[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2958-S2963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1637, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1637) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to comply with the World Trade Organization rulings on the
FSC/ETI benefit in a manner that preserves jobs and
production activities in the United States, to reform and
simplify the international taxation rules of the United
States, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Harkin amendment No. 2881, to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to clarify provisions relating to
overtime pay.
McConnell motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Finance, with instructions to report back forthwith the
following amendment:
McConnell (for Frist) amendment No. 2886, in the nature of
a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 2898
Mr. GRASSLEY. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
No. 2898 to the instructions to the motion to recommit S.
1637.
The amendment follows:
At the end of the instructions (Amdt. No. 2886) insert the
following:
Sec. . This act shall become effective one day following
enactment of the legislation.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2899
Mr. GRASSLEY. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
No. 2899 to the amendment numbered 2898.
The amendment follows:
In the pending amendment strike ``one'' and insert ``two''.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me take a few moments to review where
we are on this legislation.
First, I don't want to sound melodramatic but this is an important
bill. This bill would help to create and keep good manufacturing jobs
where they should be; that is, in America.
We need to move this bill. The Senate conducted 3 days of debate on
the bill, one of them a Monday without rollcall votes, and this is our
fourth day on the bill. In that time, we might say, the Senate has
considered and adopted a good number of amendments. Let me just list
them.
We have adopted, first, the managers' amendment on leasing shelters;
the managers' amendment making modifications to the revenue provisions;
the committee substitute. We have also adopted the Bingaman amendment
to expand the research credit; the Hatch-Murray amendment to extend the
research and development credit. We have further adopted the McConnell
amendment to protect American workers; the McCain amendment on defense;
the Dodd amendment to protect American workers; the Bayh amendment to
extend expiring provisions; the Bunning amendment to extend the net
operating loss carryover provision; and the Bunning-Stabenow amendment
to accelerate the phase-in of the manufacturing deduction.
That is quite a bit. A lot of legislation adopted, amendments passed
already. Now, under the previous order, Senator Harkin has offered his
amendment on the Department of Labor's overtime regulations and that is
the pending first-degree amendment.
Regrettably, in my view, the assistant majority leader offered a
motion to recommit the bill and filed cloture on that motion to
recommit. This morning the majority filled that amendment tree by
offering a couple of secondary amendments.
There may come a time, after full and fair debate and amendment on
the bill, when I would support a motion to cut off debate. But under
the current circumstances, I will oppose that cloture motion. This is a
bill about jobs, about quality jobs here in America. Senator Harkin's
amendment is also about the quality of jobs in America. This is not
some amendment out of left field. The Senator from Iowa is not trying
to change the subject, for example, to gun control or Medicare or
reproductive choice, but rather he is staying on the subject. He is
talking about jobs.
His amendment, although relevant, may not be strictly germane within
the meaning of that term in Senate procedure. The effect of this
cloture motion, if adopted, would be to block a vote on the Harkin
amendment. I will not be a party to that effort. On a major bill such
as this one, Senators deserve a full and fair opportunity to offer and
get votes on amendments. We should allow that process to continue.
Even though this cloture motion has brought the Senate to something
of an impasse, I remain hopeful. I am hopeful because I believe after
the Senate recognizes that the votes are not there to block the Harkin
amendment, the Senate can then reach an agreement limiting amendments
to the bill to a reasonable number. I believe we can then work through
this bill and bring it to completion by the end of the week. It is
important that we do so. We need to respond to the European Union's
sanctions, sanctions that impose a harmful tax on dozens of American
products. Most importantly, we need to do what
[[Page S2959]]
we can to help to create and keep jobs in America.
I urge a prompt vote on the Harkin amendment, that we reach an
agreement limiting amendments to a reasonable number, and then move on
to complete this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night the majority leader set up a
process for moving this bill to a cloture vote. This is not our
preferred route for moving what is clearly a bipartisan bill voted out
of committee 19 to 2. The two dissenting votes happened to be
Republicans, not Democrats. This is clearly a bipartisan bill. A
bipartisan bill should not require a cloture vote to get passed.
I remain hopeful we will be able to work out an agreement on moving
the bill forward without the need for this extraordinary parliamentary
process, but if cloture is the only way to move this bill, then I hope
everybody will support cloture. We need to support cloture in the same
bipartisan manner we used to build this bill. It is urgent that we move
this bill immediately.
This bill reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the United
States and sold overseas so we can create jobs in America. We give a
priority on taxation to goods made in America.
Everybody in this body is concerned about outsourcing. If we want to
do something about keeping jobs in America and adding to the number of
jobs in America, this bill will do it. It is going to make our costs of
operation less and consequently competitive with world competition.
That is why we call it the JOBS bill.
The reason we are in a bad position right now is because under the
international agreements we have on trade, the World Trade Organization
has ruled that our pretax policy is an illegal export subsidy, and
consequently the World Trade Organization has authorized Europe to do
up to $4 billion a year in sanctions against U.S. exports.
It isn't just the case of our tax system causing us to not be
competitive. On top of that, we now have $4 billion of sanctions to
further weigh down our ability to compete in the export market. These
sanctions began on March 1. These sanctions started at 5 percent, which
is just like a 5-percent sales tax on the stuff we are going to sell.
The rule of Economics 101 is if you tax something at a higher rate, you
get less of it. But not only is it 5 percent now, it is going to be 5
percent for each month we do not conform our tax laws to our trade
agreements.
Remember, we have trade agreements because the U.S. Congress enacted
those trade agreements. It has been done by a majority of the
representatives of the American people. One percent a month can take us
all the way up to a maximum of 17 percent over the course of a year. By
November, we are going to have a 12-percent tax on our exports. This is
a very serious threat for all States because the sanctions hit a wide
range of products--agricultural, timber, and manufacturing products
that we sell overseas.
We need to get this issue behind us very soon or we will never get
this bill passed and we will continue to have this mounting level of
taxation on our products being exported to a point where we are even
more uncompetitive, to a point where workers may be laid off; whereas
just the opposite can happen if we pass this legislation. We are going
to be able to make our manufacturing more competitive and across the
board with a wider range--not just for big corporations in America but
for individuals that export, for sole proprietorships that are in
manufacturing; you name it. People are going to get the benefit of a
lower rate of taxation if they manufacture in America--not if they have
a company in America and they manufacture overseas but just American
jobs, American products made in America, or if a company wants to come
over here and invest in America and build a plant and hire American
workers, they will get the benefit of it as well.
We had 3 or 4 days on this bill 2 weeks ago. We started on it again
yesterday. I think it is very important that we move ahead on this
legislation. But the opening debate and the procedural shenanigans
confirm my worst fears because there are some on the other side who
want to use this legislation to move things that are unrelated to
making our industry competitive and unrelated to the motivations behind
this bipartisan bill.
Senator Baucus and I agreed on an order of amendments that would
improve the bill and broaden important relevant issues. That agreement
was undermined by the process coming from the other side of the aisle.
It means Members there presumably do not know the importance of this
legislation, do not want to debate the substance of the bill but debate
everything else. In a sense, this bipartisan bill is being turned into
a political football. That is inexcusable because we have worked hard
throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns, both
Republican and Democrat, were incorporated into this bill. You do not
play political games with a bipartisan bill that affects the jobs of
manufacturing workers across this land.
I take a moment to talk about how bipartisan this bill is. It is
bipartisan and was built that way from the ground up. It is the
construction that began when my friend and colleague, Senator Baucus,
was chairman of the Finance Committee. Senator Baucus held hearings on
this issue in July 2002 to address the FSC/ETI controversy going on
within the World Trade Organization. The title of the hearing was ``The
Role of the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act in the International
Competitiveness of U.S. Commerce.'' Talk about a chairman taking his
responsibilities seriously, Senator Baucus did.
Even then we were concerned about the outsourcing of jobs. We were
concerned about American manufacturing being able to compete with the
global environment we are in. We heard at that time vital testimony
from a cross-section of industries that would be adversely affected by
the repeal of this extraterritorial income act.
We also heard from U.S. companies that were clamoring for
international tax reform more broadly than FSC/ETI because our tax
rules were hurting their competitiveness in the foreign markets. If you
want to create jobs in America, and we have a tax system that makes us
uncompetitive, would you not expect the Congress of the United States
to respond, and respond in a bipartisan way to that problem for our
manufacturers? Or if you did not, why would you harangue about
outsourcing? You need to do something about it.
These companies that testified in the summer of 2002 told us their
foreign competitors were running circles around them because of our
antiquated international taxing rules. During this hearing, we had our
colleagues, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Hatch of Utah,
express concerns about how our international tax laws were impairing
the competitiveness of U.S. companies. After some discussion on forming
a blue-ribbon commission to study this problem, we all decided that
decisive action was more important than the usual commission approach
that usually ends up with a lot of public relations and high talk but
no action.
During that hearing, then-Chairman Baucus formed an international tax
working group that was joined by Senator Graham, Senator Hatch, and
this Senator, and was open to any other Finance Committee Senator
interested in this issue. The bipartisan Finance Committee working
group formed the basis for the bill we are debating this very minute.
We directed our staff to engage in an exhaustive analysis of many
international reform proposals that have been offered. Our efforts were
intended to glean the very best ideas from as many sources as possible.
Senator Baucus and I also formed a bipartisan, bicameral working
group with the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee of the other body in an effort to find some common ground on
dealing with this repeal of FSC/ETI. Obviously, that did not go so well
because the other body has come out with legislation somewhat different
than ours. Consequently, they are finding it very difficult to get the
votes to pass it in the other body. That is another reason, if we move
quickly, maybe we can impress upon the House of Representatives that
this body can function, this body works; we have a good product and
maybe that will encourage bipartisanship in the House of
Representatives.
Through this working group we continued our efforts in cooperation
with
[[Page S2960]]
Senator Hatch, Senator Bob Graham, and other members of the Finance
Committee who wanted to do what was fair and what was right in
complying with this World Trade Organization ruling. We continued our
bipartisan efforts when I became chairman in 2003. In July last year,
we held two hearings on the FSC/ETI and international reform issues.
One hearing focused on: ``An Examination of the United States Tax
Policy and Its Effect on Domestic and International Competitiveness of
United States-Based Operations,'' building upon the very successful
hearing that chairman Baucus had in 2002.
Our second hearing was entitled ``United States Tax Policy and Its
Effects on International Competitiveness of United States-Owned Foreign
Operations,'' as opposed to United States-based operations in the first
hearing. These two hearings concluded our final bipartisan effort in
reviewing all of the policy options that led to the creation of the
bill that is before the Senate right now.
Let me again emphasize there is not one provision in this JOBS bill
that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. We have acted
in good faith. We have acted in the best of faith to produce a bill
that takes American manufacturing jobs and ensures that our companies
remain the global competitors we want them to be. We did this in a
fully bipartisan manner, which is what the American people expect on
such an important issue as manufacturing jobs in our Nation's economic
health.
These efforts that have been expended to bring this bill to this
point are apparently not enough for some. They still view this whole
process as political punt, pass, and kick competition. I now realize
there are some who do not want this bill to pass, and maybe not having
it passed will serve their political end. They want economic downturns
that continued sanctions will produce to continue economic doldrum.
Several weeks ago, an article in the Washington Post quoted a
Democratic tax aide as saying: ``There is not a lot of incentive for us
to figure out this problem.'' The Democratic aide went on to say that
allowing the extraterritorial income controversy to fester would yield
increased sanctions that somehow would benefit the Democrats in
November. That is an appalling statement because we hear the concern
that is legitimately expressed about outsourcing.
We have a bill before the Senate that can do something about
outsourcing. We have a situation before the Senate that if we do not
pass this bill, not only will we not have some tax advantage we thought
we once had, but we will have the sanctions on top of that to weight
down American industry so more people are laid off.
How can Members one day give a speech about outsourcing and the next
day slow down a bill that does something about outsourcing? Outsourcing
only comes as a matter of competition. There is not any American
businessperson sitting around anyplace that decides, I want Mary's job
to go to India. I want Pete's job to go to China. I want Ralph's job to
go to Russia.
There is not any American businessman who speaks in terms of: I don't
want this American to have a job, because they would not have hired
them in the first place.
This outsourcing happens because they look at what their competition
is paying to produce a product. In the economics of business, when you
are a businessperson, wherever in the world, if you do not make a
profit, you are not going to be in business. So a businessperson seeing
that he is not competitive, that is where you lead to outsourcing.
Now these American manufacturers come and testify before our
committee. They tell us what makes them noncompetitive. One is the cost
of capital in America being high. We have an opportunity to reduce the
cost of capital and, at the same time, encourage manufacturing in
America. That is what this bill does.
So everyone on both sides of the aisle who talks about outsourcing--I
do myself--needs to band together if we are serious about doing
something about outsourcing and get behind this effort to get the bill
passed because manufacturers tell us this bill will help. And, for
sure, they know these sanctions that are on American manufacturing now
are an additional burden they cannot withstand.
America's farmers and manufacturing workers must not pay the price
for the sort of stonewalling we are seeing. Efforts to delay this
bipartisan bill with unrelated measures is a bad excuse. Why would they
raise political issues that are unrelated to this bill in an attempt to
undermine the JOBS Act?
Delay will allow sanctions to continue and drive down our economy.
That will allow sanctions to increase to 12 percent by the November
elections. Maybe that is too tempting for some people who are worried
about the election instead of the next generation to pass up.
I am hopeful we will see the best politics ends up being good policy.
That is what we have with this bill. We help domestic manufacturers. We
help U.S. companies compete overseas. Putting politics ahead of good
policy is exactly the wrong approach. In effect, this political game
does not help those who face the sanctions. It does not help domestic
manufacturers and workers in those industries.
A vote against this bill is a vote to continue European Union
sanctions, already at 5 percent--6 percent in April, 7 percent in May,
8 percent in June, 9 percent in July, 10 percent in August, 11 percent
in September, 12 percent in November.
We are here to represent the interests of the United States. On this
bill, we are here to represent the interests of jobs in America. We are
here to represent the symbol ``Made in America.''
If we do not pass this bill, whether people realize it, they are
representing the interests of the European Union, because it is the
European Union which is going to benefit with European jobs.
We have 5.6 percent unemployment in America, which is probably less
unemployment than most of my life in politics as an index of how the
economy is going. But still, it is bad to have 5.6 percent
unemployment. What is worse than the 5.6 percent unemployment is the
people who are complaining about the 5.6 percent unemployment and not
passing this bill that is going to make employment in America better.
Oh, maybe they are looking over to Germany. Their unemployment rate
went up last month to 10.7 percent. By not passing this bill, we might
help some German workers get a job, some of the German unemployed get a
job. Well, I do not think we ought to put the interests of the European
Union first.
The only way to honor our trade obligations and to make American
business competitive and to create jobs in America is to pass this bill
and repeal the extraterritorial income provisions of our law. It is
very simple. It is so simple that is why this is a bipartisan bill. As
I said before, I hope the leadership of this body can cooperate, both
Republican and Democrat, to focus on this legislation, to focus on the
task at hand, and particularly on the other side where all the
amendments are coming from, to know the importance of passing this
bill, not stalling this bill, and moving forward.
Repealing FSC/ETI raises about $55 billion over 10 years, and 89
percent of that money comes from manufacturing. It gives us an
opportunity to use that $55 billion to emphasize American
manufacturing, the creation of jobs in America, and to use that $55
billion as an incentive to American manufacturers to manufacture here
and not to manufacture overseas.
We need to send that money back to the manufacturing sector because
if we do not, then besides these sanctions, we have a $50 billion tax
increase on American manufacturing.
The Congressional Budget Office says we have lost 3 million
manufacturing jobs since July of 2000. Is this manufacturing decline
something the Bush administration did? No. It started in July of 2000.
A $50 billion tax increase will not stimulate manufacturing jobs.
Again, simple principles of economics 101: If you tax something more,
you get less of it.
The JOBS bill uses all of the money from the FSC/ETI repeal to give a
3 percentage point tax cut on all income derived from manufacturing in
the United States. Let me emphasize: just in the United States. It is
not for manufacturing by American companies overseas.
The relief applies not only to big manufacturers but sole
proprietors,
[[Page S2961]]
partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational
corporations if they are manufacturing in America, and also plain big
or small foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the
United States.
We also include international tax reforms, mostly in the foreign tax
area, and most of which benefit manufacturing.
Our bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad
support in both bodies of the Congress.
The Finance bill is revenue neutral. That is another thing we have to
do: have it carefully crafted in order to get bipartisan support for
this legislation and not add to the deficit; there are both Republicans
and Democrats who do not want to pass a tax bill that loses revenue. So
we have the ability, by extending Customs user fees--and, more
importantly, by shutting down illicit tax shelters, corporate tax
shelters, and closing abusive corporate tax loopholes--to raise money
to do even more than we have described to be able to do some reform of
the international taxing regime generally beyond just FSC/ETI.
As with all bills, there is never complete agreement on this
approach. That is even considering the fact it was voted out of
committee in a bipartisan way 19 to 2. Remember, all Democrats voted
for this bill to come out of committee.
Our bill contains a haircut on the rate reduction some of us would
like to remove and others would like to retain. Some Members prefer a
reduction in the top corporate rate across the board in place of the
international reforms and the manufacturer's rate cut in this bill. I
understand the desire for this simpler approach cutting taxes, but a
top level rate cut would only go to the biggest corporations of
America. Local family-held S corporations and partnerships, which
presently get some extraterritorial income benefits, get nothing from
this. If we redirect FSC/ETI money to an across-the-board corporate
cut, then the manufacturing sector will be the revenue offset. In other
words, we are going to be shifting from tax advantages from
manufacturing to services where we have some problem, but I think we
generally agree not as much of a problem as we have in manufacturing.
The international tax reforms largely fix problems our domestic
companies face with the complexities of the foreign tax credit. These
reforms are necessary if we are to level the playing field for U.S.
companies that compete with our trading partners. The Finance Committee
bipartisan bill has been improved with an amendment to extend the
research and development tax credit through the end of 2005. That is a
domestic tax benefit that incentives research and development, makes
our businesses competitive and prepared for the next generation of
technology. This, however, translates also into good, high-paying jobs
for workers in America and not overseas.
In addition to the previously agreed upon R&D amendment, there are
several additional provisions to improve this bill. We have the
amendment by Senators Bunning and Stabenow, a bipartisan amendment to
accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This amendment ensures the tax
relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more
quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI. This is now part of the
bill.
Second, there is an amendment I offered with Senator Baucus to extend
for 2 years tax provisions that have expired. Some expired in 2003,
some this year. This includes items such as the work opportunity tax
credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit which have been merged and
simplified into a single credit as proposed by Senator Santorum and
others in the bill S. 1180. This is now a part of the legislation.
A third provision on net operating losses is also included. This
provision allows companies that operated at losses during the difficult
economic conditions of last year to offset those losses against their
income of the previous 5 years. So this provision is going to
accelerate tax relief to companies that need it to continue operations
and to continue their recovery from the recent economic difficulties.
This provision is now in the bill.
The JOBS bill before us also contains many other items that are
widely supported by the Members. We have enhanced the amount of
transition relief for U.S. manufacturing companies that will be harmed
by the FSC/ETI repeal. We have enhanced depreciation provisions,
brownfield revitalization, mortgage revenue bonds. We allow deductions
from private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a home.
The bill includes tax benefits for reservist employees that provides
a tax credit to employers for wages paid to reservists who have been
called up to active duty. We have extended and enhanced the Liberty
Zone Bonds for the rebuilding of New York City, particularly requested
by its two Senators. We have increased industrial development bond
levels to spur economic development. We have included the Civil Rights
Tax Fairness Act. We have provided for rail infrastructure and
broadband.
All of these benefits are being held hostage because some Members are
pushing politically motivated votes on an issue that is not even in
this bill. Let's get on with the business at hand and finish it. Let's
put good economic policy first in the Senate.
We do have the issue of cloture which comes up periodically when we
have to get to the completion of legislation. I, for one, was hoping
this cloture would not be filed. That is the way Senator Baucus and I
hoped it would happen. I have to deal with the fact it is filed. My
colleague Senator Baucus has to deal with that fact as well. This needs
to be dealt with on a little higher plain than from bill to bill.
I propose to the leadership of the Republican and Democratic caucuses
that somehow, if we are going to get between now and adjournment this
fall, without a lot of waste of time on the part of the Senate and the
100 Members equally affected, that we get a list of the so-called
amendments I referred to as politically motivated. I think the other
side sees they have certain issues that ought to get before the
American people, ought to be discussed. Republicans have some of those
issues as well that Democrats would just as soon we not bring up. I
don't know why there can't be some agreement unrelated to a specific
bill before the Senate that certain of these issues are going to be
brought up, and we will find someplace to handle one on this bill, one
on another bill, a third one on another bill, so they don't get dumped
at one time all on one piece of legislation. Then we know ahead of time
what the situation is; there will be a plan for the functioning of the
Senate.
I should not speak for Senator Baucus but I believe I can. He comes
from a philosophy that this place ought to work, that it ought to make
product. We ought to do our job. And I am sure that even though he
might have a different view than I do on this issue of cloture, he
wishes it were not that way. I wish it were not that way. He wishes
there was a plan before us to move every important piece of legislation
in an expeditious way because that is what we are sent here to do. We
all ought to want to make this place work because when it does not
work, it makes all of us look bad. It puts the good of the American
people secondary to politics, whether it is Republican politics or
Democratic.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. The parliamentary inquiry I would like to make is where
are we right now on the bill? Are we on the motion to recommit, at this
point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to recommit is pending.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand also that a cloture motion has been filed on
the motion to recommit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Since there is a motion to recommit that is pending, is
it not in order for an amendment to be made to that motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments have already been made to the
motion to recommit.
Mr. HARKIN. Do I understand that both a first-degree and second-
degree amendment have been made already?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. So, therefore, no amendments, then, are allowed, under
the rules of the Senate, to be made to the motion to recommit?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
[[Page S2962]]
Mr. HARKIN. Further inquiry, Mr. President: Yesterday this Senator
offered an amendment dealing with overtime. Is that amendment still
pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is still pending.
Mr. HARKIN. Is it further correct to say that if cloture is invoked,
this amendment would fall, that it would not be allowed under the rules
of the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion to recommit is adopted, the
Harkin amendment would be vitiated.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand that. But then this Senator would be allowed
to offer my overtime amendment on the new bill that will be before us
at that point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Further inquiry, Mr. President: If, however, cloture is
invoked on the motion to recommit, is it not true that this Senator's
amendment then would fall and not be allowed, under the rules of
cloture, or am I wrong? Maybe my amendment would be allowed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on whether, if cloture is
invoked----
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If cloture is invoked, then the amendment
would be nongermane.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand that. I want to make it very clear for those
who may be watching in their offices and not present on the floor. If
cloture tomorrow, when it ripens, is invoked, we will not be allowed to
vote on an overtime amendment; is that correct? Because it will be
deemed to be nongermane under the rules of cloture, is that correct?
I repeat my question. I want to make it clear to those who are
watching in their offices and may not be on the floor right now. Under
the rules of germaneness, under the rules of the Senate, because of the
parliamentary tactics just taken by the majority, having a motion to
recommit and then sort of filling the tree, as we call it around here
in parliamentary parlance, having the first-degree amendment and the
second-degree amendment and then filing cloture--that was filed, I
guess, yesterday--that through all of this parliamentary maneuvering,
if in fact the Senate votes for cloture, on Wednesday, on tomorrow,
then Senators will be denied a right to vote on my overtime amendment;
is that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The difficulty in answering the question is
based on the motion that is pending, which is the motion to recommit as
opposed to the cloture vote, and the cloture vote depends upon whether
the motion to recommit passes or not.
Mr. HARKIN. I will ask one more time because I want to get this
straight. There is pending a cloture motion. That cloture motion will
be voted on tomorrow; is that not correct? It will ripen tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It will ripen.
Mr. HARKIN. If in fact there is a vote tomorrow on cloture and
cloture is invoked--that is, a majority of the Senate votes yes on
cloture--then this Senator's amendment on overtime will not be allowed
under the rules of the Senate pertaining to germaneness; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will not be allowed on the motion to
recommit.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will my amendment be allowed on the bill that is then
before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be pending before the Senate
with a new substitute that is amendable.
Mr. HARKIN. Then under the rules of Senate, if cloture is invoked,
this Senator's amendment would not be allowed, I understand, because it
will be nongermane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The new substitute will be fully open to
amendment. The Senator can then offer his amendment to the substitute.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the chairman of
the committee, for his remarks. I am quite hopeful, frankly, that we
can reach an agreement fairly quickly so that we can move on this bill.
At the present moment, we are at an impasse with the cloture motion
filed, and the amendment tree is filled up.
I expect it is the wish of the majority to eventually avoid a vote on
the amendment offered by Senator Harkin. I believe Senator Harkin
deserves a vote. I believe the vast majority of Senators on both sides
of the aisle would like to move quickly on this legislation--reach
agreement on a number of amendments that would be in order so we can
move quickly.
Based on my conversations with Senators and with the leadership, I
have every expectation that we can reach that agreement quite soon--
hopefully, this afternoon. This is the Senate. Every Senator deserves
an opportunity to offer his or her amendments. We also have to reach
agreements. We have to pass legislation. It requires compromise. I do
believe we will reach that agreement which, necessarily, will be the
result of compromise, fairly quickly.
I urge Senators to push their interests, as they should, but push
them in a way where we can get an agreement to pass this legislation. I
hope we will do that this afternoon.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that under a previous order
the Senate is going to recess at 12:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are in a situation where it looks as
though the majority on the other side simply does not want to vote on
my overtime amendment. They are going to do everything they can to try
to prevent it.
Again, there is talk about delay and who is delaying this bill. Look,
I offered my amendment the other day and we could have had a vote by
now. I was willing to enter into a time agreement. They would not do
it. I offered the amendment under a unanimous consent agreement reached
with the other side to bring it up. Now, the parliamentary games being
played are not on this side; they are on the other side. One really has
to ask, Does the other side really want to get this bill through?
Again, I have no doubt that the chairman, my friend and colleague
from Iowa, wants to get it through. He is chairman. Having been in that
position before on another committee, I know you want to get your bill
through. I have no doubt that the Senator from Iowa would like to get
the bill through. It looks as though the leadership on that side--
either the leadership or the administration; I don't know who is
calling the shots--is simply saying they don't want to have a vote on
overtime.
It is really unfortunate that they have now filed cloture on this
bill. My friend and colleague from Iowa, and others on the other side,
have referred to this as a jobs bill. They keep talking about it is a
jobs bill. Well, all I can say in response to that is I believe the
ranking member of our committee, Senator Baucus from Montana, would
like to get the bill through, we would like to get completion of this
bill and get it through, but that does not mean we should not be
allowed to offer some reasonable number of amendments to try to improve
it as we see fit. They may win, they may lose, but at least we ought to
be allowed the right to offer and debate some amendments within
reasonable timeframes.
One of the most important job-related amendments is the amendment on
overtime. How could we possibly tell the American people with a
straight face that we are passing a ``jobs bill'' on the Senate floor
but we are not addressing the issue of overtime pay and the
administration's proposed regulations that would have the effect of
taking overtime pay protection away from millions of American workers?
This is an issue that goes right to the heart, the gut, of our
American workforce: The right to be paid time and a half when one works
over 40 hours a week. It has been in the law since 1938. Yet, as I said
yesterday and I will continue to point out, last year the
administration came out with a proposed set
[[Page S2963]]
of regulations to change the underlying overtime law. They did it
without having one public hearing. Imagine that, changing something so
fundamental to the American work ethic as the right to overtime pay
without having a public hearing.
They put out the proposed regulations and the American public
responded with thousands--I have heard maybe 60,000 to 70,000 comments.
Then last summer, after a number of us had gotten wind of what they
were trying to do and we started reading the proposed regulations, we
offered an amendment on the Senate floor that would have basically
denied that part of the overtime regulation that would take away this
overtime right.
That amendment I offered last summer passed the Senate. It was
bipartisan. I have heard a lot of references to the fact that this bill
is a bipartisan bill. Well, the amendment I am offering is a bipartisan
amendment because it was voted on last summer by both Republicans and
Democrats and passed in the Senate, 54 to 46. Around here, that is
pretty bipartisan.
Basically, what that amendment said is, no, we are not going to agree
with the administration's proposed changes on overtime rules. If the
administration wants to make fundamental changes in overtime rules,
they ought to do it in the time-honored manner: work with Congress,
have public hearings around the country, and then let Congress and the
administration get together to revise, if revision is needed, overtime
laws. But that is not the way the administration did it.
Again, if I hear correctly people on the other side say we are
slowing down or stopping this bill, I am sorry; it does not ring true.
This bill could have been brought up last fall, and it was not. We just
spent a whole week in the Senate debating a gun bill that failed with
over 90 votes against it. What was that all about? Why did we spend
over a week doing that when we could have been doing this bill, if this
bill is so important?
One has to raise some questions about what is going on because when
one reads some of the publications around here--this was in
Congressional Quarterly Today about this bill. According to the
Congressional Quarterly, the chairman of the House committee,
Congressman Thomas:
. . . told the Tax Executive Institute, a group of
corporate tax officials, on Monday that lobbyists seeking
specific changes in international tax rules had effectively
stymied his bill, according to the Associated Press.
So it is not us who are stymying this bill. Again, there are some
corporate lobbyists downtown who are. Again, from CQ Today:
Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, R-
California, told a group of business tax officials on Monday
that the current House version of the bill (H.R. 2896) was
probably doomed.
So it is not us who are slowing this bill down, not at all. This
Senator would like to see this bill get through. I think there are some
good things in this bill. That does not mean we should not be allowed
to offer our amendments and have an up-or-down vote on those
amendments.
A jobs bill? Well, fine, call it a jobs bill, but do not tell me this
is a jobs bill and then say we cannot have a vote on our overtime
amendment. That is about jobs. We know it is about jobs because we
know, common sense dictates, if an employer can work a person longer
than 40 hours a week and not have to pay overtime, why, it would be
much better to work the person longer, pay them less, and then not hire
any new workers.
At a time when we have 9 million Americans out of work, we have a
jobless recovery in this country, why would we now be wanting to give
employers another incentive not to hire new workers?
We had an agreement to consider my amendment. It was the fourth
amendment in the series we agreed to prior to last week's recess, but
no sooner was I able to offer my amendment last evening than the
majority leadership decided to move to recommit the whole bill and to
file cloture on that motion.
I am not sure how that meets our previous agreement to take up my
amendment, but that is where we are now. A motion to recommit the bill
is pending. I would like to talk about overtime. I would like to have
an amendment about overtime and have a vote on it. As my parliamentary
inquiries earlier this morning showed, we can go through this whole
charade, motion to recommit, file a cloture, we can vote on that, and
we can still come back with this amendment.
I suppose then they will file cloture on the bill. That is why it was
wrong on the majority side to file cloture on this motion to recommit
and why I hope we will oppose that cloture motion and deny cloture
until we can get a right to offer our amendments and have a vote on our
amendments.
We are not asking for unlimited debate. I would agree with the
manager of the bill right now to a time limit on my amendment with an
up-or-down vote. So it is not about us stalling this bill. Forget about
that. Get that out of your head. That is not what is happening. What is
happening is the majority side simply does not want to vote on
overtime. Why? Because I think they are afraid, and the vote will be
even stronger this time than it was last summer because more and more
American workers, more and more people have found out what this
administration downtown is trying to do to their overtime pay.
I will be on the floor waiting for every opportunity to offer this
amendment and to get a vote on it. If the other side believes that
somehow by going through this charade and slowing this bill down and
somehow blaming us for it when we are not doing this is somehow going
to get rid of this overtime amendment, well, I am sorry to disappoint
them. We are going to continue to debate and have a vote on this
overtime amendment. It is that crucial, that important, to the American
worker that this Senate express itself once again and say no to the
administration, that we are not going to let them trample on the rights
of American workers and take away their right to overtime pay if they
work over 40 hours a week.
I see my time has expired. I yield the floor.
____________________