools to combat terrorism better. The key to fighting terrorism is to target those planning terrorist acts and capture them before they can realize their horrific goals. Our law enforcement communities have utilized the new tools we have provided them to respond in a dedicated and professional way to these new challenges.

Unfortunately, we are beginning to see a number of instances where cruel and depraved individuals have engaged in terrorist hoaxes. For example, people have sent letters containing powder or sugar and a note stating that the recipient has now been infected by anthrax. These hoaxes are more than a bad joke. They require a substantial and costly response--evacuation of buildings, emergency medical tests or treatment, and laboratory action. Hoaxes like these, which mimic terrorist acts, undermine public confidence by spreading panic and fear, and drain valuable resources from Federal, State, and local government agencies which must respond to the hoax.

Under current Federal law, it is a felony to perpetrate certain hoaxes, such as saying there is a bomb on an airplane. It is also illegal to communicate a threat using the facilities of interstate commerce that could cause personal injury to someone. However, because hoaxes related to anthrax or other Federal crimes do not always contain specific threats, they may not be covered by current federal law. The Congressional Research Service has noted that this is a gap within the current Federal code.

Clearly, there is a need for tough legislation to reflect the seriousness of this type of crime. This is why Senators Schumer, Cornyn, Feinstein and I are introducing the Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004. The legislation criminalizes conduct that conveys false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed. The bill covers hoaxes related to biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons and other federal crimes that do not contain specific or express threats.

In addition, this bill criminalizes intentionally false statements concerning the death, injury, capture or disappearance of a member of the United States Armed Forces. During the recent liberation of Iraq, there were several cruel hoaxes played on family members of those who were risking their very lives in the service of our country. Family members sacrifice alongside service men and women who place their lives in danger in the service of our country. Those family members deserve to be treated with respect and should be free from these cruel deceptions. This bill makes sure that these malicious pranks can be punished appropriately.

America is engaged in a war on terrorisms. In addition to protecting our citizens from terrorist acts, we also need to take measures to ensure that our law enforcement resources are not needlessly wasted by responding to these offensive and expensive terrorist hoaxes. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (the CREATE Act). This bill makes a narrow, but important change in our patent laws to ensure that the American public will benefit from the results of collaborative research efforts that combine the erudition of great public universities with the entrepreneurial savvy of private enterprises.

Together, our universities and private enterprises have created a culture of innovation that has become America's greatest asset in an increasingly global economy. This culture of innovation encourages fundamental research--knowledge for its own sake. It also encourages the hard work needed to incorporate new advances in technology into actual products that reach the market and benefit consumers.

While universities and private entrepreneurs can play complementary roles in our innovation economy, new opportunities to innovate arise when public institutions and private entrepreneurs combine their respective forms of expertise in collaborative, joint research efforts. President Lincoln would surely agree that this type of joint private- public research effort is well-suited to add ``the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the production of new and useful things.''

As a result, we have long realized the enormous value of these joint research efforts, and we have long realized that their potential cannot be realized unless their participants can benefit from the intellectual property rights generated by such research. Unfortunately, the literal language of Section 102(g) of the Patent Act suggests that non-public information known to some members of a private-public research team can constitute ``prior art'' that may make the final results of the team research obvious, and thus not patentable. Because non-public information does not usually constitute ``prior art'' under the Patent Act, the potentially disparate treatment of such information crates a disincentive for entrepreneurs and public institutions to collaborate in joint research efforts.

I believe that we must encourage--not discourage--public institutions and private entrepreneurs to combine their respective talents in joint research efforts. Indeed, Congress committed itself to this principle when it passed the Bayh-Dole Amendments to the Patent Act. The CREATE Act will simply conform the present language of the Patent Act to the intent that has always animated it.

For the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004. I also thank my colleagues in the House Committee on the Judiciary, particularly Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith and Chairman James Sensenbrenner, for their groundbreaking work on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (the CREATE Act). This bill makes a narrow, but important change in our patent laws to ensure that the American public will benefit from the results of collaborative research efforts that combine the erudition of great public universities with the entrepreneurial savvy of private enterprises.

Together, our universities and private enterprises have created a culture of innovation that has become America's greatest asset in an increasingly global economy. This culture of innovation encourages fundamental research--knowledge for its own sake. It also encourages the hard work needed to incorporate new advances in technology into actual products that reach the market and benefit consumers.

While universities and private entrepreneurs can play complementary roles in our innovation economy, new opportunities to innovate arise when public institutions and private entrepreneurs combine their respective forms of expertise in collaborative, joint research efforts. President Lincoln would surely agree that this type of joint private- public research effort is well-suited to add ``the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the production of new and useful things.''

As a result, we have long realized the enormous value of these joint research efforts, and we have long realized that their potential cannot be realized unless their participants can benefit from the intellectual property rights generated by such research. Unfortunately, the literal language of Section 102(g) of the Patent Act suggests that non-public information known to some members of a private-public research team can constitute ``prior art'' that may make the final results of the team research obvious, and thus not patentable. Because non-public information does not usually constitute ``prior art'' under the Patent Act, the potentially disparate treatment of such information crates a disincentive for entrepreneurs and public institutions to collaborate in joint research efforts.

I believe that we must encourage--not discourage--public institutions and private entrepreneurs to combine their respective talents in joint research efforts. Indeed, Congress committed itself to this principle when it passed the Bayh-Dole Amendments to the Patent Act. The CREATE Act will simply conform the present language of the Patent Act to the intent that has always animated it.

For the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004. I also thank my colleagues in the House Committee on the Judiciary, particularly Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith and Chairman James Sensenbrenner, for their groundbreaking work on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I have sat here and listened to my two distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I have to admit I believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is one of our most colorful Senators in the Senate. He is a person I respect, and with whom I have a personal friendship. But that doesn't mean we agree on a lot of the things he says. In fact, we don't.

I don't think President Bush has been saying the economy is hunky- dory, to paraphrase what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts characterized the President as saying. I think the President realizes there have been lots of problems that have arisen, as each President has had to face problems. He has faced them in large measure in a whole variety of ways, but in large measure by cutting taxes, which now happens to be paying off because we have gotten great benefits from the cuts in taxes. Frankly, 125,000 jobs a month are coming back. That is not something to sneer at.

I might also mention we get nothing but screams on the other side of the aisle that unemployment compensation isn't being continued. But I remember back in the Clinton administration when unemployment was, I believe, at 9 percent--certainly higher than it is today--and they discontinued unemployment compensation, and they controlled the Senate floor. Today, we have a 5.6-percent unemployment rate, which is one of the lowest we have had in years. If you look at it from the other survey, which I think is probably more accurate, it is probably lower than that.

For anybody to say we don't have problems in this society today would be wrong. But we had problems in our society through all of the Clinton years as well.

By the way, when President Clinton came into office, we were definitely coming out of a recession, and he reaped the benefits of many of the things that President Bush 1 actually did. He had a number of very good years. I don't believe it was because they increased taxes the way they did. It was because we were already starting to come out of the recession and one of those cyclical periods.

Let me just say this: When President Clinton left office, I don't think anybody could deny that in the last year of his term in office we were starting into a recession again, which President Bush inherited.

To stand there and blame President Bush for everything that has gone on is wrong, and it shouldn't be done. And to indicate that President Bush says everything is hunky-dory, that there are no problems in our society, is to ignore many of the statements President Bush has made and that his administration has made.

If we had listened to our friends on the other side, over the last year alone we would have spent $1 trillion more. Our budget would have been so out of whack we would never get it back.

Yet they are trying to tell the American people they are the fiscally responsible party? We can't bring up a spending bill that they don't want to double. They think that is good for the economy.

On the minimum wage, look, I suspect minimum wage will be increased this year. I remember only one time when the Senate voted down the minimum wage, and that was because the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and others tried to overdo it just a short time after the last raise.

We are talking about jobs, too. Just remember that every time the minimum wage rate goes up, all kinds of kids--mainly young African- American kids who can't get those starter jobs--wind up being on the unemployment rolls, many of them for the rest of their lives. Some estimate it as high as 600,000 of them every time the minimum wage is increased.

I think it is a great argument to argue about the minimum wage and how we want to get people more money, and then turn around and say we are losing jobs in North Carolina and South Carolina without acknowledging the fact that the reason we are is because China is paying people 39 cents an hour for textile work.

We are either going to have to have the Federal Government pay to resolve these problems in every way, which would cost billions and billions of dollars more, boosting up one aspect of our economy that basically we have lost because of competition--or, we will all have to begin to understand competition. This country is the most competitive country in the world. We are the most productive country in the world. However, we need to recognize and focus on our strengths.

In all honesty, if our friends on the other side are really sincere about creating jobs, why did they refuse to go to conference on the Workforce Investment Act? That bill has been put back light years because of the refusal to go to conference and resolve this matter. This has offended the House and now we may or may not get that bill. That would be a helpful bill with regard to jobs.

We should be wary of retaliation. I respect my friend from Connecticut, as well. But sometimes we do not think it through when we do these broad, oversweeping things like preventing government outsourcing. We should be wary of retaliation against United States companies that get awarded foreign government contracts. Let me give a few examples.

Entrust is a perfect example. Internet security company Entrust Inc. was awarded a $17.6 million contract by BCE Nexxia for enhanced Internet security software and services for the Canadian Government's Secure Channel project.

By the way, you could name dozens of companies that are doing the same.

``The contract is the largest in Entrust's history and reflects how we are collaborating with service providers to deliver solutions tailored to the government, financial and Global 100 enterprise market sectors we announced in early June,'' CEO Bill Conner said in a statement.

BCE Nexxia, leading a consortium including BCE Emergis and CGI, was awarded a $37.6 million contract to build and manage a technology infrastructure for the Canadian Government. The company, a division of Bell Canada, provides communications services and operates an IP- broadband network. Bell Canada is 80-percent owned by BCE Inc. of Montreal and 20 percent by SBC Communications Inc. of San Antonio.

I could go on and on about this.

Computer Sciences Corp. of El Segundo, CA, won a contract to replace Human Resources Development, Canada's network operating system, with new hardware and software, the company announced November 15.

Human Resources Development Canada provides Canadians with employment insurance, income security, employment programs, corporate services, and homelessness and labor services using several means, including walk-in services, automated telephone systems, and self-service kiosks. About 26,000 agency employees use the network. The contract includes IT architecture,

software license arrangements, server hardware, and services for transition, migration, implementation, support, and maintenance.

My gosh, one reason we are trying to do the FSC/ETI-JOBS bill is to jump-start our economy and because we are being assessed $4 billion in trade sanctions if we do not resolve some of these conflicts in our relationship with the E.U.

Want to lose jobs? Don't support this bill or keep gumming it up. And we are gumming it up with legislation that literally will cause even more angst and will probably cost us $4 billion in the end. And that means jobs.

``This is an important contract for CSC in the Canadian federal government information technology market and further expands our presence in Ottawa region,'' said Tony Canning, president of CSC's Canadian operations. ``We look forward to serving HRDC in implementing and supporting the state-of-the-art networking system.''

In support of CSC, Compaq Canada Inc., Richmond Hill, Ontario, subsidiary of Houston-based Compaq Computer Corporation, will provide server technology and CDI Corporate Education Services Corporation of Toronto will offer training services.

Digimarc ID Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of Portland-based Digimarc Corporation, has extended an agreement with the Brazilian Government.

The Bedford, MA, based--that is a Massachusetts company, by the way-- based subsidiary announced Tuesday the Brazil Federal Police has contracted with Digimarc ID Systems to continue producing the country's alien ID cards. Since 1997, the Brazil Federal Police has issued more than 1.5 million of the cards to people who live in Brazil under work or immigration visas. Digimarc ID Systems provides hardware, software, maintenance, and operations support to the Brazil Federal Police.

What are we going to do, have countries all over the world retaliate against us because we are going to have a bill here that is filled up with this type of stuff?

Harris Corporation, an international communications equipment company, and RAYLEX S.A, Harris's representative in Chile, announced today the signing of a contract valued at $11 million with the Chilean Government. The contract includes the complete supply and buildout of the world's largest microwave network. The network will cover a total of 4,500 kilometers, interconnecting phone services, data, video conferencing, and other multimedia services for the customer. Extending from Arica in northern Chile to Puerto Mont in the southern part of the country, the network is expected to benefit both cities' metropolitan regions as well as all major cities between Arica and Puerto Mont.

We are all concerned about preserving American jobs, but we need to make sure the cure is not worse than the disease.

I am getting tired of cheap shots being made against President Bush. I got tired of some that were made against President Clinton and against President Carter, because I was here. It is time to work together and this bill is one of the most important bills in recent history because it will create jobs. It will jump-start the economy. It will save us $4 billion in trade sanctions. It will help us.

We should not be debating this for days and days. We ought to pass this bill. We ought to pass this bill and get it going. We have to resolve the conflicts between the House and the Senate. That is always difficult, but we have been able to do it in some of the major bills of the past.

It is misleading for people to come to this floor and just chop up the President, who is doing the best he can, and who is a great sponsor and supporter of this particular piece of legislation, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation with regard to jump-starting this economy and jump-starting jobs in this economy.

It is time to work together and quit trying to make political points and get something done. I suggest we do a little less screaming on the floor and a little more work and get this bill passed as soon as we possibly can.

Amendment No. 2680 to Amendment No. 2660

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony on Military Strategy and Operational Requirements, in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2005.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on the nominations of Rhonda Keenum, to be Assistant Secretary and Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service for the Department of Commerce, Linda Combs, to be Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Transportation, Douglas Buttrey and Francis Mulvey, to be Members of the Surface Transportation Board, in SR-253.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4th at 10 a.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to review the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 Report regarding the supply, demand and price projections for oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal and renewable resources, focusing on oil and natural gas. In addition, commercial and market perspectives on the state of oil and natural gas markets will be considered.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a Business Meeting.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a Subcommittee hearing on Hong Kong.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Higher Education and the Workforce: Issues for Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Building Room 226

Agenda

I. Nominations: Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Raymond W. Gruender to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit; Franklin S. Van Antwerpen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; Diane S. Sykes to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit; Louis Guirola, Jr., to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; Judith C. Herrera to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico; Virginia E. Hopkins to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; Kenneth M. Karas to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York; F. Dennis Saylor to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; Sandra L. Townes to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Ricardo S. Martinez to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington; Gene E.K. Pratter to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Neil Vincent Wake to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona; William S. Duffey, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia; James L. Robart to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington; Juan R. Sanchez to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Lawrence F. Stengel to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Michele M. Leonhart to be Deputy Administrator of Drug Enforcement; Domingo S. Herraiz to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Department of Justice; LaFayette Collins to be U.S. Marshal for the Western District of Texas, and Ronald J. Tenpas to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois.

II. Executive Session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, 2004, for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to hear the legislative presentations of the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, and Blinded Veterans Association. The hearing will take place in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building at 10 a.m.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, at 2:30 p.m., to receive testimony regarding new nuclear power generation in the United States.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection, and Product Promotion of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, 2004. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the development of a national animal identification plan.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on compensation, benefits and health care for active and reserve military personnel and their families, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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

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

Mr. President, there are several aspects of U.S. job creation and retention on which many of us may disagree. I do not believe, however, that the need for an effective research credit is one of them. It will do more for workers, more for jobs, more for high technology, more for opportunities, and more for the economy than most anything else we could pass. In this jobs bill it seems very appropriate for us to add this particular amendment to it.

This amendment has strong support from both sides of the aisle. It has the unified support of the whole business community. It is the right thing to do for U.S. workers, for the U.S. economy, and for our children and our grandchildren. This amendment will open a door for small businesses, where most of the jobs are created anyway, to create more jobs, more opportunities, more good products, more high technology, more ways of keeping the United States at the forefront, economically, in this world than almost anything else we could do.

This jobs bill, which itself is an excellent bill that will do a lot for jobs, will be much better for having this amendment added to it. I hope my colleagues will all vote for it. It is a worthwhile thing to do. It is something that every one of us ought to vote for.

I thank those who have cosponsored this with me, those who have amended it with their excellent suggestions and the members of the Senate Finance Committee who have been champions of this for many years. I believe over the long run this type of amendment is going to pay off in great dividends.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on the Committees Views and Estimate Letter on the President's FY/05 Budget Request for Indian Programs, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the Status of the Completion of the National Museum of the American Indian.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on the constitution

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Activism vs. Democracy: What are the National Implications of the Massachusetts Goodridge Decision and the Judicial Invalidation of Traditional Marriage Laws?,'' on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 10 a.m., in SD226.

Panel I: Reverend 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; Pastor Daniel de Leon, Sr., Alianza de Ministerios Evangelicos Nacionales (AMEN), Pastor, Templo Calvario, General Presbyter, Assemblies of God, Santa Ana, CA; the Hon. Jon Bruning, Attorney General of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE; and Mrs. Maggie Gallagher, President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the role of defense science and technology in the global war on terrorism and in preparing for emerging threats in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 3, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1420, a bill to establish terms and conditions for use of certain Federal land by outfitters and to facilitate public opportunities for the recreational use and enjoyment of such land.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on impact on abortion on women in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2004, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on future Navy and Marine Corps capabilities and requirements, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. President, I respect the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, as he knows. I will certainly look at this amendment. But throughout this day I have seen others on the other side continually talk about jobs and loss of jobs like we are not doing anything about it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This very bill, FSC/ETI, is a very important bill. We call it the Jumpstart Our Business Strength on Jobs bill because it will help us to increase the number of jobs in this country by huge dimensions. It also is a smart thing to do. It also saves us $4 billion in assessed costs with the E.U. in international trade, if we get this done. That is very important.

Some of the comments I have heard today, not those of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut--in fact, I exclude his comments--some of the comments I have heard today would have you believe the only way you are going to get jobs is more of the same: More Government, more Government support, more and more controls, more and more approaches towards unionizing America.

I am one of the few Members of this body who ever held a union journeyman's card. I worked 10 years in the building construction trade unions and earned my journeyman lather's card. The laths trade was one of the most interesting trades. In the early days it was wood lathing, little partitions of woods that you put on partitions and ceilings that you would plaster over. In my day it was metal lath, which was a much more high-tech approach towards putting up partitions and ceilings and elliptical arches and Gothic arches, and it was a very skilled trade and I was fortunate that I was able to do that and I am proud I was able to do that.

Today, the lathing trade is no longer in existence because we priced ourselves out of the marketplace. Today, all of the lathers who used to work in this very skilled trade had to transition into the carpenters' union because their trade no longer could pay for itself.

As a matter of fact, you don't see many buildings plastered today. The reason you don't, it is just too expensive. So drywall has become the norm. I am not criticizing anybody. What I am saying is, we can price ourselves out of the marketplace.

I can remember time after time, my fellow union lathers would say: Hey, kid, slow down. We are not going to have any work if you keep working so fast.

My father was one of the best lathers in the world and taught me the trade.

He said: Look, you give an honest day's work for an honest day's dollar and you work as hard as you can.

It was anathema to me to slow down so we could have more work. That is what happened. They slowed down and the work dissipated and, of course, the trade no longer exists.

I think we are worse off because we don't have lath and plaster in a lot of our buildings today. I am not blaming my fellow union members, but sometimes we have to acknowledge that there are gives and takes in the business world. The fact that some businesses do their business offshore is not necessarily bad because in many cases we get even more jobs onshore. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes it is bad. But by and large, business in this country has always worked because we believe in the free market system. We believe in competition. We believe in high productivity.

My feeling is that this country cannot be beat in productivity. If we really work hard and we continue to do the best we can, we are always going to be able to compete.

But where we cannot compete because of low wages and government subsidization and violations of international trade laws, then, my gosh, let's not quit. Let's go and find new jobs.

This administration inherited some terrifically bad times. The whole last year of the Clinton administration was headed into recession, and everybody knows it. Anybody who says otherwise is not telling the truth. Everybody knows that. So this President inherited that.

I don't particularly blame the Clinton administration. We do have cycles. But I have to say I think they could have done some things to have prevented it. But that is probably true of everything. He then inherited this recession, and on top of that comes September 11, which created magnificent problems for all of us. It was very costly and expensive and put pressure on the budget. It cost us in so many ways, even from a productivity and jobs standpoint.

But economic growth for the third quarter of last year was up over 8 percent. In the fourth quarter, it was 4.1 percent. I know years here when we would have killed for 4.1 percent. Frankly, I believe the first quarter of this year is going to be all right too, even though normally it is a slow quarter.

I think all we have to do is do our best to work together as Democrats and Republicans without all the screaming and shouting like one side has all the answers and the other side doesn't, which I have heard a lot of today, and put aside the politics and do what is best for our country. Unfortunately, some just can't seem to do that.

I believe the President is doing a great job. I believe his various Cabinet-level officials are doing great work. In fact, I have never seen better in my 28 years in the Senate. I believe it is time to be fair, decent, and honorable.