[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6577-6578]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take a little bit of time this 
afternoon to talk about the economy. We are all encouraged by the 
essentially positive job growth reported for the month of March. 
However, the same report noted that the overall rate of unemployment 
increased in March. Strange. There are major questions surrounding the 
quality of the jobs that were added. For instance, there was no 
increase whatsoever in manufacturing jobs. Indeed, for 43 consecutive 
months we have either lost manufacturing jobs or have seen zero job 
growth.
  The good news on jobs appears to be largely concentrated in the 
services sector--jobs that generally don't pay well and many with no 
benefits. Meanwhile, long-term job losses have consequences.
  On the 1st of April, 1.1 million jobless Americans lost their 
unemployment benefits. They expired because the President and the 
Republicans in Congress are adamantly refusing any extension of 
unemployment benefits. In no other comparable period on record have 
there been so many unemployed people who have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits literally overnight.
  Think about it. Despite the scarcity of jobs, despite the fact the 
United States is currently in the longest period of secular job decline 
in our history, despite the fact that nearly 3 million private sector 
jobs have been lost in the last 3 years, despite the fact that more 
than 9 million Americans cannot find work, despite the fact that 
hundreds of thousands of discouraged workers have dropped out of the 
labor market, despite all of these harsh realities, the President and 
his allies have slammed the door on any extension of unemployment 
benefits. I guess we can say: So much for compassionate conservatism.
  In my State of Iowa, more than 8,000 people lost their unemployment 
benefits in the first 3 months of this year. Nearly 9,000 more Iowans 
will lose their benefits in the next 3 months if Congress doesn't act. 
This is a cruel, unnecessary blow to these unfortunate people. It is a 
blow to Iowa's economy, because extending unemployment benefits would 
have provided more than $100 million in economic stimulus in my State 
alone.
  When it comes to economic stimulus, this administration is all for 
economic stimulus when it involves tax breaks for people making more 
than $200,000 a year, but it is adamantly opposed to economic stimulus 
when it involves people who have lost their jobs and have lost their 
unemployment benefits, or when it involves directly creating jobs.
  What I mean by that is, the President now is threatening to veto the 
highway bill and, for my State alone, the more modest House highway 
bill would cost 12,000 jobs compared to what we passed in the Senate. 
The President is threatening even to veto that bill.
  We are not talking just about statistics; we are talking about real 
people here, people who are hurting. One of those is Larry O'Brien of 
Cedar Falls, IA. He is 60 years old. He lost his job as a machinist 
when the Doerfer Engineering plant closed in October. He says he is not 
optimistic about his future when his unemployment runs out in 2 weeks. 
He already says he is not optimistic at all about getting a job. He has 
begun taking high blood pressure and stomach medicine every other day 
instead of daily. When the medicine is gone, he is afraid he won't be 
able to get any more. He is worried he will have to take a low-paying 
job with no benefits just to make ends meet--at age 60.
  Larry O'Brien and millions like him are hurting. They are in real 
distress. Their plight is being ignored in Washington. It is being 
ignored by the very people whose economic policies are largely 
responsible for their plight.
  Let's be clear. Despite the uptick in jobs reported last Friday, 
America has been stuck in a jobless recovery for several years now. It 
is not an accident. Since the Bush administration took office, nearly 3 
million private sector jobs have been lost, including nearly 1 in every 
6 in manufacturing.
  This administration presided over the largest job loss of any 
administration since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Yet Mr. Bush 
and his Republican allies in Congress remain stubbornly committed to 
policies that are making this problem worse. They continue to pursue a 
whole range of policies that are retarding job creation, driving down 
wages, and threatening the economic security of the American people.
  In January, the White House issued its annual economic report--signed 
by the President--explaining why we should be celebrating the 
``offshoring'' of U.S. jobs. The President's top economic adviser 
assured us of the outsourcing of high-end white-collar jobs to Asia is 
``a plus for the economy in the long run.''
  The President's report praises the virtue of a level playing field 
for goods and services, arguing that ``when a good or service is 
produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to 
make or provide it domestically.'' But do we really want American 
workers competing on a ``level playing field,'' head to head with 
factory workers in China making 20 cents an hour or software engineers 
in India making $10,000 a year? Would this not precipitate a race to 
the bottom with nations competing to slash salaries and benefits in 
order to ``win jobs''?
  We are a free market economy. Corporations have the right to move 
jobs overseas. However, it is wrong for the White House to be a 
cheerleader for this unfortunate trend, and it is wrong for our Tax 
Code to reward companies that outsource jobs. That is why Senator 
Wyden, Senator Durbin, and I are sponsoring an amendment to eliminate 
these tax subsidies.
  Our amendment, which would go on the so-called FSC bill, would 
eliminate the ability of companies to deduct, depreciate, or amortize 
costs involved in shifting jobs overseas. This would include such costs 
as training of replacement workers, transporting property overseas, the 
sale of property in the United States that is closed, administrative 
costs, and acquiring facilities overseas.
  Our amendment would also eliminate the ability of companies to not 
pay taxes on the profits from outsourced activity by keeping those 
funds overseas that were generated by outsourced workers.
  As I said, the Harkin-Wyden-Durbin amendment would not prohibit 
companies from outsourcing jobs--I do not think constitutionally we 
could do that--but it would stop encouraging and rewarding them under 
the Tax Code. This is the least we owe to America's workers.
  Outsourcing is not the only thing hurting job creation and 
suppressing wages. The Department of Labor is forging ahead with its 
radical rewrite of the rules governing who is eligible for time-and-a-
half overtime pay. Up to 8 million American workers could be stripped 
of their right to overtime pay. American workers fear, rightfully so, 
that under these new rules they would be obliged to work 45, 50, 55, 60 
hours a week with zero additional compensation.
  Moreover, these proposed new overtime rules are all but guaranteed to 
hurt job creation. It is just basic logic. If employers can more easily 
deny overtime pay, they will push current employees to work longer 
hours without compensation. With 9 million

[[Page 6578]]

Americans currently out of work, why give employers yet another 
disincentive to hire new workers?
  So let me review. This administration sees the outsourcing of jobs as 
a plus. It is determined to eliminate the right to overtime pay for 
millions of American workers. It refuses to extend unemployment 
benefits for the long-term unemployed. There is one more thing. We saw 
last week on the Senate floor that the President and his allies remain 
adamantly opposed to any increase in the minimum wage which has been 
frozen at $5.15 for years. This is not a living wage. It is a poverty 
wage.
  A minimum wage employee working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, 
earns $10,700 a year. That is $5,000 below the poverty line for a 
family of three.
  It has been 7 years since we last voted to raise the minimum wage. We 
have raised our salaries three or four times since then. So it is time 
we raised it to a minimum of $7 an hour. Yet, once again, my friends on 
the other side of the aisle are refusing to allow a vote on a key issue 
related to jobs. We debated the Boxer amendment to the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families bill, regarding minimum wage, but as with 
my overtime amendment and as with the amendment to extend unemployment 
benefits, we were denied the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote.
  In fact, the Republicans on the other side would rather sacrifice the 
underlying bills, the FSC and TANF bills, rather than allow a vote on 
these issues so crucial to working Americans.
  It seems the administration has one approach: tax cuts, mainly for 
those who are wealthy. But something is missing. Most working Americans 
are not participating in this so-called recovery. The rich are getting 
richer. Tax cuts are working for the privileged few, but more and more 
Americans live in fear of losing their jobs, their health benefits, and 
their retirement benefits.
  The truth is, we cannot build a sustainable recovery by exporting 
jobs, driving down wages, and making Americans work longer hours 
without compensation. Moreover, such a recovery is not desirable. A 
true recovery must include all Americans, and it can only be built on a 
foundation of good jobs with good wages in America, not overseas. It 
must be built on a minimum wage that is a living wage, not a poverty 
wage. It must be built on a foundation that preserves our time-honored 
right: time and a half pay for overtime over 40 hours a week.
  So it is time for the Senate to get to work on the people's business. 
As my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say, the majority 
leader determines what bills will come before the Senate, but according 
to the rules of the Senate and according to our longstanding tradition, 
it is Senators who decide what amendments are to be proposed to those 
bills. It is Senators, in open, free, and fair votes, who decide how 
those bills are shaped on the Senate floor.
  All I can say is, Senators on this side of the aisle have proposed 
amendments in good faith that we believe are necessary for job creation 
and economic growth in America. On all three--the minimum wage, 
extending unemployment benefits, and the overtime issue--the Republican 
leadership on that side refuses to allow a straight up-or-down vote. 
This is not just unfair to us on this side, this is unfair to America.
  My friends on the other side seem desperate to change the subject. 
Instead of talking about jobs, they want to talk about guns, abortion, 
or gay marriage, whatever social wedge issue seems handy at the time. 
In fact, they are so eager to change the subject, they are so eager to 
prevent votes on overtime, minimum wage, and extending unemployment 
benefits, that it seems they are willing to sacrifice or at least 
substantially delay the underlying bills.
  We need to get to work in the Senate. Our economy remains fragile and 
hesitant. We have millions of Larry O'Briens in this country who are 
desperate, who need help, who want to go back to work. We need to 
address outsourcing. We need to boost the minimum wage. We need to 
extend unemployment benefits and we need to assure working Americans 
that they are not going to lose their right to time-and-a-half overtime 
pay.
  Strong, timely acts on these issues will give a much needed boost to 
the economy, and it will ensure that Friday's generally positive 
economic report was not just another one-time fluke.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________