[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 98 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8217-S8221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 2004--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3563

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the DeWine-Kennedy amendment. There is 4 minutes per side 
prior to the vote.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I understand we have 4 minutes on each 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes on each side.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to make sure 
people understand the tobacco buyout portion of the amendment upon 
which we are about to vote. No. 1, to make sure there are no 
misunderstandings or misconceptions, this amendment will end a tobacco 
price support program. That will be over. Second, there were several 
hearings on this proposal, both in the House and a field hearing in 
North Carolina chaired by Senator Dole.
  I also want to make it clear how this amendment would pay for the 
buyout. It would be paid for by a manufacturer's fee, not by the 
taxpayers.
  It was suggested that 85 percent of the recipients of the buyout are 
not farmers. In fact, every single quotaholder owns at least part of a 
farm. They may have leased it out, but they own at least part of a 
farm. So these do go to farmers.
  I hope our colleagues will support the buyout. I think it is a 
reasonable proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the heart of this amendment is the FDA 
provision which will lead to fewer children starting to smoke and fewer 
adults suffering tobacco-induced disease. If parents want their 
children to grow up and grow up smoke-free, if they want to shield them 
from a $9 billion campaign designed to entice children into smoking, if 
they want to help millions of smokers kick the habit before it kills 
them, they will support the DeWine-McConnell-Kennedy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment for two or three reasons. One, the bill we are 
voting on has never been marked up out of the Agriculture Committee. It 
has never been marked up in the HELP Committee. We are going to spend 
billions of dollars. We are rewriting the farm bill. We have a $12 
billion buyout for tobacco farmers.
  I heard my colleague from Kentucky say it ends the tobacco program. 
It does not end the tobacco program. This amendment was offered late 
last night, but under the bill of the Senator from Kentucky it did not 
eliminate the program. The House bill spends $9.6 billion and it does 
eliminate the program. It eliminates this quota. This bill eliminates 
quotas, but it does not eliminate the Secretary from having the 
authority to be able to restrict acreage on who grows tobacco. So we 
are going to spend $12 billion and not even eliminate the program, and 
not have any limitation on how much it is going to cost?

  It is estimated the House bill would have almost 500 people make $1 
million. This bill is much more generous than the House bill. There are 
going to be a few people who are going to become multimillionaires as a 
result of this bill, but yet we were not given the chance to offer any 
amendments. We could not say there should be a limit of $250,000 per 
person who is not a farmer. Incidentally, 85 percent of the people who 
receive money from the buyout are not farmers, are not living on a 
farm. So this is a buyout for a few people.
  The FDA section is the biggest grant of power to the FDA, which not 
only gives them the power to regulate tobacco, but frankly I believe 
they can ban tobacco. It is a blank check to do almost anything they 
want--the most sweeping power they have ever been given. I think the 
House was wrong to add the $9.6 billion tobacco buyout in their tax 
bill, and two wrongs do not make a right. Now we are adding totally 
unrelated things, not considered by committee. It is going to cost 
billions of dollars, and we are going to add it to the Senate bill.
  It is going to come back from conference in all likelihood with some 
provision. I think it jeopardizes the entire FSC bill. I do not think 
it should become law. Certainly, this is not the way it should become 
law. If it should become law, let us take it up freestanding and give 
Senators the right to amend and discuss it before spending billions of 
dollars.
  The cost of this buyout is multiples of the so-called quota buyout we 
did for peanuts. It is going to cost billions of dollars. I urge our 
colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we regulate every product that is consumed 
in this country today. We put the contents of that product on the 
label--every product except tobacco. It makes absolutely no sense. This 
is a very modest bill, a very modest proposal, that gives the FDA the 
authority to regulate tobacco. I point out to my colleague, it does not 
give the FDA the authority to ban tobacco. It does not give the FDA the 
authority to do that at all. It is a modest compromise, but it will 
save lives. It makes sense.
  One of the biggest health problems we have in this country today is 
underage smoking. We know if we can get a child at 19 or 20 and he or 
she does not start smoking by then, they probably will never start 
smoking. This bill allows us to get at advertising targeted at young 
people, which is a major problem today.
  I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am prepared to vote.
  Mr. DeWINE. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Pursuant to rule XII, paragraph 3, I ask unanimous 
consent to be excused from voting on this question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 17 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on page 45 of the bill, it says:

       The Secretary may by regulation require restrictions on the 
     sale and distribution of a tobacco product, including 
     restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and 
     promotion of, the tobacco product, if the Secretary 
     determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the 
     protection of the public health.

  If the Secretary determines something is appropriate for the 
protection of the public health, they can do whatever they want, I 
believe, including banning tobacco. That is very broad discretion for 
the Secretary of Health, to do whatever they want.
  Also, the program does not end the tobacco program. At least it 
didn't in Senator McConnell's bill. We have not had a chance to really 
review it, but it didn't in his bill. It did in the House bill. I 
compliment the House. If you are going to spend $10 billion, you ought 
to

[[Page S8218]]

eliminate the program. We are going to spend $12 billion and not 
eliminate the tobacco program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) votes 
``present.''
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--15

     Allard
     Burns
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Gregg
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Carper
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baucus
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Nelson (FL)
  The amendment (No. 3563) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment, as amended, is 
agreed to.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it has taken us too long to reach 
this point. Frankly, we are doing today what should have been done last 
fall. We are finally moving forward with the Jumpstart Our Business 
Strength--the JOBS bill.
  I commend the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader for reaching 
the agreement that allows this bill to move forward. I commend, as 
well, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who has 
been so instrumental in bringing us to this point.
  There is a reason why we call this bill the JOBS bill. This bill will 
help create and keep good, high-paying manufacturing jobs right here in 
America. And this bill will help remove crippling European tariffs that 
rob American firms of business. Every month that goes by without 
enactment of the JOBS bill results in more tariffs on our American 
companies. We need to enact this bill.
  So, as we go forward to conference, it is critical that we adhere to 
the following 5 principles.
  First, we should preserve our bipartisan support for this bill. The 
Senate-passed JOBS Bill had strong bipartisan support. It passed by a 
vote of 92 to 5 on May 11. To preserve this bipartisan support we need 
to ensure that any significant change from the Senate-passed bill be 
limited, germane, and agreed to on a broadly supported bipartisan 
basis.
  Second, any conference agreement should be budget neutral. The 
government is running record budget deficits. Gone are the surpluses of 
just a few years ago. We should show fiscal discipline and 
responsibility. The conference agreement should be budget neutral. And 
the conference agreement should not employ budget gimmicks.
  Third, we should protect our Nation's manufacturing jobs. Since 
January 2001, America has lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing 
jobs. In my home state of Montana, we have lost 2,700 jobs in that 
time, over 12 percent of our manufacturing jobs. Therefore, savings 
from repeal of the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income, 
FSC/ETI, regime should go to domestic manufacturing. The conference 
agreement should devote the preponderance of its total cost to the 
centerpiece of this bill: a domestic manufacturing tax benefit.
  Fourth, the conference agreement should incorporate the important tax 
shelter reforms that the Senate has repeatedly passed. It has been 
nearly 3 years since Enron and other corporate scandals. Yet Congress 
still has not enacted any meaningful tax legislation to close the 
corporate abuses of the tax code. The Congress should retain the 
package of the Senate-passed tax shelter provisions, including the 
provisions ensuring that business transactions are undertaken for 
economic, and not tax avoidance purposes, and requiring CEO signatures.
  Finally, an important part of the Senate bill is its coverage of all 
types of businesses. The conference agreement should provide a domestic 
manufacturing tax benefit to all domestic manufacturers, regardless of 
choice of business entity. It should cover not just C corporations, but 
also S corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships.
  Mr. President, I will fight to ensure the conference agreement 
adheres to these principles. I will fight for the Senate's position 
across the board, including on overtime rules and on energy tax 
provisions.
  Here is the bottom line: The Senate passed the JOBS bill with a wide, 
bipartisan majority. The conferees have to work together, across 
political differences, to move this important bill forward. We need to 
continue our fight for good jobs, here in America.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been very outspoken in my 
opposition to this bill, and was one of only five Senators to vote 
against its passage in May. I voted against it because it was loaded 
with wasteful spending and tax breaks for special interests and the 
super rich. With the Nation facing a half-trillion dollar deficit, now 
is not the time for Congress to be enacting wasteful tax credits.
  The proponents of this bill are fond of pointing out that it is 
``revenue neutral'' and that all of the tax cuts in the bill are paid 
for with offsets. I firmly believe that, due to our current fiscal 
crisis, any proposed offsets would better be used to reduce the 
deficit. It is incomprehensible to me, at this time of record deficits 
and debt, coupled with our war against terrorism and the need to secure 
our homeland, that we would consider risking the future of our 
manufacturing base and our standing in the international community by 
wasting time and jeopardizing corrective action while carving out sweet 
deals for special interests.
  We missed a golden opportunity with this issue. We could have passed 
a good, clean bill months ago that would have brought us back into 
compliance with World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements and stop the 
burdensome tariffs now imposed on our manufactures. Unfortunately, the 
goal of achieving the legislation's underlying worthy purpose has been 
lost to a host of special interest add-ons.

       In a June 19th editorial, The Washington Times, not known 
     for liberal propaganda, stated: The ideal solution would have 
     been a quick, simple repeal of FSC/ETI, which is bad economic 
     policy in any case. Unfortunately, both the House and the 
     Senate versions of the bill became magnets for the special 
     interests. A steady train of lobbyists tacked on $167 billion 
     in tax breaks over the next 10 years to the Senate bill, 
     while the House bill expanded by $143 billion in similar 
     additions. The Senate bill, for example, includes breaks for 
     NASCAR racetracks and foreign dog-race gamblers, while the 
     House version lavishes its attention upon tobacco

[[Page S8219]]

     growers, timber owners and alcohol distillers. The imminent 
     House-Senate conference, predictably, promises to be a de 
     facto food fight between congressman, lobbyists and tax 
     watchdogs. And so while the lobbyists duke it out, EU 
     sanctions will continue to rise and American manufacturers 
     and the U.S. economy will deal with the consequences.

  Let me quote from some other newspapers who have editorialized about 
this terrible bill.

       From The New York Times: What started out as Congress's 
     urgent obligation to resolve a trade battle with the European 
     Union has degenerated into an embarrassment as lawmakers and 
     business lobbyists vie in a costly frenzy of corporate 
     handouts.
       From The Dallas Morning News: The United States' 
     credibility also is at stake. As a WTO member, the United 
     States has an obligation to follow the trade body's rulings 
     or risk undermining the WTO's authority over global trade. . 
     . . The simple solution would be to end the tax break. But 
     election-year politics threaten common sense.
       From The St. Petersburg Times: Tax cut fever has gripped 
     lawmakers, and they're beginning to act delusional. . . . The 
     bill is so irresponsible it deserves to fail.
       From The Los Angeles Times: Further driving up the federal 
     budget deficit with tax breaks will probably worsen U.S. 
     sales abroad. The more money the Treasury has to borrow to 
     cover the deficit, the more pressure there is on the Federal 
     Reserve to raise interest rates to attract those funds, 
     eventually driving inflation.

  An article in the April 19th edition of The Washington Post exposed 
the Senate-passed bill for what it is and how it became such a 
monstrosity. The article stated the following:

       Congress's task seemed simple enough: Repeal an illegal $5 
     billion-a-year export subsidy and replace it with some modest 
     tax breaks to ease the pain on U.S. exporters. But out of 
     that imperative has emerged one of the most complex, special-
     interest-riddled corporate tax bills in years . . . The 930-
     page epic is packed with $170 billion in tax cuts aimed at 
     cruise-ship operators, foreign dog-race gamblers, NASCAR 
     track owners, bow and arrow makers and Oldsmobile dealers, to 
     name a few.

  The article also quoted a tax lobbyist involved in drafting the bill 
as saying that it ``has risen to a new level of sleaze. I said a few 
months ago, any lobbyist worth his salt has something in this bill.''
  This is not the way we should be doing the people's business. 
Incredible deals for the special interests, big tax breaks for oil and 
gas companies, and other big corporations have already stalled WTO 
compliance for too long. The manufacturing base of our country will 
suffer, the economy will suffer, and jobs will suffer. Is that what we 
want? Is that what the American people want? The answer is no. They 
deserve better than this, Mr. President. We work for them--not for the 
big money special interests and their fat cat lobbyists.
  As I have said before, we need to start making some tough decisions 
around here Mr. President. With little legislative time remaining this 
election year, the Senate would serve the American public far better if 
it stayed focused on accomplishing the intended purpose of legislating. 
Unfortunately, this FSC/ETI bill, which is a much needed bill, is being 
dragged down with the unnecessary weight of billions of dollars in 
wasteful subsidies, tax breaks, and special exemptions for the special 
interests.
  We have got to restore some sanity to the way we do things here in 
Washington. The facts are clear, we simply cannot continue to spend and 
spend and spend while continuing to cut taxes and fund the war against 
terrorism. It's high time we face up to the challenge and do what's 
right. Passing this bill, and the others like it of which this body has 
become so fond, is tantamount to placing a millstone of debt around the 
necks of our children, grandchildren, and who knows how many future 
generations of Americans. It has to stop, and I hope this body can find 
the courage to stop it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have a few words to say about the 
importance of protecting overtime pay for hard-working Americans. This 
bill that we're about to vote on is nicknamed the JOBS bill. But the 
most important thing we did for American workers in this bill was to 
pass Senator Harkin's amendment to protect overtime pay. I was proud to 
stand with Senator Harkin and stand up for American workers. I urge the 
conferees on this bill to make sure the Harkin amendment stays in the 
final version.
  Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay to pay their bills and 
make ends meet. Yet the Bush administration wants to strip overtime 
protections for hard-working men and women. I thought in this country, 
the best social program was a job. Yet 6 million workers would lose 
overtime protection under the Bush proposal. Who are these workers? 
They are registered nurses, police sergeants, nursery school teachers, 
and others. These men and women work hard to serve our communities. 
They protect us and they help us when we are in need. They deserve 
extra pay for their extra efforts.
  What does the Bush proposal mean for workers? It means workers will 
have to work long hours for less money because they will no longer be 
eligible for overtime pay. They might have to find a second job because 
they won't be able to count on overtime pay to make ends meet. They 
will spend less time with their families, but they won't get 
compensated. I think that's outrageous.
  Let me give an example. America is facing a crisis in nursing. In 
Maryland hospitals, 12.6 percent of nursing jobs are vacant. They 
desperately need over 2,000 nurses. Nationwide, we will need about 2.8 
million registered nurses by the year 2020, but only about 2 million 
will be available. Nurses work an average of 8.5 weeks of overtime each 
year. Eighty-seven percent of Maryland nurses work overtime just to 
make up for the shortage. If the Bush proposal becomes law, it will be 
easier for employers to deny overtime pay to registered nurses. RNs 
will have to work the same long hours for no extra pay, or hospitals 
will have to get by without enough nurses to take care of patients. 
Lack of overtime pay will discourage young nurses from entering the 
profession and experienced nurses from staying. I worked hard to pass 
legislation to help eliminate the nursing shortage. Changing the 
overtime rules would be a huge step backwards.
  The Bush plan would also deny overtime pay for police sergeants. The 
Bush Labor Department got a lot of criticism when the American public 
realized that first responders would lose overtime pay. So they revised 
their proposal; and now they claim that first responders won't lose 
overtime protections. Yet the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the International Union of Police Associations, and the 
International Brotherhood of Police Organizations say that police 
sergeants and other managers could still lose their overtime pay.
  What a thing to say to police officers and their families. These men 
and women put their lives on the line to keep us safe no matter what 
time it is or how many hours they've worked already. Every time a 
police officer leaves their home, they don't know when they'll be home. 
They don't even know if they'll be home. And now the Bush 
administration is asking them to donate their overtime. That's no way 
to show our appreciation. We need to protect the protectors so that 
they can protect us. That means protecting their overtime pay.
  Nurses and police sergeants are just a few examples. The Bush 
proposal would deny overtime pay for workers in many industries, from 
nursery school teachers to insurance claims adjusters. It would take 
money out of the pockets of hard working Americans and their families. 
I think the Bush administration ought to be ashamed of itself.
  Families in my State of Maryland are worried. They're worried about 
their jobs. They're terrified of losing their healthcare, when costs 
keep ballooning. They don't know how they can afford to send their kids 
to college. Tuition at University of Maryland increased by 30 percent 
over the last 2 years. Our middle class families are stressed and 
stretched. Many are holding down more than one job or working overtime 
to make ends meet. They're racing from carpools to work and back again. 
They want to know what we in the United States Senate are doing to help 
them. We need to protect their jobs and protect their overtime pay.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Jumpstart Our 
Business Strength, JOBS, Act.
  I supported this bill when first passed out of the Senate on May 11 
of this year and I will support it again today. In fact, the DeWine-
Kennedy amendment on FDA oversight of tobacco improved the bill.

[[Page S8220]]

  Without this legislation, U.S. companies will face increasing tariffs 
as a result of a World Trade Organization ruling that determined that 
significant portions of our Federal Tax Code ran counter to 
international trade laws.
  The DeWine-Kennedy amendment that we adopted will strengthen the bill 
by restricting advertising and promotions that appeal to children; 
stopping illegal sales of tobacco products to children; requiring 
changes in tobacco products, such as the reduction or elimination of 
harmful chemicals, to make them less harmful or less addictive; 
prohibiting unsubstantiated health claims about so-called ``reduced 
risk'' tobacco products that would have the effect of discouraging 
current tobacco users from quitting or encouraging new users to start; 
and requiring the disclosure of the contents of tobacco products and 
tobacco industry research about the health effects of their products.
  This amendment is absolutely essential to me should a tobacco buyout 
be included in the conference report.
  But this legislation is still far from perfect and I have growing 
concerns about what we may see when this bill returns to the Senate 
following conference. This concern has been heightened by what I see 
contained in the House bill.
  First, the House bill contains the $9.6 billion tobacco buyout 
proposal that contains no provision for FDA oversight of tobacco 
products.
  Second, the House bill is not offset by revenue raisers and would 
cost $35 billion through 2014, according to the official Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimate. Alarmingly, this cost estimate does not 
provide a true sense of the bill's fiscal impact because the bill 
employs two budget gimmicks.
  The first gimmick involves phasing in tax cuts slowly over the 10-
year period covered by the legislation. This ``backloading'' of tax 
cuts shaves tens of billions of dollars off the 10-year cost of the 
House package.
  The second gimmick involves having tax cuts expire before the end of 
the 10-year period, even though the intention is, in many cases, for 
the tax cuts to be extended and to remain in effect on an ongoing 
basis.
  The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that making permanent most of 
the temporary tax cuts in the House bill would add $190 billion to the 
cost of the bill through 2014.
  In contrast, the Senate bill is fully offset and will effectively 
provide a 3-percent tax cut for manufacturers; give manufacturers a 50-
percent tax credit for the cost of adding jobs; extend the research tax 
credit through 2005; protect hundreds of thousands of workers from cuts 
in Federal overtime protections; prevent the Federal Government from 
spending taxpayer dollars on contracts with companies that use foreign 
labor when there are domestic alternatives; provide a tax credit for 
companies which produce energy by using underbrush and other 
potentially hazardous fuels found in our forests; provide a tax credit 
for consumers who buy hybrid vehicles; protect the California film 
industry and the jobs it creates; and provide for FDA oversight of 
tobacco products.

  I will be looking for very specific items to be included in the 
conference report. The final bill should be fully offset and not 
increase the deficit; contain strong and effective FDA oversight of 
tobacco products if the bill contains a tobacco buyout provision; and 
require that any tobacco buyout provision be funded by tobacco 
manufacturers, not taxpayers; contain a tax credit for the open-loop 
biomass industry that works to reduce fire hazards in California; and 
protect companies, such as the film industry, that did nothing wrong 
under the old law and yet face the possibility of having their tax 
benefits cut.
  And, to the conferees, I want to stress the importance of these 
provisions to me. These are not ordinary times and we must protect the 
integrity of our tax system from those who would twist it at the cost 
of fiscal responsibility.
  The long-term budget outlook remains grim. Although the deficit may 
recede somewhat over the next few years from its current historically 
high level, it will swell as the baby boomers retire in large numbers 
in the coming years and eventually reach unsustainable levels. One of 
the most prudent steps that we as policymakers can take in preparation 
for this impending challenge is to reduce the deficit today.
  Moreover, corporate tax revenues are at all time low levels as a 
share of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projected in 
March that corporate tax revenues will equal 1.4 percent of GDP in 
2004--lower than the average levels seen in each decade since the 
1940s.
  Furthermore, CBO projects that corporate tax receipts will remain at 
about 1.8 percent of GDP through the end of the decade. This is lower 
than the average level of corporate tax receipts in each of these 
decades except for the 1980s, when corporate receipts plummeted from 
the effects of tax cuts and economic conditions.
  Given the historically low corporate revenues, it does not represent 
sound policy to use the revenues gained from closing corporate 
loopholes to fund new targeted corporate tax breaks. The goal should be 
to restore the corporate revenue base, at least in part, in order to 
help reduce the deficit, not to diminish the corporate revenue base 
further.
  So while I support the Senate version of the JOBS bill because on 
balance it provides important protections for California workers and 
businesses, I do so warily and will reserve final judgment until I see 
the conference report.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a new study by the Economic Policy 
Institute makes clear that 6 million Americans, including teachers, 
nurses, cooks, clerical workers, and pharmacists, will lose their 
overtime protections under the Bush overtime rule. President Bush is 
once again putting corporate profits ahead of workers and their 
families. Profits are already up more than 60 percent since President 
Bush took office, yet workers' wages have actually declined. The last 
thing America's struggling workers need today is a pay cut.
  The Bush overtime rule puts special interests above worker interests. 
An independent analysis by three former high ranking Department of 
Labor employees concluded: `` we believe that (with the exception of 
the change in the salary level test) the interests of U.S. workers and 
their families will not be advanced--indeed will be harmed--by the 
implementation of these new regulations.''
  It is clear that the Bush administration is putting business's bottom 
lines first. The National Association of Manufacturing, NAM, the 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association, the funeral 
industry and many other groups lobbied hard for more relaxed overtime 
requirements. The final rule includes a broad exemption for workers in 
the financial service industry that helps the insurance and banking 
industries and for the retail and restaurant industries.
  With more than 8 million Americans out of work, and with so many 
other families struggling to make ends meet, cutbacks on overtime are 
an unfair burden that America's workers should not have to bear. 
Overtime pay accounts for about 25 percent of the income of workers who 
work overtime. Workers stripped of their overtime protection would end 
up working longer hours for less pay.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted in the 1930s to create a 40-
hour workweek and requires workers to be paid fairly for any extra 
hours. Especially in times like these, it is an incentive for job 
creation, because it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead 
of forcing current employees to work longer hours.
  The overtime protection is vital to the 40-hour workweek. If 
employers no longer have to pay extra for overtime, they will have an 
incentive to demand longer hours, and workers will have less time to 
spend with their families.
  In 70 percent of American families all parents are working, either 
both parents, or the single parent, as compared to 1960 when 70 percent 
of all families had at least one parent at home full time. Workers are 
already struggling to balance their families' needs with their work 
responsibilities. Requiring workers to work more hours for less pay 
will add a greater burden to this struggle.
  In May, 99 Senators voted for the Gregg amendment that said it was 
wrong for the Bush administration to deny overtime to millions of 
workers, including police sergeants, nursery

[[Page S8221]]

school teachers, nurses, computer programmers and others in 55 
different job categories. And a bipartisan majority of 52 Senators 
voted against taking away overtime from any worker currently entitled 
to it. It would be unconscionable if this bill comes out of conference 
without those protections.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 4520), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House. The Chair is 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate at the ratio 
of 12 to 11.
  Mr. REID. I 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Bennett) Appointed Senators Grassley, 
Hatch, Nickles, Lott, Snowe, Kyl, Thomas, Santorum, Smith, Bunning, 
McConnell, Gregg, Baucus, Rockefeller, Daschle, Breaux, Conrad, Graham 
of Florida, Jeffords, Bingaman, Lincoln, Kennedy, and Harkin conferees 
on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________