[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6585-6587]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  JOBS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to talk about the approach being 
taken by the other side of the aisle toward a lot of issues in the 
Senate but specifically two dealing with jobs; that is, this attitude 
of obstruction for the purpose of basically stopping legislation and 
not allowing this body to move forward and do the business of the 
people.
  There are two bills pending in this body. One is the JOBS bill, which 
deals with correcting the tax structure of the United States so we are 
no longer out of compliance with a ruling made by the WTO, which 
ruling, if it is allowed to stand, will have the practical effect of 
raising duties on American products sold overseas rather significantly. 
In fact, they could raise as high as 18 percent, as I understand it.
  The effect of those duties, of course, which have now been ruled 
legal under this international tribunal that we subscribe to as a 
member state, will be that those American goods are not as competitive 
as they should be, and therefore those American goods will not be able 
to be effectively sold into those markets overseas. The practical 
effect of that will be that jobs will be lost here in the U.S.
  The other side of the aisle continues to filibuster that bill. The 
effect of the filibuster will be that these duties will go into place 
and jobs will be lost. This bill which is called the JOBS bill is just 
that, a jobs bill. Yet we hear from the other side of the aisle what 
appears to be and must be crocodile tears on the issue of creating more 
jobs, because they have the opportunity to pass a piece of legislation 
that will clearly impact the creation and maintenance of jobs in the 
United States, and they are obstructing it and filibustering it.
  We hear from the other side a great deal about outsourcing, American 
jobs being moved overseas. The practical effect of objecting to this 
bill, obstructing this bill and of filibustering this bill, is that 
those jobs will probably move overseas because those manufacturers, in 
order to avoid the duty, are going to have to move overseas in order to 
be competitive with the products in those nations where they are 
selling them. So the effect of the filibuster and obstruction we are 
seeing on the other side on the issue of the JOBS bill is to basically 
energize the loss of jobs in the U.S. and the outsourcing of jobs 
overseas.
  Therefore, when we hear all this discussion and concern about the 
creation of jobs in this country today from the other side of the aisle 
in the context of the Presidential election, one wonders how serious 
they are, because clearly if they are serious they would pass this bill 
which, by the way, is supported by a majority of the Senate. The 
objection to this bill is not the underlying law. It is not the 
correction to the tax law which will allow these jobs to be retained in 
the United States. It is, rather, they wish to bring forward extraneous 
legislation and put it on this

[[Page 6586]]

bill, legislation which we voted on a couple of times before in 
committee and which we voted on at least once on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Therefore, it is a tangential idea and a desire to make a political 
point, and their willingness to pursue that tangential idea and desire 
at the expense of these jobs, I find, is cynical and clearly 
inappropriate. That is the first bill being stopped.
  The second bill is a bill I managed and which just came out of 
conference, and it is the pension reform bill. It did not have 
everything in it that I wanted. It did not have everything in it the 
House wanted. But it has key pieces of legislation in it which will 
have a direct impact on jobs. I called this pensions bill the ultimate 
jobs bill because, quite honestly, that is exactly what it is.
  If this pensions bill is not passed and passed promptly, the 
practical effect is there will be a misallocation of up to $80 billion 
of resources within the investment community and in the small and large 
business communities of this country. What has happened today is that 
companies fund what is known as a defined benefits plan under rules 
which they say, in order to determine how much they are going to pay to 
the plan each year, they have to look at the rate of return on the 30-
year Treasury bond.
  The 30-year Treasury bond is a vehicle which does not exist anymore. 
We do not sell it, basically, as a country. Therefore, the price of a 
30-year Treasury bond has been moved to an artificially low number, and 
the practical effect of that is that companies, businesses, and unions 
which must see their pension funds funded for these defined benefits 
plans are going to see those payments to those defined benefits plans 
increased at an arbitrary rate based on a nonexistent bond vehicle, the 
30-year bond. It is technical, but it is an important point.
  This pensions bill corrects that situation. It sets up a new 
structure for defining how much must be contributed to a defined 
benefits plan for a period of 2 years based on a bond rate which does 
actually exist, which is a market basket of corporate bonds. The 
practical effect of that will be an appropriate allocation of money 
into these defined benefits plans, leaving dollars available to invest 
in new plant, new equipment, and expansion of business in the United 
States, which leads directly to jobs.
  Thus, if this pensions bill is not enacted in the next week, we will 
have these arbitrary reallocations of funds occurring by April 15. This 
pensions bill will have a direct and proximate effect on the ability of 
business in the United States to be competitive, to create investment, 
and, in return, to create jobs.
  Yet, once again, we were told by the leadership on the other side of 
the aisle--at least the leadership in the committees, Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Baucus--that they oppose this bill and they are going to 
use all their means available to them to stop it.
  They can stop this bill. There is no question about it. They can stop 
it for at least 2 or 3 weeks, and the practical effect of that will be 
that we will go beyond the April 15 funding date, and this rather 
horrific misallocation of resources will kick in, the practical effect 
of which will be instead of investing to create jobs, they will be 
investing arbitrarily in these defined benefits funds at a rate which 
is not reflective of what the actual return rate on those funds would 
be if they had an appropriate market basket of corporate bonds on which 
they were basing their yield rates.
  Yes, they can hold this bill up. And, yes, I guess they intend to 
hold this bill up. What is the effect of that? It is going to cost 
Americans jobs. It is going to mean jobs will not be created. It is 
going to mean investment will not be made. It will mean dollars will be 
arbitrarily allocated rather than flowing where they can most 
effectively be used through investment in new plant and equipment and 
the resulting jobs that occur from that.
  So, once again, we see from the other side of the aisle an attitude 
that says: We are going to obstruct you; we are going to stop business 
in the Senate. We don't care that in the process of doing that we are 
going to create an atmosphere where jobs are lost, as in the case of 
the JOBS bill where the duties are increased against American 
manufacturers and maybe as a result jobs have to be outsourced. In any 
event, we will certainly have our products being less competitive, 
which means probably fewer jobs will be created in those businesses and 
maybe jobs will be lost in those businesses in the area of the pensions 
bill. They do not care. They are going to obstruct, and they are going 
to stop this bill because they are tweaked about the issue of how far 
it went and, as a result, what is going to be the impact. Jobs will be 
lost because the dollars for investing in plant and equipment will not 
be available. It is a rather cynical strategy from the other side of 
the aisle. First, they go out to the public in the Presidential 
campaign and say: Why don't we have more jobs? Then, on the floor of 
the Senate, they are aggressively pursuing strategies which stop us 
from creating more jobs. It is a lot like the kids who killed their 
parents and then go to the court and claim they should receive special 
treatment because they are orphans.
  These folks on the other side of the aisle are shooting the programs 
which would create jobs, and then they are going out in the 
Presidential politics arena and saying: Why aren't we creating more 
jobs?
  The cynicism of it is rather extreme. From my standpoint, I certainly 
hope they are not going to continue this practice because, in the end, 
it means people in America will not have jobs and will have fewer 
opportunities to work. For me, that is not right.
  I hope we can pass this pensions bill this week, and I hope we can 
pass this JOBS bill this week, but it certainly doesn't look like that 
is going to occur.
  I yield back the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. The 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to comments 
of some of my colleagues, especially on this issue of obstructionism as 
it relates to jobs. It is true there is a JOBS bill, as it is called, 
on the floor of the Senate that has been delayed. This JOBS bill is a 
bill that gives tax breaks to U.S. manufacturers, and it has, in fact, 
been delayed. Let me explain why it has been delayed and why the 
obstructionism on the part of the majority party in Congress exists.
  When that bill came to the floor of the Senate, someone on this side 
of the aisle offered a very important amendment. It also had to do with 
jobs, so it had to do with the subject of the bill. Because the 
majority party did not want to vote on the amendment, they took all 
their marbles, walked off the floor, and went home and accused our side 
of being obstructionist. Let me describe the circumstances.
  Senator Harkin offered an amendment on overtime pay. Why did he do 
that? Because the Department of Labor is about to produce new 
regulations that, for the first time in 60 years, will obliterate the 
40-hour workweek and tell workers, Oh, by the way, if your employer 
decides to work you more than 40 hours, anywhere from 6 to 8 million 
Americans who now receive overtime will not be able to receive overtime 
pay. The employer will be able to say: You work overtime, you work 50 
hours; if you don't like it, tough luck, and I am not going to pay you 
overtime. For the first time in 60 years, the 40-hour workweek will be 
gone for about 6 to 8 million people.
  These new rules are touted as worker-friendly rules, but, of course, 
we know that is not the case at all because there are consulting 
companies--and the Department of Labor itself--putting out information 
to businesses to say: Here is the way you structure your company to 
avoid paying your workers overtime under these new rules.
  Senator Harkin offered an amendment on this important JOBS bill. Why 
is it germane to this JOBS bill? Because if employers are able to say 
to workers, You work overtime for no extra pay, instead of creating new 
jobs which ought to be created, they will

[[Page 6587]]

say to existing workers: You work overtime; we are not going to pay you 
extra.
  This new rule from the Department of Labor is an approach that will 
diminish jobs, that will retard the creation of new jobs. Yet, when 
Senator Harkin offered that amendment, the majority party had some kind 
of an apoplectic seizure.
  According to the majority party, Senator Harkin is apparently 
obstructing things because he offers an amendment dealing directly with 
jobs. No, it is not Senator Harkin who is obstructing. What is 
obstructing the business of this Chamber is the majority party. Senator 
Harkin offered an amendment that deals directly with jobs and they 
refused to have a vote on it, and they are going to take their marbles 
and just go home. They are going to go home and accuse someone else of 
obstructing.
  The obstruction in this Chamber is by the majority party that refuses 
to allow votes on issues that are important and that are relevant to 
the matters at hand. That is the obstruction. It is a curious strategy 
to know the majority party would obstruct its own agenda, but obstruct 
they do. Then they rush out to the microphones to accuse others of 
obstructing.
  There is a very simple way to remove all of these issues. We do not 
have to have any obstruction by anybody. Bring the bills to the floor 
and let us try to deal with them in a thoughtful way. When someone 
offers an amendment, like Senator Harkin, give us an opportunity to 
have a vote on it. Let's move ahead. That is not the case these days. 
It is just a little bizarre to hear these charges of obstructionism.
  I would also say to those who came to the floor this morning to say 
what they really want to see is a positive campaign for the Presidency, 
I say amen to that. But there is a large, well-oiled attack machine in 
this town. In fact, I watched the television commercials last evening 
by the administration, which represent Senator Kerry's position on 
taxation. It is a wholly negative television commercial.
  I agree with my colleague who said, let's be positive. How about 
maybe we see the other side, maybe see the White House take some of 
those commercials off the air and then let us talk about being 
positive.

                          ____________________