[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.

                          ____________________