[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3321-S3323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  JOBS

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about jobs in the United 
States and something that is happening to our country. We have very 
complex international tax laws. To go into them, people's eyes would 
glaze over in complete boredom. Suffice it to say, because of the 
complexities, we have tried over the years to get U.S. companies on a 
more level playing field.
  In the past year, the international bodies that have jurisdiction 
have ruled against the United States versus the European Union 
regarding the way we treat U.S. companies doing business outside of the 
United States. Therefore, because we have not fixed our laws, they have 
decided to put a 5-percent tariff on many of our manufactured goods. 
Starting this month and for every month thereafter, that 5-percent 
tariff will be raised by 1 percent. As a matter of fact, by this time 
next year it will be up to 17 percent, which puts American 
manufacturers at a tremendous global disadvantage when compared to the 
European Union.
  If Members care about manufacturing jobs in this country, it is 
important this body bring back the JOBS bill that we had before us in 
the Senate last week that was filibustered and get it passed.
  The other side keeps talking about, manufacturing jobs and exporting 
jobs and outsourcing. If people really care about manufacturing jobs in 
this country, we will bring the JOBS bill back up to the floor and get 
it voted on and get it worked out between the House and the Senate and 
get it down to the President so he can sign it into law so we can start 
giving more help and more relief to manufacturing jobs in this country.
  Let me read a quote from the Washington Post of last week, quoting a 
Democrat tax aide saying:

       There's not a lot of incentive for us to figure out this 
     [FSC-ETI] problem.

  That is the problem I just talked about with the international tax 
laws with our country and the tariffs.
  The Democrat aide went on to say that ``allowing the ETI problem to 
fester would yield increased sanctions that could benefit the Democrats 
in November.''
  Well, if this is true, this is an appalling statement. This debate 
should be about policy, not petty politics.
  So let's look at what is inside of this JOBS bill.
  Not only would it end the $4 billion a year of tariffs against U.S. 
exports--and, by the way, those exports include grain, timber, paper, 
and manufactured goods. I realize, for some, this may be too 
politically tempting to let pass by--but this bill, by ending those 
tariffs, would put us on a more level playing field with European Union 
companies.
  The CBO says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in the United 
States since the year 2000. We have been losing gradually, since the 
late 1970s, manufacturing jobs in the United States. That is part of 
the entire global economy, but it is important that we at least allow 
U.S. jobs to be on a level playing field.
  The JOBS bill to which I referred, that was being filibustered, 
provides $75 billion of tax relief to our manufacturing sector to 
promote rehiring in U.S.-based manufacturing firms.
  This JOBS bill gives a 3-percentage-point tax rate cut on all income 
derived from manufacturing in the United States--it is not for 
manufacturing offshore--and we start those cuts in this year. This 
manufacturing rate cut applies to sole proprietors, partnerships, 
farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, 
and even foreign companies that decide to set up operations within the 
United States and provide jobs in the United States.
  The bill also extends the R&D tax credit through the end of the year 
2005. Now, the R&D tax credit is absolutely a jobs producer in the 
United States. It is for doing research and development, which betters 
our companies, which betters our economies, and creates high-paying 
jobs in the United States.
  The bill also extends, for 2 years, the tax provisions that expired 
in 2003 and in 2004, such as the work opportunity tax credit and the 
welfare-to-work tax credits--obviously, important pieces of 
legislation.
  The bill also provides incentives for newly constructed rural 
investment buildings, for starting or expanding a rural business in 
rural high-outmigration counties.
  The JOBS bill includes brownfields revitalization. Those are inner-
city areas. Because of environmental concerns, frankly, many inner 
cities have dying areas because companies cannot go in. Because of the 
environmental liability of what somebody dumped there before, they 
cannot go in and create jobs in the inner cities. That is why it is 
important we get this part of the bill done.

  I also want to now talk about what I think is probably the most 
important part of the tax bill, and it is called the Invest in the USA 
Act, a bill that I have sponsored with Senator Barbara Boxer of 
California.
  This bill would allow U.S. companies that have invested abroad--they 
have a little over $600 billion invested that they have made money on 
and they have sitting in their bank accounts overseas. If they bring 
that money back to the United States, they will pay up to a 35-percent 
tax on it. There is not a lot of incentive for them to bring the money 
back. Other countries do not treat their companies that way, so they 
are able to actually bring the money back to their countries to create 
jobs in their countries.
  This past weekend, Senator Kerry talked about that issue. He now 
supports the idea of giving a tax break for the money coming back into 
this country. Last year, we had a vote on our bill, and all 50 
Republican Senators and 25 Democratic Senators agreed it was time to 
bring this money home at a very low tax rate--a 5.25-percent tax rate.
  Senator Kerry has now embraced the idea of bringing it home, but he 
wants it taxed at 10 percent. The problem with taxing it at 10 percent 
is, because of the low cost of borrowing money today, it would actually 
be cheaper for the companies to borrow money in the United States than 
to pay the 10-percent tax and bring these funds home. So Senator Kerry 
recognizes it is a good thing to bring the money home. Unfortunately, 
the fix that he has will not bring the money home.
  The bill that Senator Boxer and I have proposed, that received 75 
votes on the Senate floor, and now is part of the big JOBS tax bill, 
does bring the money home. Estimates are that it will bring at least 
$400 billion to the United States. That is a lot of money. As a matter 
of fact, that is more money than was raised in all of the initial 
public stock offerings from 1996 to 2002. That is a huge stimulus to 
our economy. That will produce a lot of good-paying U.S. jobs that we 
so desperately need right now.
  The economy is growing. GDP is up. There are increases in 
productivity. We are obviously doing well with home sales. Where we are 
not doing as well as we would like is in the area of new job creation. 
There are a lot of new self-employed jobs that are being created, but 
on the payroll survey many of those jobs are not being reported.
  This bill--for those who want to increase and extend the temporary 
unemployment insurance benefits, for those who want to do all kinds of 
Government programs--will make those types of provisions unnecessary.
  So if the Democrats in the Senate want to do something about jobs for 
this country, they will quit trying to put all kinds of extraneous 
provisions onto the bill, and we will get a jobs bill done this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ENSIGN. My time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague. 
I thank my colleague from Nevada, particularly, for talking about the 
importance of the FSC/ETI bill because today jobs are a critical need 
in our country.
  Yes, we see signs that the economy is recovering, but we are not 
seeing the growth in jobs. Now the unemployment rate is down to 5.6 
percent. Obviously, we all would like to see it lower. There are a 
number of steps that we can take, and I think passing a good highway 
bill is one such step.

[[Page S3322]]

  There are a number of steps that would be very harmful if we took 
them. I think, as we talk about jobs and the very volatile subject of 
insourcing and outsourcing, we need to understand what this is all 
about.
  I was interested this weekend when I read an old story that 
apparently had been in the papers in Missouri for some time, but it was 
rerun in my hometown paper. When Missourians call a toll-free number 
about their food stamps or welfare benefits, the response comes from 
India. The State of Missouri has contracted with a call center 
operator. It is about a $6 million annual contract, which I guess was 
the best contract at the time that Missouri could get. They signed the 
contract, and now those jobs have been outsourced to India.
  This is something we hear a lot about. People are complaining about 
outsourcing. A very interesting figure was in the Wall Street Journal 
maybe 10 days or so ago which talked about both sides: jobs going 
overseas and jobs coming back. And they came up with the startling 
figure that--I think it was for 2003--there was $74 billion worth of 
outsourcing.
  The United States spent $74 billion outsourcing to other countries, 
but at the same time insourcing came to $131 billion, so that is a $54 
billion net increase in investment in jobs in this country.
  We have done a little work and found out there are about 105,000 
Missourians who have jobs with foreign companies in the State. I met 
with the officials from the fine Webster University in St. Louis. They 
have done some outsourcing. They have three campuses in China that 
provide long-distance learning to people throughout Southeast Asia. I 
can't tell you how many people, as I have made trips overseas to 
promote export of Missouri products and services, have told me they are 
getting their degree from Webster University.
  The question of outsourcing and insourcing has two sides. It is 
absolutely important to not do any harm to jobs that are coming into 
this country. But most importantly, we must make sure we don't do 
anything in Government that forces jobs out of this country. The FSC/
ETI bill is vitally needed. We need to pass it. We need to get 
conferees appointed on the Workforce Investment Act. We need to train 
people so they will have the jobs.
  I also focused this week on a battle we had on the energy bill. Carl 
Levin and I were successful in getting bipartisan support for the Bond-
Levin amendment which imposed reasonable standards for increasing fuel 
economy in autos, vans, and light trucks. We were fighting against 
something that, as you look at it, would possibly have led to a 
significant decline in U.S. jobs. The Kerry-McCain amendment would have 
significantly increased CAFE standards, and this could have penalized 
full-line manufacturers. Those manufacturers--Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, 
General Motors--have plants in Claycomo, Hazelwood, Fenton, Wentzville, 
MO, where working families have good jobs in the auto industry that 
were put at risk.
  I was very interested to go back to my files and find some letters 
from the UAW. In one, dated February 26, 2002, President Steve Yokich 
wrote urging support for the Bond-Levin proposal, saying the Hollings-
Kerry proposal discriminates against the big three auto companies. On 
the second page, it says:

       The UAW continues to support improvements in CAFE that are 
     economically and technologically feasible, and are structured 
     in a manner that is fair and even-handed towards all 
     companies. But we strongly oppose changes such as the 
     Hollings-Kerry proposal that call for increases that are 
     excessive and are structured in a manner that would 
     discriminate against the Big Three automakers or facilitate 
     the outsourcing of small car production to other countries. 
     Such proposals would result in serious job losses for 
     thousands of UAW members and other automotive workers.

  We have to be careful as we look at regulatory efforts that might 
drive jobs out of the country.
  Alan Reuther wrote on March 13, 2002, saying the Kerry-McCain 
amendment would mandate an excessive discriminatory increase in fuel 
standards that would directly threaten thousands of jobs for UAW 
members and other automotive workers in the country and would enable 
the big three auto companies to outsource their small car production to 
other countries, resulting in the loss of additional jobs.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                          UAW,

                                Washington, DC, February 26, 2002.
       Dear Senators: This week the Senate is expected to take up 
     energy legislation covering a wide range of issues. The UAW 
     strongly opposes the proposed changes in the Corporate 
     Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program which have been put forth 
     by Senators Hollings and Kerry. We urge you to oppose this 
     proposal, and to support the substitute CAFE proposal that 
     will be offered by Senators Levin and Bond.
        The Hollings-Kerry CAFE proposal would raise fuel economy 
     standards for both cars and light trucks to 35 miles per 
     gallon by model year 2013. The UAW opposes Hollings-Kerry 
     CAFE proposal for three reasons:
        (1) The Hollings-Kerry proposal increases CAFE standards 
     much too high and too quickly. The magnitude of the proposed 
     increase exceeds even the most optimistic scenarios projected 
     by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the proposed 
     timeframe for vehicles to meet that increase is substantially 
     less than the NAS projection. Under the Hollings-Kerry 
     proposal, light truck fuel economy would have to jump almost 
     70 percent to meet a 35 mph standard--one-and-a-half times 
     higher than even the most ``optimistic'' NAS projections. 
     Significantly, the cautious NAS projections only indicate an 
     average fuel economy increase of about 25 percent for light 
     trucks and 10 percent for cars by model years 2014 to 2019, 
     far below and later than what would be required under the 
     excessive Hollings-Kerry proposal. In addition, the increase 
     proposed by Hollings-Kerry would be made even more extreme by 
     their other proposals that would tighten testing requirements 
     and change the definition of light trucks to include vehicles 
     up to 10,000 lbs.
        (2) The Hollings-Kerry proposal discriminates against the 
     Big Three auto companies. The Hollings-Kerry proposal applies 
     a flat miles per gallon increase to current CAFE standards 
     and also requires the standard for light trucks to be 
     harmonized upward to the substantially higher level 
     established for passenger cars. This approach would impose a 
     much heavier burden on the Big Three auto companies compared 
     to other automakers because the Big Three's product mix is 
     much more oriented towards larger cars and light trucks. 
     Under the Hollings-Kerry proposal, the Big Three would have 
     to increase their fuel economy by 40-50 percent compared to 
     less than a 15 percent increase for Honda. The net result is 
     the Big Three could be forced to curtail production of larger 
     vehicles, resulting in serious job loss for UAW members and 
     other workers.
       (3) The Hollings-Kerry proposal would undermine continued 
     full-line domestic vehicle production by making it easier to 
     outsource small car production to other countries. The 
     Hollings-Kerry proposal gives the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration (NHTSA) discretion to eliminate the 
     distinction in the current CAFE program between domestic and 
     foreign car fleets. If this distinction were eliminated, the 
     Big Three auto companies would be able to outsource their 
     small car production to other countries. This is because they 
     would no longer be required to average the fuel economy of 
     more efficient, domestically built small cars with less 
     efficient larger cars produced here. In addition, by 
     establishing a CAFE credit-trading program, the Hollings-
     Kerry proposal would also give the Big Three automakers the 
     ``flexibility'' to outsource their small car production to 
     other countries. Taken together, these provisions could 
     result in the loss of thousands of additional automotive jobs 
     in this country.
       The UAW continues to support improvements in CAFE that are 
     economically and technologically feasible, and are structured 
     in a manner that is fair and even-handed towards all 
     companies. But we strongly oppose changes such as the 
     Hollings-Kerry proposal that call for increases that are 
     excessive and are structured in a manner that would 
     discriminate against the Big Three automakers or facilitate 
     the outsourcing of small car production to other countries. 
     Such proposals would result in serious job loss for thousands 
     of UAW members and other automotive workers.
       We understand that Senators Levin and Bond will offer a 
     substitute CAFE proposal that would require the Department of 
     Transportation to complete a rulemaking within 15 months to 
     increase fuel economy standards for both cars and light 
     trucks. This substitute directs DOT to consider a wide range 
     of factors, including technological and economic feasibility, 
     the costs and lead time required for the introduction of new 
     technologies, the disparate impacts on manufacturers due to 
     differences in product mix, and safety considerations. In 
     addition, this substitute would require DOT to continue the 
     existing distinction between foreign and domestic fleets. The 
     UAW believes the Levin-Bond proposal represents a more 
     balanced approach that would lead to significant improvements 
     in fuel economy without jeopardizing thousands of good paying 
     automotive jobs in this country. Accordingly, we strongly 
     urge you to vote for the Levin-Bond substitute and against 
     the Hollings-Kerry proposal.

[[Page S3323]]

       The auto industry is already experiencing significant 
     economic difficulties, and the Big Three automakers have 
     announced widespread layoffs. In light of this background, 
     the UAW submits that this is not the time to impose onerous, 
     discriminatory fuel economy standards on the auto companies 
     that will only lead to further jobs loss, with potentially 
     adverse impacts on the overall economy.
       Thank you for considering our views on this priority issue 
     that directly affects the jobs of thousands of UAW members 
     and other workers.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                                              UAW,


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   March 13, 2002.
       Dear Senator Bond: Today the Senate is scheduled to vote on 
     amendments dealing with the CAFE issue. The UAW strongly 
     urges you to vote for the Levin-Bond substitute and against 
     the Kerry-McCain amendment.
       The Levin-Bond substitute would require the Dept. of 
     Transportation to issue new fuel economy standards on an 
     expedited basis, after taking into consideration a wide range 
     of factors, including employment, safety, technology, 
     economic practicability and the relative competitive impacts 
     on companies. The UAW supports this substitute because we 
     believe it will lead to a significant improvement in fuel 
     economy, without jeopardizing the jobs of American workers.
       In contrast, the Kerry-McCain amendment would mandate an 
     excessive, discrimatory increase in fuel economy standard 
     that would directly threaten thousands of jobs for UAW 
     members and other automotive workers in this country. The 36 
     mpg fuel economy standard that would be required by Kerry-
     McCain for both cars and trucks goes far beyond even the most 
     optimistic projections by the National Academy of Sciences. 
     In addition, the structure of the proposed fuel economy 
     increases--a flat mpg requirement for both cars and trucks--
     would impose a much heavier burden on the Big Three 
     automakers and jeopardize production and jobs associated with 
     their large car and truck plants. Furthermore, by eliminating 
     the distinction between foreign and domestic car fleets, the 
     proposal would enable the Big Three auto companies to 
     outsource their small car production to other countries, 
     resulting in the loss of additional jobs.
       The UAW believes it is critically important that any 
     increases in fuel economy standards be economically and 
     technologically feasible, and that they be structured in a 
     manner that does not jeopardize jobs in this country. To 
     accomplish this objective, we believe the Senate must approve 
     the Levin-Bond substitute, and reject the Kerry-McCain 
     amendment.
       Thank you for considering our views on these two priority 
     votes.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
                                             Legislative Director.

  Mr. BOND. The last time I spoke on this, I pointed out there were a 
number of other things we have done that really do endanger jobs. I 
mentioned the small engine proposal where, fortunately, we were able to 
stop the California Air Resources Board from mandating the use of 
catalytic converters on small engines for lawn mowers, leaf blowers, 
and chainsaws that would have forced the closure of plants in the 
United States that make those small engines and in all likelihood 
outsourced 22,000 American jobs to China.
  I also talked about asbestos litigation which has driven much of the 
refractories business out of the United States because of the excessive 
burden of the asbestos claims. We need to move on a good asbestos 
reform bill to pay those who are truly sick and stop the jackpot 
justice for plaintiffs' attorneys who seek to sue anybody who has had 
anything to do with asbestos, whether plaintiffs are sick or not.
  Finally, natural gas is a major source of outsourcing right now. Not 
only does it hit homes that heat with natural gas with high bills; it 
puts heavy costs on farmers who use fertilizer coming from natural gas. 
The artificially inflated demand Congress has mandated and the 
artificially constrained supply Congress has mandated have pushed the 
cost of natural gas so high that many natural gas producing industries 
have had to move their operations to other countries where the demand 
is not artificially inflated and the supply is not curtailed.
  We are outsourcing jobs because of our policy on natural gas. We have 
forced natural gas use in electric generating boilers which is not an 
effective use of that valuable commodity. We need a good energy bill. 
We need to stop the filibusters and get an energy bill done. We need to 
move forward on the asbestos litigation reform bill. We need to move 
forward on the FSC/ETI bill. All of these are being filibustered or 
stopped or delayed, and we need to get about it.
  We need to get the Workforce Investment Act. We need to appoint 
conferees so we can train these people. One of the great needs is for 
more workers with scientific engineering and technological backgrounds 
because those are the jobs of the future. We need to train them. 
Senator Mikulski and I need money in the VA-HUD bill to increase the 
National Science Foundation so they can develop more student interest 
in basic science and get more minorities and women involved. We have a 
lot of challenges to meet the changing needs of the job force in the 
21st century. Rather than bloviating about one part of the problem, we 
need to fix the entire problem.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 20 seconds.

                          ____________________