[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4691-4702]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant journal 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:

       Bunning amendment No. 2686, to accelerate the phase-in of 
     the deduction relating to income attributable to domestic 
     production activities.
       Grassley (for Bayh) amendment No. 2687 (to amendment No. 
     2686), to provide for the extension of certain expiring 
     provisions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this afternoon we resume consideration of 
the JOBS bill. The chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, is on 
his way over. I thought I would proceed to make sure we do not have any 
dead time.
  While the Senate went off this bill and considered the budget just a 
week ago, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new job figures for 
February. Those data show 8.2 million people are still unemployed. That 
is more than 2 million more than at the beginning of the recession in 
March 2001. Job growth remains too slow.
  As this chart shows, we have lost more than 3 million private sector 
jobs since December 2000, and job creation has not turned around.
  This next chart shows jobs lost--2.2 million jobs lost; overall total 
employment, 3 million jobs lost from January 2001 to February 2004; 3 
million lost in the private sector during that same period. It was 
almost 3 million, 2.8 million lost in the manufacturing sector.
  The economy created just 20,000 new jobs in February. The private 
sector created no new jobs last month. All the net new jobs came from 
the Government. Let me repeat that. There were no new private sector 
jobs created last month. Yet there were 20,000 new jobs overall, and 
all those jobs were Government jobs. That is not something I think we 
want to do.
  This next chart shows manufacturing jobs. It is very interesting to 
see that in the years 1950, 1960, 1970, all the way up to the year 
2000, this dotted line shows that today, 2004, we have the fewest jobs 
in America in half a century. That is the fewest jobs in half a 
century. Stated another way, the number of jobs we have now is as low 
as it was a half century ago.
  Manufacturing jobs declined for the 43rd straight month. Mr. 
President, 3,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in February. 
Manufacturing employment is at its lowest point in more than a half 
century, since March of 1950. Again, that is what this chart shows. The 
job level now is as low as it was a half century ago.
  Part of the story is that the American manufacturing worker has 
become more productive. The average manufacturing worker has turned out 
more product than before. But it goes deeper than that. Manufacturing 
production--that is the output of manufacturing jobs--remains below the 
levels of the beginning of 2001.
  There is reason for continued concern about the future. A week ago, 
Goldman Sachs reviewed the latest manufacturing data and concluded:

       [W]e interpret Monday's decline in the New York Fed's 
     Empire Survey for March as one more piece of evidence that 
     the manufacturing sector is transitioning to somewhat slower 
     growth. . . .

  This next chart shows the share of population with jobs. That is, we 
reached our peak in about the year 2000 of the percentage of American 
population that had jobs, and we can tell by the chart that whereas it 
has been steadily rising in percentage of Americans who have jobs from 
1994, steadily rising up to the beginning of the recession in March 
2001, we have declined precipitously since that date.
  In sum, the jobs picture remains sluggish. Even the normally taciturn 
Federal Reserve noted the weak job market in saying in a recent 
statement last Tuesday that ``hiring has lagged.''
  The latest Labor Department numbers show total unemployment fell in 
February to 138.3 million. The share of the population age 16 and older 
with jobs declined to 62.2 percent. This employment population ratio is 
lower than it was at any time between March 1994 and June 2003. Again, 
that is in the chart as I just indicated.
  The slow job market spans the Nation. As of January 2004, nearly 3 
years after the recession began, almost every region of the country 
continues to have higher unemployment than in March 2001. Forty-five 
States have higher unemployment rates than when the recession began.
  In terms of unemployment, my State of Montana has fared better than 
some, but unemployment remains markedly higher than pre-recession 
levels throughout much of the country. Colorado unemployment is up 2.8 
percent. Again, if we look at the chart, every State has higher 
unemployment, as indicated by red, but for three States. One is the 
State of Montana, where it is level. In two States, Nevada and South 
Dakota, unemployment has actually declined. In every other State, 
unemployment has increased at a very marked rate.
  Again, as I said, Colorado is up 2.8 percent; Ohio is up 2.6 percent; 
Massachusetts up 2.6 percent; Oregon up 2.4 percent; New York up 2.3 
percent; Texas is up 2.1 percent; and New Jersey is also up 2 percent. 
The list goes on.
  In terms of the absolute number of jobs, 36 States have failed to get 
back to the pre-recession employment levels. In 49 States, job creation 
has not kept up with natural growth in the number of potential workers. 
Only in Alaska has job growth exceeded the growth of working age 
population.
  The news of the Nation's slow job growth has cycled back to lessened 
consumer demand, and thus economic growth. This chart shows consumer 
confidence. As we can see beginning in 1994, consumer confidence in 
America remained at about the 95 percent level. This is the consumer 
confidence index, based in the hundreds, so it was a little lower in 
1994 to 1996. It steadily rose from 1997 to 1998. Those are the boom 
years. It reached its peak roughly at the beginning of the recession in 
March of 2001, and then just plummeted to its low levels.
  Why is that important? It is important because, as I have mentioned, 
the Nation's slow job growth has cycled back. It has cycled back to 
lessened consumer demand. When consumer demand is down, economic growth 
also falls off as well.
  In the latest consumer confidence survey, confidence fell for the 
second straight month in part because of consumer concern over the weak 
job market. Nearly 3 years after the start of the recession, consumer 
confidence remains below its January 2001 levels.
  These numbers of people without jobs are not just statistics; they 
are real lives. These are real lives we are talking about. This weak 
job picture causes real pain. It causes disruption in many families.
  For example, there is a fellow named John in East Helena, MT, who has 
worked 22 years at the ASARCO smelter plant that has recently closed. 
John suffers permanent health problems from working with chemicals at 
the plant. He has been unable to get full-time employment so he works 
part time. John cannot get health insurance because he has preexisting 
health conditions.
  Then there is Bruce. Bruce is 50 years old. He worked 28 years at 
that same East Helena smelter. He did what they say to do; that is, use 
retraining benefits and train as a computer technician. Unable to get 
work in that field, he works now full time in a grocery store.
  Often when a person loses a job, a family loses a job. Evelyn from 
western Montana wrote:

       I am concerned about the economy of Western Montana. . . . 
     I see that industry . . . is [waning]. What do we have to 
     offer our children and grandchildren in the way of stability 
     within Montana? . . . What do you propose . . . [to give us] 
     a hope of being able to support our families?

  Kim wrote about her husband's job:

       The second paper mill my spouse has worked at in three 
     years is threatened with

[[Page 4692]]

     closure in the next six to twelve months. In a letter to the 
     employees . . . in Missoula, Montana[,] the company president 
     blamed the endless drain of manufacturing America to overseas 
     as the cause for possible shut-down. [The company] makes 
     liner-board, the cardboard boxes products are shipped in. 
     [I]f products are not made in the United States, boxes are 
     not needed. . . . [T]he liner-board market is a direct 
     reflection of the state of the economy[,] because the more 
     liner-board boxes sold[,] the more products being 
     manufactured within the United States . . .

  Real people like John, Bruce, Evelyn, and Kim are the reason we need 
to move this bill. We need to fight to create and keep good 
manufacturing jobs in America.
  The bill before us provides a 9-percent deduction for manufacturing, 
effectively reducing the tax rate for domestic manufacturers by 3 
percentage points. The JOBS Act will thus help all manufacturers 
produce goods in the United States. Cutting taxes for domestic 
manufacturers will help prevent layoffs and will help preserve jobs. It 
is the right thing to do.
  We got a good start in this bill the week before the budget 
resolution. The Senate agreed to the managers' amendment that among 
other things ended some outrageous leasing tax shelters, and the Senate 
unanimously extended the R&D tax credit. We expanded that credit for 
universities and labs.
  We also conducted a good and spirited debate on an amendment by 
Senator Dodd. That amendment addressed the performance of Government 
contracts by American workers. After working collaboratively on 
modifications proposed by Senator McConnell and Senator McCain, the 
Senate agreed to that amendment by a vote of 70 to 26.
  The Senate then began debate on an amendment proposed by Senators 
Bunning and Stabenow to accelerate the phase-in of the manufacturing 
tax cuts. The Senate also began considering an amendment by Senator 
Bayh providing for an extension of expiring tax provisions. These last 
two important amendments are now pending.
  Under a previous order, the next first-degree amendment in order will 
be that offered by the minority leader or his designee. We understand 
the amendment will be proposed by Senator Harkin regarding the 
Department of Labor's overtime regulations. I know there are strong 
feelings on this amendment, but Senators are all now aware that we must 
address that issue in order to move this bill along. I hope we can come 
up to a vote on that amendment in a reasonably short period of time and 
move to other amendments.
  In the end--and I will keep returning to this theme--this bill is 
about jobs, good jobs, about jobs in America. We are trying to help 
preserve American manufacturing. The task ahead of us is large, the 
challenge great, but Americans do not shrink from that challenge.
  Renee, the bookkeeping manager for a small manufacturer in Bozeman, 
MT, said it well when she wrote:

       The United States is a nation built on steely determination 
     in the face of overwhelming odds. We must act now to reverse 
     the loss of our high-skill, high wage manufacturing jobs.

  That is our job, and we need to do that. We need to get this bill 
done for John, Bruce, Kim, and Evelyn and all the hardworking Americans 
who depend on a strong manufacturing sector in America. We cannot let 
them down. Let us move on to the bill, let us move on to amendments and 
let's address them. Let's move this bill and let us do what we can to 
strengthen American manufacturing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to reiterate the words of my 
distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Montana, on the 
importance of getting this bill passed. This bill is about jobs because 
it is about keeping American manufacturing competitive, particularly 
manufacturing that is exported. Export-related jobs in America are very 
good jobs because they pay 15 percent above the national average.
  This bill, that we call by the acronym FSC/ETI, foreign sales 
corporation extraterritorial income, reduces the income tax on goods 
manufactured in the United States and sold overseas. Whether it is done 
by American manufacturers or foreign companies that have come to 
America to establish a manufacturing plant and hire Americans, it 
applies to both. It does not apply to American companies that 
manufacture overseas.
  The World Trade Organization is the reason we are debating this bill, 
because the World Trade Organization has ruled that our FSC/ETI 
legislation, that has been on the books for more than a couple of 
decades, is an illegal export subsidy and has authorized up to $4 
billion a year of sanctions against U.S. exports. This is something the 
World Trade Organization said to the European Community that they could 
do on U.S. exports, because until we change this law, they see us not 
living up to our international trade obligations.
  Why would the United States respond to the World Trade Organization 
this way? In the very same way we expect Europe or any other country to 
respond when the United States wins cases before the World Trade 
Organization. Let me say, we win many more than we lose. In fact, 
anybody reading commerce newspapers over the last week would find out 
that the United States has recently won two decisions before the World 
Trade Organization on other issues.
  In regard to Europe, as one specific example, we expect Europe to 
abide by the decision that the U.S. cattle producers won in the World 
Trade Organization because Europe was not taking in our red meat, our 
beef products, because they were treated with a growth stimulant. 
Europe has decided not to abide by the World Trade Organization 
decision, so the United States, over the last 2 years, has imposed 
sanctions against Europe.
  Would it be surprising to you if the U.S. Government does not respond 
positively to the World Trade Organization ruling and then Europe 
would, in fact, put sanctions against American products? They have 
already done that. Starting March 1, there has been a 5-percent 
increase in sanctions. We are going to have a 1-percent increase each 
month that we do not repeal this legislation. By November that would be 
in effect a 12-percent sales tax on American products going overseas to 
Europe.
  It is very difficult for the United States to compete when we have a 
level playing field, but when we have a 12-percent add-on you can see 
that eventually some companies are going to become uncompetitive and, 
as a result, workers will be laid off.
  What we want this legislation to do is not only avoid these 
sanctions, but we want to put American manufacturing in more of a 
competitive environment than it is in presently by reducing the 
corporate tax rate on companies that export if the manufacturing is 
done within the United States of America.
  We have, potentially, by November, sanctions of 12 percent on 
American products. This is a very serious threat to all Members because 
sanctions are going to hit agricultural products, timber products, and 
even manufacturing products. We need to get this issue behind us before 
Memorial Day or sooner or we will never be able to get this bill to the 
President for signature.
  I wanted to act on this bill last year because I was fearful politics 
would get in the way of the Senate's ability to do the job. Obviously, 
the closer you get to the election, the more there is an opportunity 
for politics to interfere.
  The opening debate and shenanigans we had 2 weeks ago when we first 
took up this bill confirmed my worst fears. Some on the other side want 
to play politics with this bipartisan bill. Senator Baucus and I had an 
agreed order of amendments that would have improved the bill and 
brought up important, relevant issues. That agreement was undermined by 
the other side, particularly the leadership on the other side. The 
leadership does not really want to debate the substance of this bill. 
Yet they would say it is very important to get this bill passed.
  We hear a lot about not creating enough jobs in the economy in this 
recovery. This is our opportunity to create jobs. I would think 
everybody

[[Page 4693]]

would want to get this bill passed. Instead, it seems this bipartisan 
bill is being turned into a political football.
  I am hopeful everybody on the other side of the aisle will see the 
best policy is also very good politics. 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 
sanctions. In other words, jobs in the industries and the products that 
have already been identified by Europe for sanctions are going to be in 
jeopardy. Particularly where we have so much problem competing with the 
global competition we have, it doesn't help our domestic manufacturers 
and workers, in manufacturing as well as other segments of the economy.
  As I said before, I hope the Democratic leadership will focus on the 
task at hand and not play politics with this very important bipartisan 
piece of legislation.
  With that procedural point I wanted to make behind us, I wish to 
speak specifically as a reminder to my colleagues of some of the 
important features of this legislation. Repealing FSC/ETI, as the World 
Trade Organization has ruled against the United States and implied that 
we need to get our laws in tune with our international obligations, the 
repeal raises around $55 billion over 10 years, and 89 percent of that 
$55 billion comes from manufacturing industries. If that money is not 
sent back to the manufacturing sector, it will be a $50 billion tax 
increase on manufacturing. You know one of the simple rules of 
economics 101--you tax something more, you get less of it.
  The Congressional Budget Office then says we have lost 3 million 
manufacturing jobs since the manufacturing decline started in the last 
year of the Clinton administration--in other words, since the middle of 
July. A $50 billion tax increase now on that manufacturing obviously is 
not going to stimulate manufacturing jobs.
  The bill before us uses all the money that is raised from the FSC/ETI 
repeal to put back into manufacturing, giving manufacturing 
corporations and self-proprietorships and other business entities a 3-
percentage point tax rate reduction on all income derived from 
manufacturing in the United States.
  This is not meant to help--and will not help--because our bill is not 
written this way to help manufacturing done offshore. We start phasing 
in these tax cuts this year. The cuts apply to different business 
entities, sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family 
businesses, multinational corporations, or foreign corporations that 
set up manufacturing plants in the United States but only if they set 
up their manufacturing plants in the United States. We are not doing 
anything in this bill to export jobs overseas; just the opposite. What 
we are doing is meant to create jobs and preserve jobs in manufacturing 
in the United States, and to give the benefit to American-based 
companies or foreign corporations based in America that are creating 
jobs here.
  Our bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad 
support in the House and Senate. The finance bill is also revenue 
neutral. That is very important because it seems to be an unwritten 
rule in the Senate--maybe not one that I entirely agree with, but if we 
are going to get anything done in a bipartisan way when it deals with 
tax reform, it has to be revenue neutral.
  This bill, as amended, provides over $130 billion in business tax 
relief, but it is paid for by extending customs user fees and, most 
importantly, by shutting down corporate tax shelters and abusive 
loopholes.
  It is an unwritten rule in the Senate, as I said, for revenue 
neutrality. So we have gone beyond the $50 billion to $130 billion of 
tax changes but offsetting it totally with money raised from FSC/ETI, 
from customs user fees, and, most importantly, doing something that 
ought to be done with or without this bill--shutting down these tax 
shelters and abusive loopholes.
  As all bills, there is never complete agreement on an approach. Our 
bill contains a temporary haircut on rate reduction that some of us 
would like to remove and others of us would like to retain. Some 
Members prefer a reduction in the top corporate rate in place of 
international reforms and a rate reduction applying just to 
manufacturing. These Members would say you ought to treat all 
corporations the same. If all corporations were being impacted with a 
WTO ruling in the same way, whether manufacturing or not, I would 
agree. We are talking about basically manufacturing and at least 89 
percent of the revenues coming in. We say we want to keep our 
manufacturing competitive. We are going to pour most of the benefits of 
this legislation back into the manufacturing sector.
  Those on the other side say it ought to be across the board, 
affecting all corporations. There is a desire on the other side for a 
simpler approach by just cutting taxes across the board, but a top 
level rate cut would only go to the biggest corporations of America. 
Local family held S corporations or partnerships which presently get 
some ETI benefits would get nothing from that approach. If we redirect 
the FSC/ETI money to an across-the-board corporate cut, then the 
manufacturing sector will be the revenue offset for the services sector 
tax cut.
  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's bipartisan bill has been improved with an 
amendment to extend the research and development tax credit through the 
end of year 2005. That is a domestic tax benefit which is an incentive 
to research and development. This translates also into good, high-
paying jobs for workers in the United States and not overseas. Plus, it 
is an incentive for research and development which is going to keep our 
industries competitive with the highly educated workforces of Russia, 
China, and India where we are finding increasing competition. We need 
to keep up with these others.
  America has no reason to be timid about the competitiveness of our 
workforce--the competitiveness of our workers from the standpoint of 
our educational commitment and our educational attainment. We have 
nothing to worry about when it involves our research leading us to new 
industries not of this decade but for the next decade. America has a 
very flexible economy. We can compete. Anyone who says we can't compete 
is a defeatist. I am not a defeatist when it comes to America's ability 
to be ahead of the rest of the world as we have been for the last 100 
years in almost every aspect of our economy. The research and 
development part of this bill is surely something that is going to help 
us continue to do that.
  In addition to the previously agreed upon research and development 
amendment, there are several additional amendments pending which will 
substantially improve this bill. First is an amendment offered by 
Senators Bunning and Stabenow to accelerate the manufacturing 
deduction. This amendment assures that the tax relief and related 
economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt 
by the repeal of FSC/ETI.
  Second, I have offered an amendment with Senator Baucus to extend the 
2-year tax provisions which expired in the years 2003-2004. 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.
  A third pending amendment on net operating losses should also be 
included. This amendment allows companies that operated at losses 
during the difficult economic conditions of last year to offset those 
losses against their income for the previous 5 years. This provision 
would accelerate tax relief to companies that need to continue 
operations and recover from recent difficulties.
  I ask my colleagues: Let us get on with the business at hand. Have 
this institution be what it traditionally has

[[Page 4694]]

been. Yes. An institution where everything is thoroughly discussed as 
it ought to be because this is the only institution where that can be 
done in our American political system. But it is also an institution 
that moves along and doesn't stymie legislation. We know our 
responsibilities are to the taxpayers of this country to produce a good 
product and produce it quickly. If we think of the best policy, we will 
in fact have the best politics. Let's put good economic policy ahead of 
shortsighted politics.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I take a couple of moments to discuss the 
pending second-degree amendment, the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Indiana, Senator Bayh. It is an excellent amendment. It is 
somewhat broad in scope. I commend Senator Bayh for suggesting this. My 
guess is it will be adopted without too much difficulty.
  I have been pushing for a long time, and I know the chairman of the 
committee has, as well, the package of extenders. We have crafted the 
underlying JOBS bill to create jobs and to stimulate competitiveness in 
American business. In addition to the new provisions in the bill, it is 
critical we renew our past commitments in the Tax Code and not leave 
anyone behind. I am talking about the so-called package of tax 
extenders.
  We failed last year to extend many expired or expiring tax provisions 
that are essential. We now have another chance. That is the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Indiana, not only to extend these 
provisions, but also to improve upon them.
  When we were last on the bill, the Senate acted to improve one of the 
provisions, the research and development tax credit. This was the first 
of many positive steps we need to take to fix an ailing economy. 
Encouraging research and development clearly is one of the most 
important forward looking actions we could take. Why is that so 
important? It is the underlying basis for improving innovation and for 
addressing the offshoring of American jobs.
  In addition, there are many other provisions commonly referred to as 
extenders. They all address the needs of our Nation. These are not 
contentious. They are not partisan. Rather, they are provisions that 
just make good sense.
  The chairman and I pushed to have these same provisions extended last 
year. We urged our colleagues not to wait until the last minute before 
these provisions were expired. We wanted to move right away.
  These provisions are like a yo-yo. We enact them. We extend them for 
several months, sometimes a year or a year and a half, we let them 
expire. After they have expired, sometimes we go back and reenact them 
retroactively and there is no break. Sometimes we do not reenact them 
retroactively. It is very poor policy.
  I personally believe all these provisions should be enacted 
permanently into the Tax Code. We should not have the on-again, off-
again, up-and-down, yo-yo effect Congress has undertaken in addressing 
these provisions. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are 
not making these permanent. Nevertheless, they are not, and taxpayers 
have suffered often from lapsed provisions. We have let them down. I 
hope we do not do that again. The time has now come to extend these 
provisions. If we do not act now, there is no telling when our next 
opportunity will be.
  In this package there are many good provisions that have already 
expired. They are widely supported. The expiring provisions include a 
diverse array of topics and all are important. One of the most 
important expiring provisions we must address is the one allowing for 
the carryback of net operating losses, otherwise known as NOLs. In the 
wake of prolonged economic downturn and the recent ruling by the WTO, 
it is very important we give American businesses a chance to recover 
their losses. Like the underlying JOBS bill, this provision also 
promotes economic growth.
  Two other important provisions are the work opportunity tax credit, 
sometimes known as WOTC, and the welfare-to-work tax credit. I have 
worked long and hard with many of my colleagues--especially Senator 
Santorum, Senator Bayh; both Senators worked very hard--for the 
provisions to make the credits permanent. Unfortunately, we cannot 
achieve permanence at this point, but neither can we afford to let this 
opportunity pass.
  The work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit 
are proven initiatives that help economically disadvantaged workers get 
jobs. They help those receiving the welfare check to earn a paycheck. 
That is very important. These provisions very much help get people off 
welfare and to get jobs. Both of the credits expired in 2003 in 
December.
  As we consider ways to create jobs for Americans, it is only 
appropriate to consider what these tax credits have done for both 
employees and employers across our country. In a recent study, it is 
shown in New York State the work opportunity tax credit generates 
economic benefits that exceed the cost of the program. These programs 
are too valuable to fall by the wayside.
  This amendment, including the extenders, will simplify and strengthen 
the credits to expand unemployment opportunities for disadvantaged 
individuals and attract more employers to participate in the program.
  Along with these are other provisions that help raise the standard of 
living in America now and in the future. Individual credits against the 
alternative minimum tax provide for such things as lifetime learning 
credit, the HOPE scholarship, and care for the elderly and disabled. 
These provisions not only create incentives for education but also help 
families build a stronger financial base.
  Other benefits to be gained from this important extenders package 
include encouraging computer contributions to schools, economic 
recovery provisions in the wake of September 11, deductions for school 
teachers, and energy incentives for the environment. And the list goes 
on.
  These tax incentives make America a better place, a better place for 
jobs, education, health care, environment, and more. Now is the time to 
act. We must not let these essential parts of our Tax Code fall by the 
wayside.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment 
offered by the Senator from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and others. Like the 
JOBS bill itself, these provisions will help make important 
contributions to American business and to American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business and 
I will yield the floor for anyone who wants to speak on the 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Energy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I will deal with the issue of the 
energy bill in the context of where we left off last November, two 
votes short of stopping a filibuster against the legislation so it 
could be passed. That means we had 58 votes. We needed two more. We 
cannot get two more votes. Therefore, the bill still languishes.
  It was the first major energy policy for probably 15 years as far as 
the Federal Government passing one is concerned, and things are a lot 
scarier now than they were last November. Now we have what are the 
highest gasoline prices in the history of our country, just slightly 
above where they were a year ago, and previous to that a couple times 
in the late 1990s or the early part of this century. In other words, 
over the last 4 or 5 years they have probably been almost as high three 
or four times. We also have, different than at most times, very high 
natural gas prices.
  The impact in the economy is very negative, as we know. The impact 
upon low-income families is very bad, as we know. It is a shame we 
could not get that bill passed last November. I hope we can get one 
passed very shortly. In fact, I had hoped the high natural gas prices 
and gasoline prices we faced would be an impetus to any Member in

[[Page 4695]]

this body. Of the 42 who did not vote to stop debate, hopefully these 
Members will see the need for passing this energy legislation to help 
the economy, to help the consumers of America, to move this economy 
along.
  I recall over the last 4 or 5 years there have been high gasoline 
prices in the past and maybe not so high natural gas prices in the 
past, that there has been an outrage expressed on the floor of this 
Senate about those high gasoline prices--Members speaking about 
collusion within the industry, Members asking the Department of Justice 
and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether there was any 
anticompetitive activity, and tremendous outrage over the high prices.
  Now that gasoline prices are higher, I would guess I would hear that 
same outrage. But we are not hearing it. I wonder if we are not hearing 
it because so many Members on the other side of the aisle were part of 
the filibuster against the energy bill last year, and they are ashamed 
when they had an opportunity to do something to bring an energy policy 
to America they did not do it.
  That energy policy was one that was well balanced between tax 
incentives for the production of fossil fuel, tax incentives for the 
conservation of energy, and tax incentives for alternative and 
renewable fuels--a very well-balanced piece of legislation, legislation 
I would say was well balanced to meet the immediate needs of our 
country, which are best met by the fossil fuels we have been using for 
more than 100 years to take care of the near term but also well 
balanced for the outyears. Obviously, since God only made so much 
fossil fuel, and it is finite, the dependence on renewable and 
alternative fuels, as well as incentives for conservation, is the 
pattern for the future if we are going to have a sound energy policy.
  This package, put together by Senator Domenici, is well balanced and 
had the good fortune of having so many of these tax incentives involved 
that came out of my Senate Finance Committee in a bipartisan way.
  So why not the outrage now? We keep hearing so much debate during the 
bill that is before us, and during morning business by Members, 
particularly of the other party, about the problems we are having 
creating jobs, the problems we are having with the Nation's economy.
  There might be a difference of opinion whether the economy is doing 
well, but there are a lot of statistics that show it is doing well with 
the 8.2 percent growth for the third quarter of 2003, and the 4.1 
percent growth for the fourth quarter of 2003, and unemployment holding 
steady at 5.6 percent. But we are still hearing the outrage that jobs 
are not being created. And who can argue that if you are unemployed and 
want a job you ought not have a job? You would expect to have a job 
with an economy growing where it is now and with the fabulously low 
rate of unemployment of 5.6 percent, because seldom have we had that 
low a rate of unemployment in the last 40 years. A national energy 
policy would surely help us with the creation of jobs.
  So you can ask, where are the jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs? 
One factor affecting the manufacturing industry and, in turn, the 
economy in general I have not heard mentioned during the debate is the 
rising cost of energy. The fact is, the rising energy costs continue to 
be a drag on our economy.
  In January, consumer prices jumped one-half of 1 percent, and that 
was only because, as small as that is, of higher energy costs. In fact, 
energy costs rose 4.7 percent, accounting for more than three-quarters 
of the overall increase in consumer prices.
  Crude oil for April delivery is over $36 a barrel on the New York 
Mercantile Exchange. Gas prices at the pump around the Nation are at 
record highs. Nationally, a gallon of regular gasoline averages $1.74. 
That is 2 cents higher than at this time last year.
  Why are energy prices so high? Well, global demand for crude oil is 
increasing because of greater demand not only in the United States but 
because of a higher percentage of demand in Japan and China.
  OPEC, which supplies 40 percent of the world's oil, recently 
announced they intend to cut production by 1 million barrels a day 
starting April 1. That is obviously going to push prices yet higher. 
This is from OPEC, an organization that has repeatedly stated their 
goal is to keep prices somewhere between $22 and $28 a barrel, not now 
satisfied with $36 a barrel. Because we are so dependent upon foreign 
countries for over 60 percent of our crude oil, I think they have 
gotten us--meaning OPEC has gotten the United States--over a barrel.
  We have also seen a sustained increase in the demand and cost of 
natural gas. Because natural gas is now the fuel of choice for new 
electricity generation, the demand for natural gas is no longer 
seasonal. While our existing policies in Washington have created the 
increased demand for natural gas, we have done very little to ensure a 
domestic supply to meet that demand.
  In fact, the increased exploration is not bringing in enough new 
natural gas online to keep up with the increased needs we have in this 
country. Hence, as you understand economics 101, when supply is down, 
price is up; hence, higher natural gas prices.
  The fact is, high fuel prices remain a concern for transportation 
firms. High energy prices hurt steel mills, manufacturers, farmers, and 
eventually end up hurting all consumers. High energy prices cost 
American jobs. Unless we increase supply, we are going to see record 
high prices again this year, and we are going to see a continued drag 
on the American economy.
  We need to help the manufacturing and agricultural industries save 
existing jobs and go beyond that to create new jobs. We need to lower 
our Nation's energy costs.
  What are the alternatives? We could and should apply pressure to 
members of OPEC to increase supplies. Some have suggested releasing 
crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase supply and 
drive down prices.
  I believe we can and must take action in the Senate to address rising 
energy costs. As my colleagues know, we have been considering a 
comprehensive energy bill in this Chamber for over a period of 3 years 
now, with the most progress made last year when we had a bill pass the 
House, a bill pass the Senate, a bill come successfully out of 
conference committee, and overwhelmingly pass the House of 
Representatives, but being defeated or at least stalled here on the 
floor of the Senate last November when we came up two votes short of 
stopping debate, to stop the filibuster, to get to finality. So it is 
quite obvious we have the votes to pass an energy bill in the Senate.
  It is a shame we cannot get over that hurdle of 60 votes to get this 
bill there, to get us on the road to greater self-sufficiency with 
energy as we try to do it through a combination of incentives for 
fossil fuel production, incentives for energy conservation, and for 
alternative and renewable fuels. That conference committee agreement 
was voted on last November. Unfortunately, we had a minority of 
Senators successful in filibustering the bill.
  I strongly support the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator 
Domenici, in his efforts, then as well as now, to move this bill 
forward or, short of moving it forward, a bill of a similar nature to 
start over as hopefully one way of getting around a Democratic 
filibuster.
  I am pleased Senator Domenici has introduced a slimmed-down bill that 
addresses the major concerns that prevented the Senate from adopting 
the conference report. This bill goes a long way toward increasing 
domestic energy production of conventional energy such as oil, natural 
gas, and nuclear power. The bill includes provisions to improve the tax 
treatment of natural gas gathering and distribution lines. It includes 
incentives for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska 
to markets in the lower 48. The bill seeks to improve our Nation's 
electricity transmission capacity and reliability by creating 
enforceable and mandatory reliability standards and providing 
incentives for transmission grid improvements.

[[Page 4696]]

  It also includes a number of provisions that would increase domestic 
production of renewable energy and create jobs at home. Through the 
renewable fuels standard, it would double the use of domestic homegrown 
ethanol, a first-time tax incentive for biodiesel to be made from 
soybeans.
  It would also bring new sources of energy on line. It would extend 
the wind energy production tax credit that I first got through the 
Senate in 1992. It would have an expansion of the production tax credit 
for biomass and a tax incentive for purchases of residential solar and 
wind energy equipment.
  Each of these provisions will increase our production of domestic 
renewable energy resources. They will also create thousands--some 
people have estimated 800,000--of jobs all across our country.
  The bill also includes incentives for energy-efficient improvements 
to existing homes and for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles. 
These initiatives will lead to an increased domestic supply of energy, 
a more stable economy, and thousands of jobs for America's workers. 
Make no mistake about it, this energy bill is a jobs bill.
  As I indicated, these provisions are in a new bill that Senator 
Domenici is trying to move along. But the ideal way to handle this 
would be to get two more votes to bring to an end the filibuster of the 
bill that was before the Senate last November because all of these 
provisions are included in that bill. There is no reason to start all 
over again, particularly when now, compared to last November, we have 
the highest price for gasoline in the history of our country, and we 
still have outrageously high prices for natural gas.
  It is time this country has a national energy policy. There is no 
reason two Senators who are in the minority should stand in the way of 
moving this legislation along, legislation that passed the House and 
Senate overwhelmingly last year, came out of conference after about 2 
months of work on putting together a compromise that could get an 
overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives and get a vast 
majority vote in the Senate, but two votes short of the 60, the 
extraordinary supermajority it takes to stop a filibuster. I don't 
understand why we have Democrats from corn States, with everything this 
bill does for the production of ethanol that would help the farmers of 
their States, and also help the energy needs of our Nation, how any 
Senator who is from a big corn-producing State could dare vote not to 
end this filibuster.
  There are votes out there from members of the other party, from corn-
producing States, who ought to explain to their constituents why they 
won't join in this effort with other farm State Senators to bring 
massively on line the production of ethanol that can help us be more 
energy independent from OPEC nations, particularly in a time when 
Americans are shedding blood in Iraq because we need some stability in 
the Middle East to guarantee oil coming to our country. Obviously, the 
blood I am talking about is shed because of the war we are in, the war 
to defeat terrorism against Americans, against western culture, but 
also the sort of democracy we can have in the Middle East brings 
stability that we don't have there now. And it is important to have 
that stability for the economic needs of our country.
  I don't know why we can't get some votes from some farm State 
Democrats. We only need two of about half a dozen, whom we could easily 
identify, who should be voting with us to bring finality to this issue.
  I believe these bills on energy, because we have this pending bill 
before the Senate and we have the conference report that is through the 
House and two votes short of getting to finality in the Senate last 
November--whichever one you are talking about--I believe these bills 
represent a comprehensive energy policy consisting of conservation 
efforts, the development of renewable and alternative energy sources, 
and domestic production of traditional sources of energy. This bill 
goes a long way to develop an energy policy that will drive down the 
cost of energy and create jobs at home so that we don't have to have 
the outrage that we have on the Senate floor, primarily from members of 
the other party, over 3 out of the last 5 years when energy prices have 
been so high. Why don't we do something about it? We have an 
opportunity. We don't seem to grasp it now when it is here.
  This bill is too important to our economy to let it die. Therefore, I 
strongly encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to help our 
leadership bring either the conference committee up for a vote on the 
issue of stopping debate or the new bill that Senator Domenici has 
placed before the Senate, to bring it to the floor and consider it in a 
timely manner, and timely is already probably 3 months late as we have 
seen the energy prices go up to the highest level, hurting our economy. 
We can and should come to an agreement so we can consider and pass this 
JOBS bill as soon as possible.
  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. HARKIN. Madam 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. Madam President, I know we are a little stalled on the 
floor right now. There is an underlying amendment to the bill, and then 
there is a second degree that is now trying to be worked out having to 
do with tax extenders. I understand there may even be yet another 
second degree into this package.
  I know the leadership has said there will be no votes today. I 
understand that. But I ask the Presiding Officer, is there now pending 
a unanimous consent agreement that after the disposition of the pending 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, that Senator Daschle or his 
designee would then be recognized to offer an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement does authorize the leader or his 
designee to offer the next first-degree amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer because that was my 
understanding: that upon the disposition of the pending amendment, and 
any amendments thereto--any second degrees--then Senator Daschle would 
be recognized, or his designee, in which case he is designating me to 
offer the overtime amendment.
  Now, I was here the other day, and I was going to offer the overtime 
amendment as a second degree to the underlying amendment, but then 
Senator Grassley got recognized, as is his right as the chairman of the 
committee, to offer a second degree, and that now is what is pending 
before the Senate.
  I take the floor this afternoon to once again state how urgently 
necessary it is that we proceed to consideration of my amendment 
regarding the administration's proposed changes of the rules on 
overtime.
  To recapture what has transpired, about a year ago, the Department of 
Labor issued proposed regulations that would fundamentally change how 
employers pay overtime to people who work over 40 hours a week. These 
proposed regulations came forth without having one public hearing, 
perhaps the most substantial change in our overtime laws since 1938 
when they were adopted under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  You would think if any administration wanted to really change how 
overtime is paid, they would have gone around the country and had 
public hearings. This is normally what you do. No. These were issued 
without one public hearing.
  Now that the proposed regulations have been out there, the Department 
of Labor has heard from America. I understand tens of thousands, maybe 
as high as 70 or 80,000, comments have come in on these proposed 
regulations. Still the administration has not seen fit to have public 
hearings about it. I think they thought they could do it quietly. This 
is a fundamental alteration, the biggest alteration since 1938 when the 
Fair Labor Standards Act was passed.

[[Page 4697]]

  Last year I offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would 
have denied the right of the administration to issue the proposed 
regulations and would have forced the administration to work with 
Congress, to have hearings and come up with a reasonable approach to 
changing overtime rules. That amendment was adopted by the Senate on a 
bipartisan vote. The House of Representatives soon after had a vote on 
what they call instructing their conferees, which is basically a vote 
to say we agree with the Senate and this is what we want in the final 
bill. That passed the House of Representatives.
  So they went into conference between the House and the Senate with my 
amendment intact. Somehow it never made it to the final bill. The 
administration came into the conference and said it had to be taken 
out. It was thrown out. And, of course, the Omnibus appropriations bill 
we vote on, as you know, cannot be amended. So, therefore, we were 
faced with an up-or-down vote on the bill without this amendment. We 
had to vote to keep the Government operating, to pay our troops in 
Iraq, and everything else.
  I said at the time this is too important a matter just to forget 
about and move on. So when the Senate came back into session in January 
of this year, I immediately took to the floor and said: At the first 
opportunity, I will offer this amendment again. The American people now 
have heard about it, and they know about it. They are beginning to 
understand what it means to them and their jobs to have these changes 
go into effect. I believe the votes are here, once again, to say to the 
administration: No, don't take away the right of people to get time-
and-a-half pay when they work over 40 hours a week.
  By some estimates, up to 8 million American workers would have their 
right to overtime pay taken away. So I have said I would offer this 
amendment on this bill. They call this a jobs bill. Well, this 
amendment is about jobs. It is about not only protecting jobs and 
overtime pay, but it is about creating jobs.
  I believe it is necessary to proceed to consideration of this 
amendment so that the administration, once again, will understand that 
prior to any final regulations being issued, they need to go back to 
the drawing board, hear from the public, work with Congress, as other 
Congresses have done. Since 1938, we have amended the Fair Labor 
Standards Act maybe a dozen times, but it has always been done in 
conjunction with Congress, Congress and the administration working 
together to come up with reasonable amendments to the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. There is nothing wrong with that. Times change. 
Conditions change. This should be done periodically.
  But this administration did not do that. They just drafted these 
under the cover of darkness, issued them and said: We are going to take 
away the right of about 8 million Americans to overtime pay.
  So it is appropriate that we debate and vote on my amendment on the 
FSC JOBS bill because my amendment is about one thing--jobs. These new 
overtime rules will eliminate time-and-a-half overtime pay for up to 8 
million American workers. But, again, it is not just about eliminating 
overtime pay. These proposed rules will retard the creation of new 
jobs. This is just basic logic. If employers can more easily deny 
overtime pay, they will push their current employees to work longer 
hours without compensation. With 9 million Americans currently out of 
work, why would you give an employer yet another disincentive to hire 
new workers. Yet that is exactly why the administration is pushing 
these new overtime rules. This is why these proposed new rules have the 
support of some major business groups in America but not all.
  I always like to point out that I represent a lot of businesses in my 
State of Iowa--good, healthy, productive businesses. Not one business 
in my State of Iowa has come to me saying we need to change the 
overtime rules, not one. I am wondering, where is this coming from?
  The National Association of Manufacturers says, well, they will 
reduce labor costs. It will reduce the need to hire new workers. It 
will have a direct destructive impact on jobs in the United States.
  So let's be clear. My amendment on overtime is about creating jobs, 
overcoming the stagnant job market. And, yes, it is about making sure 
we protect the time-honored right to overtime pay when you work over 40 
hours a week.
  There was an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal which I 
think summed it up. It says: Shortchanged. Many firms refuse to pay for 
overtime. Employees complain. Others claim workers are exempt under the 
law or raise output targets, but the rules are confusing.
  Here is the quote:

     . . . While employees like overtime pay, a lot of employers 
     don't. That is no surprise. Violations are so common that the 
     Employer Policy Foundation, an employer supported think tank 
     in Washington, estimates that workers would get an additional 
     $19 billion a year if the rules were observed. That estimate 
     is considered conservative by many researchers.

  In plain English, the Employer Policy Foundation, an employer-
supported think tank in Washington, is basically saying American 
workers are being cheated out of $19 billion a year because they are 
working overtime and they are not getting paid for it right now.
  Well, guess what happened, Madam President. A couple of these 
companies got caught. They got taken to court. They appealed and the 
appeals court found for the employees. One famous case on the west 
coast is where employees were clocking out of work after working an 8-
hour day, and they were being forced to come right back in the door and 
work longer hours. Well, they got caught. More and more employers were 
getting caught.
  So now what they want to do is change the rules. They want to work 
you longer. They want to work you more than 40 hours a week, but they 
don't want to pay you overtime. That is what the Wall Street Journal 
said.
  So rather than being confronted with the fact that they might be 
taken to court, they change the rules. Now there won't be any court 
case. That is what the administration's proposal on overtime is all 
about. It is about taking away the rights of people.
  You know, I had a quote that I will bring up in further debate on 
this amendment. One worker--a woman, if I am not mistaken--said 
something I thought was very poignant. She said:

  My time with my kids and my family in the evenings and on the 
weekends is premium time to me. If I am being asked to give up my 
premium time with my kids and my family, then I think I ought to get 
premium pay. That is what overtime is about.
  They are asking you to give up your premium time with your family, 
your children, to work overtime. You ought to get premium pay, which is 
what time and a half is all about. Again, the Bush administration 
thought they could put these new rules into effect quietly, with no 
hearings, before anybody knew what was going on. They were wrong. They 
got caught. The fact is, public outrage over the proposed new overtime 
rules has gotten stronger and stronger as Americans learn more about 
the details. They want these proposed rules to be stopped.
  I understand if the other side, the Republican side, can drag this 
out and prevent a vote, well, then maybe in the next month or so they 
can issue these final rules taking away overtime pay, and then it will 
be very hard to undo that later on. They know that. That is why they 
don't want a vote on this amendment. That is why the other side is 
doing everything they can to keep me from getting a vote.
  Madam President, we are not going to be quiet about it. This is the 
editorial from the New York Times: ``The Quiet Shift In Overtime.''
  It says:

       The Bush administration is engineering bread and butter 
     changes in the Federal regulation of overtime pay. . . .
       The proposed Labor Department regulations have stirred 
     justifiable concerns.
       They are being presented by the Labor Department as overdue 
     improvements.

  But as they are doing it, as they said, they are doing it quietly, 
behind the scenes.


[[Page 4698]]

       More problematical is the possibility that more workers--
     millions, according to pro-labor analysts--could be forced 
     into unpaid overtime under the regulations, which do not 
     affect blue collar workers. By some estimates, veterans, 
     police detectives, or senior nurses might lose overtime 
     compensation that now accounts for as much as 25 percent of 
     their salaries.

  They thought they could do it quietly, but the more we learned about 
it, we found that the American people were not going to sit by and let 
premium time with their families be taken away, being forced to work 
longer hours for regular pay.
  With so many people unemployed, you would think you would want to 
create jobs. These proposed rules on overtime will be a disincentive to 
creating any new jobs.
  Madam President, I hope we can get to my amendment. I will have more 
to say about it. I have more data and details I wish to bring out. For 
example, one thing I brought out before, since 1938, there has been a 
classification of learned professions, such as lawyers, doctors, 
architects, things like that--the learned professions, which were 
exempt from overtime. In all of the regulations since that time, there 
has never been any inclusion in the learned professions of what an 
individual learned while serving in the U.S. military. It wasn't until 
going through these proposed regulations with a fine-tooth comb that we 
discovered there were inserted into these proposed regulations four or 
five words about what these learned professions--as it goes through 
them all--learned while in the military, military training.
  That had never been in the regulations before--never. Why were those 
in there? Here it is right on this chart. These are the changes, the 
new part of the regulations that had never been there before:

       However, the word customarily means that the exemption is 
     also available to employees in such professions and 
     substantially the same knowledge level as the degreed 
     employees, but who attain such knowledge through a 
     combination of work experience, training in the Armed Forces, 
     attending a technical school, attending a community college, 
     or other intellectual instruction.

  What is different? ``Training in the Armed Forces'' has never been in 
these rules before. So when we see all these ads saying ``join the Army 
and be all you can be,'' they talk about all the nice technical 
training you can get while you are in the military. What they are not 
telling you now is, if you do that, after you get out of the military, 
you will be exempt from overtime pay because of what you learned while 
you were in the military.
  So we could have a situation where we have two individuals: one goes 
to the military and gets training and the other doesn't. They come out 
and they could have substantially the same kind of jobs. One could have 
had on-the-job training and one learned in the military. Both are 
basically equal. The person who served in the military gets cheated out 
of overtime, but the person who wasn't in the military would be able to 
get overtime. What kind of sense does that make? But it is in there.
  ``Training in the Armed Forces'' has never been in the rules since 
1938. We fought World War II, the Korean war, the cold war, Vietnam 
war, and every other war and we have never said to the men and women in 
uniform when they learn something in the military, we are going to take 
away their right to overtime. Why are we doing that now? Why are we 
doing that?
  Again, these are some of the hidden little things in this proposed 
regulation that need to be brought out, with scrutiny in the sunshine. 
Let people know about it. Again, I hope we can get to my amendment. It 
has the overwhelming support of the American public. As more and more 
of them know about this, they don't want their right to be taken away. 
I have talked with workers who received no overtime last year, no 
overtime pay. They were expressing to me how much they were opposed to 
this proposed change in the rules.
  I said: If you are not working overtime, why are you opposed?
  They said: It is a right we have. We may not have gotten overtime, 
but if I do work it, I want my right protected. That just about sums it 
up. It is a right that should not be taken away.
  Again, it is urgent that we proceed to the overtime amendment. Let's 
go to my amendment. Let's have a good debate. I am willing to have a 
time agreement, if the other side would like to have a time agreement. 
Let's have the debate. I want to hear from the other side why we should 
let these proposed regulations go into effect. Let's have the debate so 
the American people can understand what is at stake, and let's have an 
up-or-down vote on my amendment. Let's have an up-or-down vote on 
whether the Senate would agree with the administration that these 
proposed rules, these changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act, should 
go into effect or whether the administration should go back to the 
drawing board, work with Congress, do it in an open, aboveboard manner.
  There are some changes that do need to be made in the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. There is one part of the proposed rules of which I am 
supportive, and that is raising the base from about $8,000 a year to 
$22,000 a year. That should have been done a long time ago.
  My amendment does not affect that. My amendment leaves that in place. 
But in giving with one hand--that is, raising the base up to $22,000 a 
year--the administration is taking away the right to overtime pay from 
about 8 million Americans with the other hand. That is a bad deal.
  I hope we can get to my amendment. I hope we can have a good debate 
and an up-or-down vote on it. I am prepared to do so whenever the 
leadership dispenses with these pending amendments.
  Madam President, 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. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            War on Terrorism

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, last night I observed, as I am sure 
many Americans did, Richard Clarke's statement on the program ``60 
Minutes'' where he made some very strong allegations concerning 
President Bush and his lack of effort on the war on terrorism. I was 
struck by his tone, by his statements, and also by the lack of 
questions concerning what he had done the previous years.
  I believe Mr. Clarke was appointed in May of 1998 by President 
Clinton as the first National Coordinator for Security Infrastructure 
Protection and Counterterrorism at the National Security Council. That 
is a very long title, but many people say ``counterterrorism czar.'' He 
was the person to combat terrorism. That is a very prestigious 
position, a very important position.
  Looking at the events that occurred in 1998 and also in 2000, I 
wonder what we were doing. I kept waiting for the questioner to ask 
him: Why didn't we do more?
  On August 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the American embassies in 
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Madam President, 212 
people were killed on August 7, 1998, and over 4,000 people were 
injured in Nairobi. Eleven people were killed and 72 people were 
wounded in Tanzania. It was a very deadly day.
  Two U.S. embassies--that happens to be U.S. soil--a lot of people are 
not aware of that but our embassies are U.S. soil. Those are U.S. 
buildings, those were U.S. employees, some U.S. citizens--almost all 
U.S. employees. Africans were killed.
  What was our response? The Clinton administration, with Mr. Clarke as 
the head of counterterrorism, lobbed a few cruise missiles, supposedly 
to get Mr. bin Laden. We missed, but I compliment them for trying.
  What else did we do? Did we try again? The answer is no. Did we send

[[Page 4699]]

special forces over there? The answer is no. They killed 212 people in 
Nairobi, 11 people in Tanzania, over 4,000 people injured, some of them 
critically, very seriously injured, and what did we do? We lobbed a few 
cruise missiles and hit the desert. This was in August of 1998.
  I kept waiting for the questioner to say: Why didn't we do more in 
1998? I heard him say: We were on a wartime footing; we had a lot of 
meetings; I had a lot of face time with President Clinton; I talked 
with him about it; we urged him to do more. Why didn't we do more?
  I have only served with a few Presidents but I could not help but 
think Ronald Reagan would have done more. We had American soldiers who 
were killed as a result of a terrorist bombing in Germany, and Ronald 
Reagan sent planes to Libya and sent a heck of a signal to Mr. Qadhafi 
and, frankly, I think he changed his terrorist ways to some extent.
  I can't help but think President Bush 1 would have done more, and I 
know President Bush 2, the current President, would have done a lot 
more.
  President Clinton was President for 8 years, and Mr. Clarke was head 
of his counterterrorism division for about 3 of those years. He worked 
in his administration in another capacity as well. But we didn't do 
hardly anything after the 1998 bombings, which was a direct assault on 
the United States and our citizens, our people, our property, and two 
poor countries in Africa, and we did not do anything.
  Later, the USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000, and 17 people 
were killed, 39 were wounded, and it was pretty close to being a lot 
more serious than that. We could have had hundreds killed. Again, that 
was a direct attack on the United States. Mr. Clarke was still head of 
counterterrorism, and what did we do then? The answer is nothing. They 
might have had some meetings, but they did not do anything. They did 
not do anything visible, anything we could see. They did not make 
concerted efforts.
  Last week, I was watching on TV a picture of bin Laden walking in 
Afghanistan where we had satellites viewing him, and we still did not 
do anything. We did not have assets in the region. Why? We had plenty 
of time to put assets in the region to make a change and maybe prevent 
9/11/2001 from even happening, but maybe the administration and maybe 
Mr. Clarke were preoccupied or they did not have it high on their 
priorities.
  Those questions were not asked in this program. Maybe, for whatever 
reason, he has a vendetta against the current President. I don't know.
  I also learned today from Condoleezza Rice, the President's National 
Security Adviser, that Mr. Clarke wanted a job in the new Department of 
Homeland Security. I don't know what caused his change. I don't know 
what his motivation is. I am not sure if he wants to sell books or is 
looking for a job or what his efforts are. But I am amazed at the 
neglect or the lack of interest in the previous administration after we 
had our embassies attacked, after we had the USS Cole attacked, and we 
had Americans killed and hundreds of American employees killed.
  We had thousands of people injured, and we did not do anything. For 
him to have the gall or the nerve to start pointing a finger at 
President Bush saying he did not do enough in fighting the war on 
terrorism when Mr. Clarke was actually in a position to really do 
something for 2 or 3 years during the Clinton administration, I find 
unbelievable. I cannot believe the press would not ask, why did he not 
do more, why did President Clinton not do more? Why did we not respond? 
If we would have responded in 1998, 1999, or 2000, maybe 9/11 would 
have never happened. It is unbelievable that kind of attack would be 
made. Maybe it is for political reasons. I do not know. It is very 
sobering and startling.
  I hope when he is in front of the cameras or maybe when he is before 
a committee in Congress people ask him why did he not do more when he 
was in a position to do so.
  It is also interesting to note on October 19, 2001, the Bush White 
House issued a press release saying Mr. Clarke was recently named 
special adviser to the President for cyberspace security. It is not the 
same. The President has an excellent team and he receives counsel from 
an excellent team. With his national security adviser, Condoleezza 
Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, with Secretary of State Colin Powell, 
the President has an excellent team in foreign policy.
  I am very disappointed in Mr. Clarke's comments. I think he should be 
held accountable and questions need to be asked of him.
  I yield the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Grassley amendment No. 2687 be agreed to; provided further that I then 
be immediately recognized to offer a further second degree related to 
net operating loss. I further ask consent that the amendment then be 
agreed to, and the underlying amendment No. 2686 be agreed to, as 
amended, with the motions to reconsider laid upon the table. I further 
ask consent that Senator Harkin then be recognized in order to offer an 
amendment relating to overtime; further, that no second degrees be in 
order to that amendment prior to a vote in relation to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I think this 
is tremendous progress. I commend the two managers of the bill. They do 
work well together, as everyone knows. But I have heard--and I 
certainly do not know if this is valid or not--there is going to be an 
effort made later tonight to try to invoke cloture on this bill. I want 
everyone within the sound of my voice to know we have spent time here 
this afternoon with our manager, and we have indicated that we believe 
we could whittle down significantly the number of amendments that are 
pending on this very important piece of legislation.
  The amendment Senator Harkin is going to offer is his amendment. We 
have worked with the majority on other occasions to have him not offer 
this amendment in an effort to get important legislation passed. We can 
no longer do that. It is long overdue that the Senate speaks on this 
issue. I can say, as I have indicated, to anyone listening, if there is 
an attempt to invoke cloture on this legislation without an up-or-down 
vote on the overtime amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, there 
are no guarantees, but I think it is going to be extremely difficult to 
have cloture invoked on this bill.
  We want an up-or-down vote on this overtime amendment. If there are 
efforts made later tonight to file a motion to invoke cloture, I think 
the majority leader should know that I think it is extremely doubtful 
that he would get cloture on this bill.
  Senator Harkin has been talking about offering this amendment on 
several occasions, and we are going to go forward. As I said, I want 
the majority leader to know that I think it would be extremely 
doubtful, without an up-or-down vote on overtime, that he would be able 
to get cloture on this bill. I could be wrong, but I really kind of 
doubt it.
  I also want everyone to understand that the reason for taking this 
bill down is the inability of the minority to get a vote on this 
overtime amendment. It seems somewhat foolish to pull down this very 
important bill for this amendment. I cannot imagine why the other side 
won't let us vote. It has passed before. It will pass again. The 
overtime amendment will pass.
  So having said that, I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2687) was agreed to.

[[Page 4700]]




                Amendment No. 2882 To Amendment No. 2686

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, then, according to the unanimous consent 
agreement, I send an amendment to the desk for Senators Bunning, 
Lincoln, Santorum, Conrad, and Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for Mr. Bunning, for 
     himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. 
     Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 2882 to amendment No. 
     2686.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for the extension of the special net operating 
                       loss carryover provision)

       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted at the end 
     of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. FIVE-YEAR CARRYBACK OF NET OPERATING LOSSES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 172(b)(1) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``5-year carryback of certain losses.--'' 
     after ``(H)'', and
       (2) by striking ``or 2002'' and inserting ``, 2002, or 
     2003''.
       (b) Rules Relating to Certain Extended Net Operating 
     Losses.--Section 172 is amended by redesignating subsection 
     (k) as subsection (l) and by inserting after subsection (j) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Rules Relating to Certain Extended Net Operating 
     Losses.--For purposes of this section, in the case of a 
     taxpayer which has a net operating loss for any taxable year 
     ending during 2003 and does not make an election under 
     subsection (j), such taxpayer shall be deemed to have made an 
     election under paragraphs (4)(E) and (2)(C)(iii) of section 
     168(k) with respect to all classes of property for such 
     taxable year.
       (c) Temporary Suspension of 90 Percent Limit on Certain NOL 
     Carryovers.--Section 56(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) (relating to general 
     rule defining alternative tax net operating loss deduction) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2002'' and inserting ``, 2002, or 
     2003'', and
       (2) by striking ``and 2002'' and inserting ``, 2002, and 
     2003''.
       (d) Technical Corrections.--
       (1) Subparagraph (H) of section 172(b)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``a taxpayer which has''.
       (2) Section 102(c)(2) of the Job Creation and Worker 
     Assistance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147) is amended by 
     striking ``before January 1, 2003'' and inserting ``after 
     December 31, 1990''.
       (3)(A) Subclause (I) of section 56(d)(1)(A)(i) is amended 
     by striking ``attributable to carryovers''.
       (B) Subclause (I) of section 56(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``for taxable years'' and inserting ``from 
     taxable years'', and
       (ii) by striking ``carryforwards'' and inserting 
     ``carryovers''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to net operating 
     losses for taxable years ending after December 31, 2002.
       (2) Technical corrections.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (d) shall take effect as if included in the 
     amendments made by section 102 of the Job Creation and Worker 
     Assistance Act of 2002.
       (3) Election.--In the case of a net operating loss for a 
     taxable year ending during 2003--
       (A) any election made under section 172(b)(3) of such Code 
     may (notwithstanding such section) be revoked before April 
     15, 2004, and
       (B) any election made under section 172(j) of such Code 
     shall (notwithstanding such section) be treated as timely 
     made if made before April 15, 2004.
       (4) Special rule for taxpayers with taxable years ending 
     during january.--Any taxpayer which has a taxable year ending 
     during January may elect under this paragraph to apply 
     section 172(b)(1)(H) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 
     amended by this section) to its taxable year ending in 2004 
     rather than its taxable year ending in 2003. If such election 
     is made, then section 172(k) of such Code (as added by this 
     section) shall be applied to the taxpayer's taxable year 
     ending in 2004. Such election shall be made in such manner 
     and at such time as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury. Such election, once made, shall be irrevocable.
       (c) Prior Section To Have No Effect.--Notwithstanding 
     section 311(e) of this Act, such section, and the amendments 
     made by such section, shall not take effect.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am happy to join with my colleagues in 
offering an amendment to address the net operating loss NOL rules in 
the Internal Revenue Code. The NOL carryback and carryover rules are 
designed to allow taxpayers to ease swings in business income that 
result from business cycle fluctuations and unexpected financial 
losses.
  I am certain that every Senator on the floor will admit that the last 
few years have been difficult for many American companies. But we have 
finally turned the corner and are headed to economic recovery. 
Businesses are finally ready to reinvest in equipment and, more 
importantly, create new jobs. The NOL provisions increase the cash flow 
of many struggling American companies and help them to hire and retain 
workers and fund capital investments.
  Under current law, companies may carry back NOL for 2 years. In the 
Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, however, we here in 
Congress recognized the difficult circumstances that many American 
businesses have found themselves in during recent years and have 
granted them temporary relief by allowing NOL to be carried back for 5 
years, rather than 2. That 5-year carryback provision expired at the 
end of 2002.
  I believe that it makes sense to extend the relief we have granted in 
the past in the form of a 5-year NOL carryback for one additional year. 
While the economy started showing strong signs of economic recovery 
last year, there were still many taxpayers who incurred unexpected 
financial losses in 2003. Now is not the time to roll back important 
tax provisions that are among the very reasons we are now on the road 
to economic recovery. We need to give American companies every 
opportunity to expand and invest.
  I led the fight with my colleague, Senator Conrad, to extend the 5-
year carryback provision to 2003 when we passed the bill before us out 
of the Finance Committee with strong bipartisan support last fall. 
Senator Conrad and I were able to include in the Finance Committee-
approved bill a 3-year carryback for 2003. The amendment I offer with 
my colleagues today will expand upon what we achieved in committee by 
simply returning the NOL carryback rule for 2003 to the 5-year period 
rather than the 3-year period currently provided for in this 
legislation.
  This important amendment will give much needed relief to U.S. 
employers and provide an additional jump start to our economy.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a fundamental feature of any income tax 
system is the ability to use losses to reduce taxable gains. If a 
company has gross income of $100,000 and losses of $50,000, we don't 
force the company to pay tax on $100,000--they only pay tax on net 
income.
  But just as a company can have gross income and losses within the 
same year, a company can also have income in one year and losses in the 
next.
  Letting companies ``carry-back'' their losses to prior years smooths 
things out and helps companies deal with the hardships of the business 
cycle.
  And it is important to be able to carry losses back. Carrying losses 
forward doesn't give taxpayers a boost when they need it.
  Carrying losses forward only gives them a boost after things have 
already turned around.
  Many businesses have been in hard times for the last 3 or 4 years. 
Giving them a 1- or a 2-year NOL carryback doesn't help them--because 
they don't have any profits in the last few years.
  For many of these companies, the last year they were profitable was 
1999 or even earlier. These companies will be able to use a 5-year NOL 
carryback to help them turn things around.
  I urge you to support this amendment, to help get our economy going 
again.
  For example, the timber industry in Montana and many parts of the 
Northwest was profitable in the late 1990s. But many of these timber 
companies--both large and small--have fallen on hard times in the last 
few years. The terrorist attacks of 9/11, the economic downturn, and 
the wildfires of last summer have taken their toll on these timber 
companies.

[[Page 4701]]

  These companies paid large tax bills when things were going well. But 
how that they are struggling they can't get any of those taxes back.
  If they had a smoother, more consistent pattern of earnings, they 
would have paid less tax over the course of the last 5 years. Instead, 
the boom-bust cycle that has actually played out is giving them higher 
tax bills overall.
  This NOL provision will ensure that these timber companies--and many 
other companies in cyclical industries--pay an appropriate amount of 
tax over time. It will give them a boost in those unprofitable years 
when they need it most.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2882) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2686

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the underlying 
amendment, as amended.
  Without objection, the amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2686), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are laid upon the table.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 2881

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2881 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kerry, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2881.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify 
                  provisions relating to overtime pay)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTION OF OVERTIME PAY.

       Section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k)(1) The Secretary shall not promulgate any rule under 
     subsection (a)(1) that exempts from the overtime pay 
     provisions of section 7 any employee who would not be exempt 
     under regulations in effect on March 31, 2003.
       ``(2) Any portion of a rule promulgated under subsection 
     (a)(1) after March 31, 2003, that exempts from the overtime 
     pay provisions of section 7 any employee who would not 
     otherwise be exempt if the regulations in effect on March 31, 
     2003, remained in effect, shall have no force or effect.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa, the 
Senator from Montana, and also Senator Reid, our assistant leader on 
this side, for working out this agreement. As I have said all along, 
all we want is debate and a vote on the overtime issue.
  This is an important issue that has come to a head right now because 
the administration shortly will be issuing final regulations on this 
issue without really having duly consulted with Congress. These 
regulations could take away the right to overtime pay for over 8 
million American workers.
  So I hope we can have a good debate on this, probably tomorrow--not 
tonight but tomorrow. Certainly I have discussed this with the Senator 
from Montana. We would be willing to enter into a time agreement.
  I have heard some talk around that the other side, the Republican 
side, will now file a cloture motion. Obviously, if that cloture motion 
wins, then my amendment fails because it is ``nongermane.''
  Now, we just saw--and I did not object to the amendments just being 
adopted which have to do with some extenders. There were some other 
things added. Those are also nongermane to the bill. So the other side 
cannot make the argument that they are not going to allow nongermane 
amendments to this bill. We just adopted a whole bunch of nongermane 
amendments to this bill. So that is fine. We do that all the time 
around here.
  I hope we can have a good debate on this overtime issue and have an 
up-or-down vote. I can assure the other side that if their goal is to 
cut off this amendment by filing a cloture motion, we will do all we 
can on this side to deny cloture on this bill until we have a vote on 
the overtime amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and look forward to the 
debate tomorrow on overtime.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the remarks 
of the Senator from Nevada. He mentioned the possibility of a cloture 
motion. My colleague from Iowa also mentioned that possibility, and it 
could be a possibility. But I hope that will not poison the waters as 
we still try to reach agreement on this amendment and try to reach 
agreement on getting to finality on this bill.
  I, along with Senator Baucus, have urged that we not have a cloture 
motion. That, of course, is a leadership decision. I would urge my 
colleagues to think in terms of the fact that it takes 48 hours for 
that motion to mature so it can be voted upon. That will be time for us 
to see if we can work out agreements not only on the pending amendment 
but also on any other amendments that may be adopted, and then, if so, 
the cloture motion could be vitiated.
  I hope Members will look down the road at the goal of this 
legislation. That goal is to create jobs that are going to be very 
difficult to create if we are stuck with sanctions put on our 
manufacturing by the European Union. We already have 5-percent 
sanctions. It is going to go up 1 percent a month until it gets to 17 
percent. Between now and the election, that is going to add up to at 
least 12-percent sanctions.
  I hope both sides of the aisle will agree that it is already very 
difficult for U.S. manufacturing to compete in the global economy. A 
17-percent penalty after 1 year is just like a 17-percent sales tax. 
That is going to make our manufacturing exports much more 
uncompetitive. Since everybody is concerned about creating and 
preserving jobs, keeping American manufacturing strong, competitive, 
passage of this legislation is very important.
  We all have amendments we want to get adopted. We want the Senate to 
consider amendments, whether germane or nongermane. There is plenty of 
opportunity between now and adjournment of this Congress to consider 
these amendments. In the meantime, if we don't pass this legislation 
this week, we are going to have a 6-percent penalty in April, a 7-
percent penalty in May. I hope we can get this legislation passed very 
soon so we can get rid of all those sanctions against our products.
  In the meantime we have reduced the corporate tax for manufacturing 
in America by 3 percentage points, and that is going to make it 
possible for the cost of capital in America to be less expensive and 
make American manufacturing much more competitive and, in the process, 
preserve jobs and create jobs.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 2686, which was previously agreed to, be considered to have been 
agreed to without amendment; further, I ask unanimous consent amendment 
No. 2687, which was also previously agreed to, be considered as having 
been agreed to as a first-degree amendment, amended by amendment No. 
2882.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Motion To Recommit with Amendment No. 2886

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I now 
move to recommit the pending bill to the Committee on Finance with 
instructions to report back forthwith,

[[Page 4702]]

with the amendment that is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Frist, 
     moves to recommit the bill, S. 1637, to the Committee on 
     Finance with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
     amendment No. 2886, by Mr. McConnell, for Mr. Frist.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text Of 
Amendments.'')


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have sent the cloture motion on the 
motion to recommit to the desk. I ask the mandatory quorum under rule 
XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the cloture motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     motion to recommit to the Committee on Finance, Calendar No. 
     381, S. 1637.
         Bill Frist, Charles E. Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jim Bunning, 
           Lindsey O. Graham, Mike Enzi, Trent Lott, Mitch 
           McConnell, Craig Thomas, Orrin G. Hatch, Gordon Smith, 
           Rick Santorum, Robert F. Bennett, John Ensign, Olympia 
           J. Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Don Nickles.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the mandatory quorum call 
under rule XXII is waived.

                          ____________________