[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8135-8160]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1637, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 8136]]

       A bill (S. 1637) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to comply with 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad we are back on the jobs and 
manufacturing act. This will be the third time we have attempted to 
move this bill. President Reagan had a very famous quip: Here we go 
again.
  Here we go again, hopefully to conclusion of this very important 
piece of legislation.
  I hope things are going to be different. This time the European Union 
sanctions are very firmly in place. There should not be any doubt in 
the mind of any Member where Europe is headed. In the process of the 
European tax on our exports to that continent, they are freezing out of 
their markets U.S. companies.
  This time there is an agreement on the political message amendments 
that will be addressed on this bill even though those amendments have 
nothing to do with the measures contained in the bill. This time we 
will finally reveal with absolute clarity whether some on the other 
side of the aisle are ready to drop the political posturing and pass 
this bipartisan bill to remove European Union sanctions against our 
farmers and manufacturing workers.
  In Sunday's Washington Post was an article saying that Senate 
partisanship was the worst in memory. It spoke about the long list of 
legislation stalled in the Senate, stalled in the Senate because of 
political posturing. The article mentioned the bill that is before us 
today, this jobs and manufacturing bill. The paper said:

       Foreign tariffs have been imposed on many American products 
     while the Senate dawdled over [today's bill]--to substitute 
     corporate tax cuts for subsidies that have been outlawed by 
     the World Trade Organization.

  Dawdled? That is no compliment, obviously. It is, unfortunately, an 
accurate description of what opponents to passing the JOBS bill have 
achieved during the last 2 or 3 months. It is an accusation that all of 
us will hear back home if we continue to allow the European Union to 
sanction our agriculture, timber, and manufacturing exports.
  I will have more to say about sanctions later, but I want to remind 
people who might say, Why do you have to worry about the European 
Union? They don't have any business doing that; we ought to be able to 
export our products to Europe; that America has also imposed some 
retribution against European products coming to this country because 
Europe decided not to abide by the agreement on beef hormones. They 
don't let our meat in. We won the case before the WTO, so we put duties 
on their products coming here.
  We lose a case before the World Trade Organization--and, by the way, 
we win more than we lose by a long sight. But regardless, Europe is 
doing what they can legally do under our international trade 
agreements. We all understand these international trade agreements have 
moved us in the right direction, the direction of lowering barriers to 
our products in other countries so we can export because we are an 
exporting nation and because exports create jobs and because those jobs 
pay 15 percent above the national average of jobs. It creates jobs and 
it creates good jobs.
  You don't have to dispute the 50-year history of the advantage of 
international trade agreements to the United States when other 
countries have higher barriers to trade than we do, and we bring those 
barriers down. We have a process for settling our differences. That is 
called the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process. This 
bill is before the U.S. Senate because we are changing our laws to be 
within our international trade agreements, agreements this Senate has 
already adopted. We have already voted on these international trade 
agreements, so now we have to live up to them in the same way we expect 
Europe to live up to those agreements when we win a dispute with 
Europe. That is why we are here. Only this legislation is going to go a 
lot further than just to make our laws comply with European laws; we 
are also going to do other things to our tax laws to encourage 
manufacturing in America, to create more jobs in America.
  This legislation has been held up, as the Washington Post said, while 
the Senate dawdled. That was over partisan politics. There is no excuse 
for allowing partisan politics to hold this bill up because this bill 
was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee with only two 
dissenting votes, and those two dissenting votes were not Democrat 
votes, those were Republican votes. The two Republicans who voted 
against it have a different philosophy on what we should do with this 
bill, and they are going to be offering an amendment. But I don't think 
they are trying to kill this bill, even if they disagree with it. They 
are not standing in the way of passing the JOBS bill just because they 
don't like exactly what it says.
  That is the difference here. Senators do, in fact, have a right to 
their own opinions on this bill and are free to file amendments to 
change it. That is exactly what they ought to be doing if they are 
representing the people of their State. But that is a far cry from 
trying to delay this measure just to score points on completely 
unrelated political issues that come before us in the form of 
nongermane amendments.
  This is a bipartisan bill that reflects everyone's concerns, both 
Republicans and Democrats. This is a bill that is going to pass 90 to 
10 when we get to finality. But you don't play political games with a 
bipartisan bill that affects jobs of manufacturing workers all across 
this vast land.
  I think it is worth looking at the history of this bill. The jobs in 
manufacturing act is a bipartisan bill from the ground up. The 
framework was laid by my colleague and friend, Senator Baucus, when he 
was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in the last Congress. It 
began with a hearing in July 2002 to address the controversy within the 
World Trade Organization and our tax laws. We heard from a cross 
section of industry that would be damaged by the repeal of the 
Extraterritorial Income Act. We also heard from U.S. companies that 
were clamoring for international tax reform because our tax rules were 
hurting competitiveness in foreign trade. Their foreign competitors 
were running circles around them because of our arcane and probably 
outmoded international tax rules.
  During this hearing we had, for instance, Senator Bob Graham of 
Florida and Senator Hatch of Utah express concerns about how our own 
international tax laws were impairing the competitiveness of the U.S. 
companies. That is almost 2 years ago.
  After some discussion on forming a blue ribbon commission to study 
this issue, we all decided that decisive action was more important than 
a commission. During that hearing, Chairman Baucus formed an 
international tax working group that was joined by Senators Graham, 
Hatch, and me, and was opened to any other Finance Committee Senator 
who was interested in participating. The bipartisan Finance Committee 
working group developed a framework that forms a basis for the bill 
that has been before this Senate now, off and on, over the last 3 
months. We directed our staff 2 years ago to engage in an exhaustive 
analysis of many international reform proposals that have been offered. 
We sought to glean the very best ideas from as many sources as 
possible.
  Chairman Baucus and I formed a bipartisan bicameral working group 
with the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee in 
an effort to find some common ground in dealing with the repeal of the 
Foreign Sales Corporation Extraterritorial Income Act that was ruled 
contrary to our international trade agreements. While that effort with 
Ways and Means did not go so well, it did inspire Chairman Baucus and 
me to continue our Senate bipartisan development of the repeal of this 
legislation and also to bring about international tax reform.
  We continued our efforts in cooperation with Senator Hatch, Senator 
Bob Graham, and others on the Finance

[[Page 8137]]

Committee who wanted to do what was fair and what was right in 
complying with the World Trade Organization ruling.
  We continued our bipartisan efforts when I became chairman again 
after the 2002 election.
  In July 2003, we held two hearings on the FSC/ETI and international 
reform issue. One hearing focused on the effects of our tax policy on 
business competition within the United States, and the other hearing 
focused on international business competition. These two hearings led 
to this bipartisan bill that has been before the Senate for the last 3 
months.
  Let me again emphasize that there is not one provision in this JOBS 
bill that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats--not one. 
We have acted in good faith to produce a bill that protects American 
manufacturing jobs and also ensures our companies remain the global 
competitors we ought to want to be, are, and we ought to continue to 
be. We did this in a fully bipartisan manner, which is what the 
American people expect us to do on such an important issue as 
manufacturing jobs and our Nation's economic health.
  The core part of this bill repeals the current FSC/ETI provisions 
that are now in our tax law. FSC/ETI reduces the income tax on goods 
manufactured in the United States and exported overseas by as much as 3 
to 8 rate points. That is, if the corporation tax rate is 35 percent, 
the tax rate on export income is going to be somewhere between 27 to 32 
instead of the 35 percent it is right now. It lowered the U.S. 
corporate rate on goods made in the United States and sold overseas.
  The World Trade Organization has determined that FSC/ETI is an 
impermissible export subsidy and has authorized the European Union to 
impose a $4 billion a year tax against U.S. exports until we get rid of 
the FSC/ETI legislation that has been on the books for about 3 decades.
  We have sanctions put on us by Europe. They began on March 1 with 5 
percent right off the bat, increasing 1 percent a month. You have 
March, 1 percent; April, 1 more percent; and May, 1 more percent. This 
is a 7-percent Euro tax on American exports. It is a very serious 
threat for all members because sanctions are hitting commodity 
products, agricultural goods, timber, and paper.
  Presently, about 89 percent of Foreign Sales Corporation export 
benefits go to the manufacturing sector. Repealing this legislation 
raises around $55 billion over 10 years. If that money is not sent back 
to the manufacturing sector, that means an additional $55 billion cost 
to manufacturing. It is mathematically impossible for it to be anything 
else.
  That is why our bipartisan jobs in manufacturing bill takes all $55 
billion of the FSC/ETI repeal money and sends it back to the 
manufacturing sector in the form of a 3-point tax rate cut on 
manufacturing income. This rate cut is for manufacturing in the United 
States, it is not for manufacturing offshore. We start phasing in those 
cuts this year if the Senate passes this jobs in manufacturing bill 
this year. The cuts apply to sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, 
individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, and foreign 
companies that set up manufacturing plants in this country. In total, 
this bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our U.S.-based 
manufacturing sector to promote factory hiring here in the United 
States.
  We also include in this legislation international tax reforms, mostly 
in the foreign tax credit area and most of which benefit the 
manufacturing sector. The international tax reforms largely fix 
problems which our domestic companies face because of the complexity 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.
  You will hear arguments this week that the international tax reforms 
provide an incentive to move jobs offshore. I am going to show you 
later how adamantly I disagree with that argument. We have carefully 
selected on a bipartisan basis the international reforms that do not 
provide offshore incentives.
  Our bill also includes a Homeland Reinvestment Act which will 
temporarily reduce tax on foreign earnings that are brought into the 
United States for investment here at home instead of leaving that money 
overseas to create jobs overseas. This provision is sponsored by 
Senator Ensign, Senator Boxer, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Smith 
from Oregon. It has broad support in the House and Senate.
  The JOBS bill will extend the R&D tax credit through the end of 2005. 
This is a domestic tax benefit that generates research and development 
here in the United States. That translates into good, high-paying jobs 
for workers here in America and not jobs overseas.
  The legislation before us extends for 2 years many tax provisions 
that expired in December of last year or, if they didn't expire then, 
will expire during this calendar year. These items include the work 
opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. The JOBS 
bill will make the merger of those credits permanent.
  We include a provision that allows Naval shipbuilders to use a method 
of accounting which results in more favorable income tax treatment.
  There are enhanced depreciation provisions to help the airline 
industry.
  There are new homestead provisions. These are rural development 
provisions to create businesses in counties that are losing population. 
For example, they would provide incentives for starting or expanding a 
rural business in a rural high-outmigration county, something that 
would benefit States such as mine in the Midwest where rural counties 
are losing population--not even maintaining but losing.
  The jobs in manufacturing underlying bill also includes the new 
markets tax credit for high-outmigration counties. These credits help 
economic development in rural counties that lost over 10 percent of 
their population.
  The bill includes brownfields revitalization provisions which help 
tax-exempt investors that invest in cleanup and remediation of 
qualified brownfield sites.
  The bill includes a mortgage revenue bonds measure which repeals the 
current rule that doesn't allow mortgage revenue bond payments to be 
used for issuing new mortgages. There are 70 Senate cosponsors of this 
mortgage revenue bond bill. It is included because it has broad support 
in the U.S. Senate.
  We allow deductions for private mortgage insurance.
  The JOBS bill includes a tax credit to employers for wages paid to 
reservists if they are called to active duty.
  We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone Bonds used in the 
rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. We also include $200 million in tax 
credits to be used for rail infrastructure projects in the New York 
Liberty Zone.
  The bill contains renewal communities provisions. We increase small 
business industrial development bond levels to spur economic 
development in rural areas. We have bonds for rebuilding school 
infrastructure. We have included tribal bonds in the JOBS bill which 
allow the same rules that apply to tax-exempt bonds for State and local 
Governments to also apply to our constitutional relationship with 
Native American tribes so they are treated like States and other 
political subdivisions.
  We have tribal school bonds. Under current law there is no class of 
bonds designated for the purpose of encouraging school construction on 
Indian reservations as we have for our States and local communities.
  There is a new tribal markets tax credit which would add $50 million 
a year for economic development on reservation lands.
  We have included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act.
  The JOBS bill contains a change in section 815. The provision 
suspends application of the rules imposing income tax on certain 
distribution to shareholders from the policyholders' surplus account of 
a life insurance company.
  We have a special dividend allocation rule that benefits farm co-ops. 
Other farm provisions give cattlemen tax-free

[[Page 8138]]

treatment if they replace livestock because of drought, flood, or other 
weather-related conditions over which that farmer has no control.
  We include a provision that allows payments under the National Health 
Service Corporation Loan Repayment Program to be exempt from tax to 
help get health care providers into rural America.
  We included the passenger rail infrastructure tax credits that 
provide $500 million for inner-city passenger rail capital projects. We 
also included so-called short-line railroads.
  We have many other improvements in this bill. One I bring up deals 
with the stalled Energy bill before the Senate. We have included in 
this bill, because gasoline is so high, because this country needs a 
national energy policy and because the Finance Committee Senator Baucus 
and I lead has so much to do with tax credits for incentives for the 
production of fossil fuel, conservation and for alternative sources of 
energy--those all need to be done now that we have gas over $2 a 
gallon. We need a national energy policy.
  We are taking advantage of this legislation being in the Senate, 
working with Senator Domenici to include provisions in the Energy bill 
that have previously been approved by the Finance Committee, but which 
did not go to the President because of the filibuster in this body 
against that overall Energy bill. It is essentially the exact bill 
originally cosponsored at the beginning of this Congress by this 
Senator and Senators Baucus, Domenici, and Bingaman. It is the first 
time the chairman and ranking member of both committees of 
jurisdiction, Finance and Energy, have crafted a bipartisan bill that 
would serve as a national energy policy that represents the business of 
the American people and the sort of cooperation by which things get 
done around here. Too bad it is not done more often.
  The energy provisions are balanced in all segments of our energy 
needs, and we have expanded all provisions for renewable electricity to 
include wind and biomass, to promote conservation of energy and 
alternative cars and fuels. It does not abandon our tried-and-true 
energy performers like traditional oil and gas production and the 
newer, cleaner coal provisions for electricity.
  The best aspect of the entire package is the energy part of this jobs 
and manufacturing bill creates jobs all by itself.
  The volumetric ethanol excise tax credit provisions, known as the 
VEETC, in this package would add up to $14.2 billion in revenue to the 
highway trust fund over the 6-year life of the transportation bill 
pending before the Congress. This provision alone creates as many as 
674,000 new jobs across our country.
  The energy tax package also includes a new incentive for the 
production of renewable biodiesel. This provision means jobs in the 
heartland. Renewable fuels have directly generated over 150,000 new 
jobs. In fact, in this year alone, this industry will add 22,000 new 
jobs.
  Another provision creates a tax incentive for the production of super 
energy-efficient appliances which is critical to the 95,000 employees 
in the U.S. home appliance industry.
  The bill also includes a provision to accelerate the production of 
natural gas from Alaska and the construction of a pipeline for natural 
gas from Alaska to the lower 48. According to the Department of Labor, 
Bureau of Economic Analysis, construction of the Alaska natural gas 
pipeline would create nearly 400,000 jobs in construction, trucking, 
manufacturing, and other service sectors.
  The jobs and manufacturing bill provides all this tax relief, nearly 
$170 billion worth, and remains revenue neutral, meaning there is no 
net cost to the Federal Treasury. That cannot be, one would think--$170 
billion of tax changes; and we have not affected the income coming into 
the Federal Treasury by one dime. That is pretty significant for people 
worried about the budget deficit. People ask: We have a budget deficit; 
how can you reduce the corporation tax and create jobs? How can you 
give all these tax incentives to bring about alternative energy and 
conservation and have a national energy policy, without costing a lot 
of money?
  There are a lot of unfair things in the Tax Code and we take care of 
those unfair things. Basically, there are some corporations playing 
games with the Tax Code to avoid taxation. We are going to plug those 
loopholes.
  This bill is paid in full by extending custom user fees, shutting 
down abusive tax shelters, and attacking the abusive tax strategies 
used by companies such as Enron--strategies we unearthed during our 
Finance Committee Enron investigation last October. The Finance 
Committee held hearings on the status of abusive tax shelter activity. 
During that hearing, we received anonymous testimony from a leasing 
industry executive describing how U.S. corporations are able to take 
tax deductions for the Paris sewer lines and the New York subway 
system. Did you hear me right? American corporations are taking tax 
deductions for Paris sewer lines and the New York subway system. They 
are claiming tax deductions on taxpayer-funded infrastructure located 
not only in the United States but overseas.
  One can imagine the surprise of the members of the Senate Finance 
Committee upon learning the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing the cost of 
electric transmission lines in the Australian Outback.
  This jobs in manufacturing bill is revenue neutral because we end 
this abuse of the Tax Code. It was shortly after the attack on 
September 11, 2001 we saw the beginning exodus of U.S. companies moving 
their corporate headquarters to tax havens for the sole purpose of 
evading U.S. taxes. It was the events of September 11 and the ensuing 
stock market plunge that provided companies with a cost-efficient way 
to get out of the United States, to cheat on their taxes.
  You may recall the videotape of a Big Four accounting firm partner 
saying U.S. companies were resistant to this scheme out of a post-9/11 
sense of patriotism and national duty. But that employee said 
patriotism would have to take a backseat when they see their improved 
earnings per share.
  Now here you have 3,000 Americans killed on September 11 when the 
terrorists attacked our country. Then you have these big accounting 
firms marketing these tax shelters--that maybe would raise some 
question about the new patriotic fervor in this country because we have 
been attacked--telling people: You are going to forget all about that 
when you see your new earnings report. Corporations like that ought to 
get their heart into America or get their rear end out because what 
this country is all about is pulling together, particularly now in time 
of war.
  The JOBS bill includes measures to shut down corporate expatriation 
and to limit the tax benefits for those corporate cheats that manage to 
get out under the wire before Congress can enact this legislation. We 
will shut down that abuse in this bill. All we have to do to do these 
obvious things is to convince a few people who are stalling this bill 
with nongermane amendments that this bill needs to get passed.
  There is so much good in this bill. We can rescue the manufacturing 
sector. We can end this European tax on our exports to Europe and 
continue to sell over there. Pretty soon that market is going to be 
shut down.
  We can respond to the recent rise in gas prices because in this bill 
we have a national energy policy for alternative fuels and conservation 
and for stimulating fossil fuel development, and we are going to pay 
for it all by shutting down every known tax abuse.
  But we cannot do any of this without the support it takes to pass 
this bill. And I do not mean final passage, because when this bill 
comes to final passage, it is going to pass overwhelmingly. What I am 
talking about is getting to finality. People all over this body are 
telling me: Well, this bill is going to pass. This bill is going to 
pass. But those very same people are hooking this nongermane amendment 
or that nongermane amendment on to this bill. Well, we have 
accommodated

[[Page 8139]]

even those people with nongermane amendments.
  I do not have any fault with the legitimacy of the subject matter of 
their amendments because it is legitimate debate, particularly in the 
Senate. But it seems to me we should not be gambling with manufacturing 
jobs in America. We should not be gambling with whether we ought to 
have a national energy policy.
  And, for sure, if you are one of the Members who is complaining about 
corporations not paying their fair share--and we are shutting down 
these tax shelters--you ought to be in the forefront of getting this 
bill passed. It is unbelievable to me this bill has been held up for so 
long over political gamesmanship. It is time to put the adults back in 
charge. It is time to pass this very important bill to aid our 
manufacturing sector, to remove tariffs off our farmers and workers on 
products shipped to Europe, and to place the Senate back on its footing 
to do its job and move legislation--this legislation--that will benefit 
the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the battle to enact this bill has 
certainly--thankfully--not been compared to a war. But I do believe we 
can now say this bill is at least what Prime Minister Winston Churchill 
is reputed to have said after the British victory at El Alamein, when 
he said: ``[I]t is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.''
  Perhaps we may even say what Talleyrand said after the Russian 
victory at Borodino, when he said: ``It is the beginning of the end.''
  In either case, I believe by obtaining an exclusive list of 
amendments--that is, Senators already agreeing to a finite list--we 
have a victory. We may now say we can work to the end of this bill. And 
well we should, because we still have not won the battle to create jobs 
here in America.
  I refer you to this chart I have in the Chamber. Yes, the economy did 
turn in one good month of job growth in March. The American economy 
created a net of 308,000 new jobs. But as this chart shows, one good 
month does not a recovery make. On this chart, the green bars are the 
months of job creation, and the red bars are the months of job loss. As 
the chart shows, March was, indeed, a strong month for job growth with 
more than 300,000 new jobs. But March was the only month in the last 4 
years where there was that much job growth.
  In contrast, during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, the 
economy turned in 25 months with more than 300,000 net new jobs per 
month. The economy as a whole still has a long way to go before it is 
creating jobs at that level.
  Anyone who has talked to people trying to get a good job knows the 
job market remains soft. In March, for example, a record 354,000 
jobless workers exhausted their regular State unemployment benefits 
without qualifying for any additional Federal unemployment assistance. 
To reduce the ranks of the unemployed, the economy will need to sustain 
strong job creation.
  Look at the next chart. This chart shows the number of private sector 
jobs in the American economy, incorporating the latest numbers. It 
shows the private sector still has 2.7 million fewer jobs than it had 
in December of the year 2000. As shown on this chart, here we are in 
December of 2000, and you can see that is where the private sector jobs 
peaked. The chart clearly shows the number has declined significantly 
to the current date, a loss of, I think, about 3 million jobs on a net 
basis.
  This next chart shows manufacturing remains in a slump. The 
manufacturing sector has lost more than 3 million jobs since July of 
2000. I might say, I can also see this state of affairs in my home 
State of Montana. In Montana, for example, wood products companies 
provide nearly 37 percent of our manufacturing jobs--over a third. But 
a decade ago, those jobs made up 47 percent of our manufacturing. That 
is almost one-half of all manufacturing jobs. Employment in wood 
products dropped almost 5 percent last year alone.
  This final chart shows the number of jobs in American manufacturing 
remains at the lowest level in more than a half a century. A half a 
century ago--the level shown here on the chart--was roughly 14 million 
jobs, a little bit more than 14 million jobs, the same as it is today. 
Just to repeat that: The number of jobs in American manufacturing 
remains at the lowest level in more than half a century. That is a 
strong statement. So we continue to need to act on the legislation 
before us.
  More importantly, I must say, I have heard from folks in my State of 
Montana who tell the reason why we need to act on this bill. Let me 
give you an example of some of their frustration.
  Keni from Hamilton, MT, wrote:

       All our good jobs are being sent overseas to a cheaper 
     labor market, and we're fed bovine manure . . . [about] all 
     the great jobs [our American economy is] creating.

  Then there is Christopher, who was laid off in February of 2003. 
Christopher writes:

       Many of those individuals [with jobs] have to do two or 
     three other people's jobs in order to keep their own.

  Now listen to Kay. Kay wrote that the economy ``bring[s] no new 
business[es] to speak of in[to] Montana that pay any kind of decent 
wage, keeping the poor, poor. When is it going to end?''
  We have to end the loss of good jobs. We need to do what we can to 
help create good manufacturing jobs here in America. That is what this 
legislation before us is about.
  We have conducted a number of battles on this bill. The Senate has 
conducted four rollcall votes on this bill.
  The Senate has adopted 11 amendments: from tax shelters, major 
provisions to close loopholes, to the R&D tax credit, which is very 
popular and needed by American industry; to government jobs offshore, 
discouraging jobs from going offshore, to expiring provisions; that is, 
the provisions in the Code which have expired or are about to expire 
and need to be continued; to accelerating the manufacturing tax credit, 
an amendment offered by Senator Stabenow which improved the 
manufacturing deduction of the bill; and we added in an amendment to 
the energy tax provisions, the tax provisions that passed the Finance 
Committee dealing with energy production.
  At this point we have an exclusive list of additional amendments. 
Senators have preserved their rights and listed 83 amendments on that 
list. Fifty of those listed amendments preserve the rights of Senators 
in the majority, while 33 preserve the rights of Senators in the 
minority. Of the total of 83 amendments, Senators have listed 36 simply 
with the word ``relevant'' or similar language. Although we might 
expect Senators to offer some of these amendments, experience tells us 
that an overwhelming majority of those amendments, listed merely as 
``relevant,'' will probably be dropped from the list. Of the remaining 
47 amendments, I believe Senators will modify many of them so the 
Senate may agree to them without rollcall votes.
  Realistically, I expect that probably fewer than 20 of the amendments 
on that list will require rollcall votes. Nearly all Senators from this 
side of the aisle, those with amendments on the list, have indicated to 
this Senator that they would be willing to abide by short time 
agreements, none more than 1 hour equally divided, so this exercise 
need not take much time.
  We have now been on the bill, counting today, on 9 separate days over 
the course of 4 separate weeks. I hope we can now stay on this bill 
until its completion. I believe the Senate can now complete the bill 
over the course of a matter of days.
  What the preacher said in Ecclesiastes applies to this bill:

       Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof.

  I look forward to working with my colleagues to the end of this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I come to the floor to support the 
chairman and senior ranking member on this legislation. I know they 
have

[[Page 8140]]

talked about it in great detail and explained it thoroughly. My point 
is, it is time for us to move forward.
  We have been on the bill for a frustratingly long time. We have gone 
to the bill three times. But this isn't the only one. We seem to be 
having the same experience with many of the interesting bills, such as 
highway legislation, the budget, moving forward with jobs. It seems to 
me we ought to examine ourselves and see where we are in terms of doing 
the job we were assigned to do, and that is to move forward dealing 
with those issues that are pertinent to this country.
  I support passage of the JOBS bill. It is interesting that at a time 
when we are concerned about jobs, concerned about continued economic 
growth, having a deficit in the trade balance, concerned about 
manufacturing jobs, here we are with some reasons to do things that 
would impact all those issues, and we continue not to do it. It is time 
we come to the snubbing post and talk about what we have to do to get 
this job done.
  There are, of course, different views of what should be done, and I 
understand that. There are different ideas. The bottom line is, when 
you have a bill and it has a purpose, that is what we ought to be 
talking about, not about loading it up with everything that everyone 
intended at one point or another to include so that it becomes so 
controversial that the core values, the reason it is there, never 
happens. That is basically where we are.
  This is basically a bill that was brought to the committee. The 
Senators have at one time talked about giving 3 percent encouragement 
for people to send goods overseas. The World Trade Organization ruled 
against that and said it was unfair and said, If you don't do something 
about it, we are going to continue to add penalties to this area.
  We are now at 7 percent. Each week it can be added to be a higher 
percentage. That is what the basic bill is about. There are lots of 
things involving taxes and lots of things involving a million things 
you could do. But we ought not to forget what the purpose of it is, and 
we need to go back to that purpose and say: Wait a minute here; we need 
to get that finished.
  It is really interesting. At some point, this is broader than that, 
but I think we have to take a look at the role of the Federal 
Government and what we are doing. We ought to take a little time, and I 
am in the process of trying to find out all of the various agencies and 
activities that are funded by this Congress. I think we would be 
amazed. Every time we see a little problem, every time we see something 
here, every time a constituent wants something, suddenly we have a 
Federal program for it. And then it is amazing we say to ourselves: 
Where is all this money going?
  I can tell you where it is going. We are continuing to have more and 
more programs, and we need to take a look at putting those in some kind 
of a priority as to what the role really is of the Federal Government.
  Unfortunately, I am sure it is true, many of the things here are 
strictly political. They are simply things that a Senator wants to 
spell out his political situation by offering an amendment. Whether or 
not it ever passes, you can go home and tell the folks: I sure worked 
on that one, you know.
  Well, that is not what these things are for. That is not what they 
are for. Amendments should be perfecting the base, perfecting the 
purpose for the bill. Then if we want to do all these other things, let 
them stand on their own.
  I happen to be a big supporter of the Energy bill. We put together a 
total Energy bill. Frankly, if I had my way about it, we would keep it 
together because we are talking about the whole. It is a policy. You 
are talking about what you do about alternative sources. You are 
talking about what you do about conservation as to how you can use less 
energy. You are talking about the way you substitute and do research to 
develop new ideas. You are talking about domestic production--all those 
things. But when you start taking it apart, then it becomes very 
difficult to deal with all the issues that ought to be there. 
Nevertheless, this is the way it is.
  I support it because we do need to do something. But there are an 
awful lot of issues that aren't there that ought to be in the energy 
policy that are being left behind. It makes it less likely they will be 
passed. We have things like trade adjustment assistance to service 
workers. That is an issue that ought to be talked about, I suppose, but 
it should not be addressed in this bill. It costs $5 billion over 10 
years. We have that one on there. We have overtime rules, trying to go 
back and change the rules that are put in by the administration. What 
does that have to do with doing something about WTO? Nothing. But it is 
one of the issues that is going to hold us up.
  This JOBS bill is designed to save hundreds of thousands of 
manufacturing jobs, alleviate the tax burden on businesses, and allow 
manufacturers to freely compete with their European counterparts. That 
is what it is for. As a result of a 2001 WTO ruling, which I have 
already mentioned, the European Union initiated a phase-in of punitive 
tariffs. That is in the process right now. It started at 5, it is at 7, 
and it is going to continue. So we need to focus on that issue and do 
something about it.
  The bill reported by the Finance Committee represents a strong, 
bipartisan effort to accomplish key objectives for manufacturers. It is 
one that enhances the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete in an 
international market; provides a lower tax rate on manufacturing goods; 
makes the tax burden of U.S. manufacturers closer to the international 
competition; enhances the financial strength of U.S. companies, 
creating incentives for them to invest in workers, facilities, and 
community.
  Our manufacturing sector, of course, has faced many challenges over 
the last number of years and will continue to. We are in a changing 
economic situation. Interestingly enough, many manufacturers produce 
more goods through efficiency. They actually have less workers and are 
producing more goods than before. That indicates we have to broaden our 
kinds of manufacturing and do more in different areas.
  We need to stay focused on this bill. I am becoming rather impatient 
with what is happening on the Senate floor, not only on this bill but 
on lots of bills where we continue to have endless numbers of these 
issues put on that do not belong there at all. We ought to come to an 
understanding that this is the issue that is being dealt with here. 
Let's do it. This one is important and we should do it. These 
amendments need to end.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3107

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3107.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
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) Notwithstanding the provisions of subchapter II of 
     chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code 
     (commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedures Act) 
     or any other provision of law, any portion of the final rule 
     promulgated on April 23, 2004, revising part 541 of title 29, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, 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 and 
     that portion of such regulations (as in effect on March 31, 
     2003) that would prevent such employee from being exempt 
     shall remain in effect. Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, the increased salary requirements provided for in 
     such final rule at

[[Page 8141]]

     section 541.600 of such title 29, shall remain in effect.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I return to the Senate floor this 
afternoon to address an issue of utmost importance to working Americans 
and their families, and that is time-and-a-half overtime pay and the 
seemingly relentless campaign by the Bush administration to take away 
the overtime rights of many American workers. This effort to take away 
time-and-a-half overtime, to jiggle the rules, cloud it all up, is one 
of the most anti-worker, anti-family proposals to come along in my 
tenure in the Congress.
  As most Senators know by now, my amendment serves the simplest of 
purposes. It lets stand the new threshold of $23,660 below that which 
all workers are automatically eligible for overtime. My amendment lets 
that part of the proposal stand. My amendment also guarantees that no 
worker who currently is eligible to receive overtime pay will lose that 
right to overtime pay under the new rule.
  Again, my amendment does two things. It lets stand that part of the 
final rule that raises the threshold to $23,660. The other part of my 
amendment also guarantees that no worker who is currently getting 
overtime pay will lose that right under any new rule. It is very 
simple, very straightforward.
  Madam President, this is a subject I feel very deeply about, and I am 
not alone. Wherever I travel in the United States and in Iowa, people 
talk to me about what overtime pay means to them and their families. 
Many become quite emotional about it. They know what the administration 
is trying to do and they are angry. They want action to be taken to 
stop these new overtime rules.
  One of the reasons they are angry is because they know what this 
chart shows: The average annual working hours of the American worker in 
the United States is more than any worker anywhere in the 
industrialized world. It is more than in Canada, Japan, Australia, 
France, and Germany. Our average annual work hours are more than 
anyone, anywhere in the world. American workers know that because they 
are the ones doing the work.
  Since passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, overtime 
rights and the 40-hour work week have been sacrosanct, respected by 
Presidents of both parties. Last year, the Bush administration launched 
a frontal assault on this time-honored principle. The Department of 
Labor proposes changes to the overtime rules that, according to the 
best analysis we could muster, would have taken overtime pay 
eligibility away from up to 8 million American workers. That proposal 
really was breathtaking. The administration proposed this without 
consulting Congress, without holding public hearings. It actually took 
several weeks for many of us to realize the magnitude of what the 
administration was proposing. In fact, some of the most harmful 
provisions of the proposed rule were not discovered until months later.
  Finally, we were shocked to discover that the administration was 
proposing to strip overtime pay from police officers, firefighters, 
veterans, nurses, and many others. The radicalism and audacity of this 
proposal is without parallel in modern day labor legislation. Of 
course, once the true intent and extent of the proposed rule became 
known, many of those affected were in open rebellion.
  As this issue spilled over into this election year, frankly, this 
became a huge political liability for the administration. Late last 
year, during consideration of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education appropriations bill, I offered a similar amendment in the 
Senate--it passed by a margin of 54-45--to block the worst aspects of 
the administration's overtime proposal. Following that, the House of 
Representatives, by a margin of 221-203, voted to instruct its 
conferees to support the Senate's position in conference. 
Unfortunately, White House officials instructed the conferees to delete 
my amendment from the Omnibus appropriations bill, and that is why we 
are back here today.
  It must be pointed out that since we last debated this amendment, the 
Department of Labor has issued its final rule on overtime. In this 
final rule, the Department appears to have had something of an election 
year conversion. Under extreme pressure from working Americans, as well 
as critics in Congress, the administration has backed off its attempt 
to strip overtime from certain high-profile groups, such as rank-and-
file police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians.
  I salute the efforts of many individuals and groups and labor unions 
who have fought hard and forced the administration to abandon several 
of its offensive and egregious proposals. Let's be under no illusion 
about this final rule. We have progressed--if that is the right term--
from a proposed rule that was profoundly terrible to a final rule that 
is just plain terrible.
  The administration's model seems to be that if at first you don't 
succeed in limiting the overtime pay of American workers, try, try 
again and spin like crazy. Again, Madam President, I ask that those who 
look at this final rule not just compare it to the proposed rule. As I 
said, we went from profoundly terrible to just plain terrible. So I 
suppose if you compared the final rule with the proposed rule, you 
would say it is better. I think the proper yardstick of measurement is 
to measure the final rule compared to what we have today. Who loses? 
What happens to our right to overtime in that regard?
  Make no mistake: Even with the changes from the proposed rule, this 
final rule is a radical rewrite of the rules governing eligibility for 
overtime. It would deny time-and-a-half overtime pay to millions of 
workers earning as little as $23,660 per year. By and large, these are 
low- to middle-income workers who don't have a strong organized voice, 
so the administration may feel it can run roughshod over their rights. 
That is why we in Congress must be their voice and their vote on this 
matter.
  Of course, the administration denies this. Its public posture is all 
smiles and happy talk, including the audacious claim that no workers 
earning less than $100,000 a year will lose their right to overtime. 
Frankly, at this point, the administration has zero credibility on this 
issue.
  As I said, when the proposed rule was issued a year ago, it took 
months of reading the fine print before one realized how destructive it 
was, and only belatedly do we discover that the administration was 
giving tips and advice to employers as to how they could avoid paying 
overtime to employees under the new rule.
  Here we go again. Once again, the administration is all smiles and 
happy talk. Once again, the administration is assuring workers they 
will not lose their overtime rights. When the Bush administration 
smiles and says it is here to fix overtime, I have five words of advice 
for American workers: hold on to your wallets.
  Why exactly is the administration so eager to ``fix'' overtime? Now I 
know why many corporations and employer groups want to fix overtime. 
They want to pay fewer workers overtime. It is very clear. But is 
anyone clamoring for this?
  I frequently visit manufacturing plants, and never, ever has a 
factory worker come up to me and said: You know, Senator Harkin, too 
many of us are getting overtime pay. It is broken and you need to fix 
it.
  I frequently visit hospitals. Never has a nurse come up to me and 
said: Senator Harkin, it is not right that I am receiving overtime pay 
when I work 50 hours a week. You need to go back to Washington and fix 
this overtime mess.
  Back home in Iowa, I love to go to Dairy Queens. It is something my 
colleague and I share when we go back to Iowa, Dairy Queen, but no one 
ever, in a Dairy Queen making hamburgers or Blizzards, or a working 
supervisor, has come up to me and said: Senator Harkin, I don't deserve 
time and a half overtime pay. You need to fix it immediately.
  I will go one step further. Not one employer in my State of Iowa has 
come up to me and complained about paying overtime pay under existing 
rules. Not one.

[[Page 8142]]

  Now the Department of Labor is saying to the American workers: Hi, we 
are from Washington, and we are here to improve your overtime rights.
  Is there anybody at this point in America who believes that? Working 
families are not buying it. They have a simple message for the 
Department of Labor: Keep your hands off our right to overtime pay.
  Let me repeat the administration's central claim. No workers earning 
less than $100,000 a year will lose their right to overtime. This claim 
is demonstrably false.
  This chart shows in simplest terms the impact of the new rule. It is 
clear that employees earning less than $23,660 a year, automatically 
will be paid overtime regardless of what they do. The new rule will 
make it very easy to exempt most workers making over $100,000. It will 
not totally, but most will be exempt.
  We just learned that some of the oil rig workers, for example, in 
Alaska and off the coast of Louisiana who work under hazardous 
conditions and are away from their families a lot--some of them may 
make a little over $100,000. I guess I can't blame them. These are 
hard-working people and they are away from their families. It is a 
hazardous occupation. They, too, may be stripped of their overtime 
rights simply because they make $100,000 a year. I don't think it is 
correct we should do that.
  It has come to my attention in the last few hours that oil rig 
workers would also have their right to overtime stripped.
  The real gray area is from $100,000 to $23,000. People in that area 
are saying people will not lose their right to overtime. A careful 
analysis of the new rule makes it abundantly clear that certain jobs 
and professional categories in this gray area will be ineligible for 
overtime.
  To cite one glaring example, under the new rule, a worker who leads a 
team of other workers loses his or her right to overtime. Under the old 
rule, there was no provision concerning so-called ``team leaders.'' 
There is no such term in present rules. But the new rule, under section 
541.203(c) states:

       An employee who leads a team of other employees assigned to 
     complete other projects for the employer meets the 
     requirements for exemption--

  Listen to the following words--

     even if the employee does not have direct supervisory 
     responsibility over the employees on the team.

  Talk about a loophole. This team leader loophole is big enough to 
drive an Amtrak train through. Team leaders are commonplace throughout 
the manufacturing and services sectors. They are especially common in 
factories, refineries, chemical plants, and other places. MIT professor 
of management Thomas Kochan estimates that this team leader loophole 
alone could deny overtime rights to as many as 2.3 million workers 
making above $23,660 a year and less than $100,000 a year--a team 
leader.
  Again, I point out that the term ``team leader'' exists nowhere in 
the present rules. It is now put in the final rule, ``team leader.'' 
But guess what. There is no definition of a team leader. There is no 
definition. It is up to the employer to define it. So any employer can 
define a team leader as they wish. And that team leader, as I pointed 
out in the rule, does not have to have direct supervisory 
responsibility over employees on the team. That team leader could be a 
team leader for, say, 5 minutes a week. Maybe it is a Friday afternoon 
get-together to discuss what went on the week before, and all of a 
sudden you are a team leader for that 1 hour of discussion. You are not 
exempt. Your employer can now exempt you from overtime simply by 
calling you a team leader. So in the rules there is no definitional 
structure of what a team leader is. It is a huge loophole.
  Section 541.303(b) strips overtime rights from nursery school 
teachers earning more than $23,660. Under section 541.604, registered 
nurses who are salaried could be denied overtime. Large parts of the 
financial services industry are no longer eligible for overtime under 
the new rule.
  According to an analysis by the Houston Chronicle, labor relations, 
public relations, human relations, and government relations employees 
will be ineligible for overtime under the new rule. Funeral directors 
and embalmers will be ineligible. Insurance claim adjustors will be 
ineligible. Many outside sales representatives will be ineligible.
  In addition, many computer services employees will lose their right 
to overtime, including programmers, network, and database 
administrators.
  I would also point out that the new rule includes loopholes and 
artful language that will strip overtime from several broad 
occupational categories. For example, the new rule will make it much 
easier for management to reclassify workers earning as little as 
$23,660 a year as professional employees. So you could be making 
$24,000 a year and your employer could reclassify you as professional, 
and you will be ineligible for overtime.
  Employees will no longer need college degrees to be considered 
professionals exempt from overtime. Work experience will be enough. 
Under the present rules that have existed for many years, it pointed 
out to get an exemption under the professional status one had to have a 
4-year degree. That was sort of the minimum. That was the minimum one 
needed to be exempt.
  Now a person does not need that. All they have to have is work 
experience. For example, section 541-301(d) strips overtime rights from 
cooks and chefs who have ``substantially the same knowledge'' and 
perform the same work as cooks or chefs with 4-year culinary arts 
degrees. In addition, the new rule will make it much easier for 
management to reclassify workers earning as little as $23,660 as 
executive employees who will be ineligible for overtime pay. Under the 
present rule, employees that spend the majority of their time, 50 
percent or more, doing administrative, management, or professional work 
lose their right to overtime under the executive category. Under the 
new rule, employees who do even a small amount of administrative, 
management, or professional work can lose their overtime rights.
  For example, a McDonald's franchise assistant manager who spends most 
of her time making hamburgers or filling orders, making french fries, 
but spends 10 percent of her time performing supervisory duties, could 
be reclassified as executive and be ineligible for overtime. Think 
about that. In the past, the threshold was 50 percent. One had to spend 
at least 50 percent of one's time in an executive or an administrative 
capacity to be exempt from overtime pay. Now there is no threshold. It 
can be as little as 5 percent, 10 percent; nobody knows. It does not 
make any difference. It is whatever an employer says.
  So guess what. A person is now working at a McDonald's franchise. 
They are making hamburgers and french fries and filling orders, which 
is pretty tough work. They move pretty fast. They are making $24,000 a 
year. All of a sudden the owner comes in and says: You are now an 
executive. Do you not feel good? I am going to put a little name up 
there, Susan Smith, executive. Now you are an executive. You feel 
great. There is a certificate. You are now an executive. You can hang 
that on your wall at home. By the way, you do not get anymore overtime 
pay.
  I wonder how many American workers would feel good about that, that 
now they are an executive but they lose their right to overtime pay.
  I can go on at great length naming others who will be denied overtime 
under the new rule, but I have made my point. The administration claims 
no workers earning between $23,660 and $100,000 a year will be denied 
overtime. That statement is false. All of these people, veterans, 
police, nurses--I talked about the team leaders--journalists, I have 
talked about that, cooks, financial services, computer workers, working 
foremen, and many others, because they can be reclassified as 
executive, administrative, or professional, under very ambiguous and 
clouded procedures or definitions, could lose their right to overtime 
pay.
  My second chart is very revealing again as to what is going on. There 
are

[[Page 8143]]

152 pages in the new rule. As the chart goes, only 15 pages are devoted 
to the highly compensated employees test, which is $100,000 or more, 
and the minimum salary test, which is $23,660 or less. Fifteen pages 
are devoted to those two categories, and 137 pages are devoted to those 
who make between $23,660 and $100,000.
  I have to tell my colleagues something. If the administration were 
sincere in its assertion that no worker earning between $23,660 and 
$100,000 a year would lose their overtime rights, believe me, it would 
not take 137 pages to say so. The administration could have said it in 
one or two sentences. Instead, the new rule spends 137 pages spinning a 
web of artful language, calculated ambiguity, and outright loopholes 
such as the team leader loophole, a complex web designed to catch 
workers and strip them of their overtime.
  It is ironic that one of the administration's main justifications for 
proposing a new rule on overtime was to bring clarity and reduce 
litigation. They said this is one of the reasons they are doing it, to 
bring clarity and reduce litigation.
  This final rule is shot through with artful, ambiguous language that 
clearly favors employers. This is guaranteed to lead to scores of 
lawsuits and years of litigation as workers fight to retain their 
overtime rights. If increasingly conservative courts rule in favor of 
employers, countless additional workers will lose their right to 
overtime.
  For example, in several places, the final rule broadens what used to 
be a narrow test. By definition, this will mean less position, less 
clarity, not more. The final rule is far from clear. As I said, who can 
be classified as team leaders? It is not defined. The employer defines 
that.
  What is a working foreman? It is up to the employer to decide what is 
a working foreman. Once they decide, a person is ineligible for 
overtime.
  When Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, it 
anticipated there would be a number of less than honorable employers 
who would try to cheat workers out of overtime, so Congress included a 
penalty provision that would act as a strong deterrent. Under the 
present rule, if an employer is cheating employees out of overtime, the 
penalty can be massive. If found guilty, all employees in the 
enterprise, including salaried employees who are exempt from overtime, 
must be paid time and a half overtime for the period the improper 
practices were taking place. That is a tough deterrent.
  In other words, if an unscrupulous employer was cheating an employee 
out of overtime and they were taken to court and found guilty of doing 
that, they did not have to pay only that employee back, they had to pay 
everyone in the enterprise time and a half overtime for the entire 
periods in question. They even had to pay time and a half to exempt 
employees who were exempt from overtime. As I said, a very tough 
deterrent.
  What does the new rule do? Under the new rule, the penalty is limited 
to the work unit where the violation was detected. This ignores the 
fact that in nearly all instances, overtime violations are not limited 
to a renegade supervisor. They are almost always a result of some 
companywide practice.
  So again, if an unscrupulous employer cheats an employee out of 
overtime and is caught and convicted, the company has to pay that 
employee back, and whoever is in that little work area, maybe two or 
three people. Before, they had to pay the entire enterprise. So we can 
see they have really watered this down. We have gone from kind of a 
nuclear deterrent under the old rule to kind of a pussycat deterrent 
under the new rule.
  Let me summarize. Under the new rule, many workers will legally lose 
their right to overtime and employers who cheat their workers out of 
overtime illegally will receive a penalty that amounts to less than a 
slap on the wrist. No wonder the Wall Street Journal has called the new 
rule a victory for business groups.
  It is time for Washington to listen to Main Street and not just Wall 
Street. Listen to ordinary working Americans. They are telling us 
loudly and clearly their number one issue is economic security. They 
are telling us they fear losing their jobs. They fear losing their 
health care. They fear losing their retirement. Now they fear losing 
their right to time-and-a-half compensation for overtime. They fear, 
with good reason, that under the Department of Labor's new rule they 
will be obliged to work 45, 50, 60 hours a week with zero additional 
compensation. For millions of working Americans, this is unacceptable, 
and the last straw.
  For 65 years, the 40-hour week has allowed workers to spend time with 
their families instead of toiling past dark and on weekends. At a time 
when the family dinner is becoming an oxymoron, this standard is more 
important than ever. As I said earlier, this final rule on overtime is 
anti-worker and anti-family.
  Given the fact that we are stuck in a jobless recovery, the timing 
could not be worse. It is yet another instance of the economic 
malpractice of this administration. Bear in mind that time-and-a-half 
pay accounts for some 25 percent of the total income of Americans who 
work overtime. With average U.S. income declining, the proposed changes 
would slash the paychecks of countless workers. Moreover, the proposed 
new rule is all but guaranteed to hurt job creation in the United 
States. 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. Workers without overtime rights are twice 
as likely to work more than 40 hours a week, according to the current 
statistics. They are three times as likely to work more than 50 hours a 
week. With 9 million Americans currently out of work, why in the world 
do we want to give employers yet another disincentive to hire new 
workers?
  It is bad enough to deny American workers their overtime rights, but 
what is striking is the approach taken by the Department of Labor and 
the administration on this issue. As I already mentioned, no public 
hearings were held. There was no consultation with Congress. I have 
looked back and have done research. Every time I have been able to find 
in the past when we made changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
Congress always had hearings, consulted with business, consulted with 
labor, and there was a process by which the public believed they had an 
input. That is not so this time.
  Also, something I think that is beyond comprehension, the Department 
has offered employers what amounts to a cheat sheet. It has offered 
employers helpful tips on how to avoid paying overtime to the lowest 
paid workers. I mean these, the ones who make less than $23,600 a year, 
down here. The administration has basically put out information. They 
say they want to help these people. They raise it to $23,660 from about 
$8,000 a year--a good step. I compliment the administration for doing 
this. But they turn right around and tell employers how they can get by 
without paying them overtime.
  They recommend raising a worker's salary slightly to meet the 
threshold. If you are an employee who is near this $23,660 level, they 
might want to raise your wages to $23,661. Guess what. Then you are no 
longer exempt.
  They also suggest cutting a worker's hourly wage so any new overtime 
payments will not result in a net gain to the employee. Think about 
that. You say we are going to raise the threshold. Now, here is what 
you can do: cut the hourly wages so if you do have to pay them overtime 
it will all be the same. The employee will get the same amount of 
money, but the employee would be working 42, 43, 45, 48 hours a week. 
This is from the Department of Labor. They have actually put this out 
in print. It is disgraceful.
  There is one group that is disproportionately harmed by the new 
overtime rules--women. The fact is, women tend to dominate in retail, 
services, and sales positions, which would be particularly affected by 
the new rule. Married women increased their working hours by nearly 40 
percent from 1979 to 2000. As women have increased their time in the 
paid labor market, their contribution to the family income has

[[Page 8144]]

also risen. These contributions are especially important to lower and 
middle-income families. Yet now the administration's new rule will take 
away overtime protections from millions of American women.
  Women in the paid workforce will be forced to work longer hours for 
less pay. And, of course, this means more time away from families and 
more childcare expenses, with no additional compensation. Not 
surprisingly, prominent women's groups are adamantly opposed to the new 
overtime rules. The American Association of University Women, the 
National Organization of Women, the National Partnership of Women and 
Families, the YWCA, 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women--
among others, are all strongly supporting my amendment.
  Listen to what Sheila Perez of Bremerton, WA, says. She is a single 
parent working hard to support her family. When she leaves work after a 
difficult 8-hour shift, she says:

       My second shift begins. There is dinner to cook, dishes to 
     wash, laundry, and all the other housework that must be done, 
     which adds another three or four hours to my workday.

  Ms. Perez said something also very powerful. She said:

       My time at home with my kids and family is truly my premium 
     time . . . it is personal time. . . . it is the most valuable 
     time of my day. So if I am required to work longer than eight 
     hours . . . if I have to sacrifice that premium time with my 
     family . . . then I ought to receive premium pay, that is, 
     overtime pay.

  I agree wholeheartedly with Sheila Perez. If she is sacrificing 
personal time, her premium time with her family and her kids, it is 
only fair she be compensated on a premium basis with time-and-a-half 
overtime pay.
  I think there is a broader context for this discussion of overtime. 
It is sort of a bigger picture. As I said, the No. 1 issue for 
Americans today is economic security, and with good reason, because it 
is abundantly clear that America is stuck in a largely jobless 
recovery. Since the administration took office, nearly 3 million 
private sector jobs have been lost, including one in every seven jobs 
in manufacturing. President Bush--George W. Bush--has presided over the 
greatest job loss of any President since the Great Depression. Yet he 
remains wedded to policies that make it worse.
  His administration has praised the outsourcing of jobs as something 
good for our economy. He has opposed any increase in the minimum wage. 
He has opposed extending unemployment benefits. Now, this 
administration wants to destroy the overtime rights of many hard-
working Americans.
  There is no question, I suppose, that those policies have been good 
for wealthy investors. Corporate profits are rising, the stock market 
is up, CEO pay is up, and once again the rich are getting richer. But 
something is missing. Ordinary Americans are not participating in this 
so-called recovery. In fact, more and more Americans live in fear of 
losing their jobs, their health benefits, their retirement, and now 
their right to overtime pay.
  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. It can only be built on a 
foundation of good jobs with good wages in America, not overseas. It 
can only be built on a foundation that includes a minimum wage that is 
a living wage and not a poverty wage. And it can only be built on a 
foundation that reserves Americans' rights to time-and-a-half overtime 
pay over 40 hours.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to protect the 
overtime rights of American workers. Again, I repeat, my amendment will 
let stand the positive provision of the rule which raises the low-
income threshold to $23,660 and makes more workers automatically 
eligible for overtime.
  Now the administration again says it does not want to take away the 
overtime rights of anyone earning less than $100,000. If that is the 
case, then the administration should have no problem embracing my 
amendment because this amendment has a simple purpose: to guarantee 
that workers who are entitled to overtime pay now, today, will not lose 
their right under the new rule.
  I think the new rule is disingenuous. The administration is being 
disingenuous about it and knows full well this new rule will strip 
overtime eligibility for many workers earning less than $100,000. That 
is the reason it is being pushed aggressively. That is exactly why many 
corporations and groups are so keen to see this new rule adopted. But 
it is unfair. It is an attack on a basic right American workers have 
enjoyed for over 65 years, and it is bad economic policy. It will hurt 
job creation and reduce disposable income.
  I want to point out a few statements from others in support of my 
amendment.

       The Effect of Final Rules Silence on Police Sergeants.

  This is an April 28 press release from the International Union of 
Police Associations, the National Association of Police Organizations, 
and the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations.

       The DOL has done nothing to define the line between 
     management and police duties for those above line-level 
     officers. Once the final complex rules go into effect, their 
     very ambiguity regarding the line between supervisory duties 
     and traditional policing duties will undoubtedly shift the 
     ball from the legislature to the courts.

  That is why they support my amendment.
  Here is a press release from the United American Nurses.
  The Effect of Final Rules Silence on Registered Nurses.

       In the midst of a registered nursing shortage that is 
     projected to reach 808,000 RNs by 2020, it is 
     incomprehensible why this President wouldn't do everything in 
     his power to make sure that RNs are fairly compensated for 
     the life-saving work we do.

  I mentioned earlier the professional loophole. This is from the code 
itself. This is the current regulation on learning professionals.

       As is well known, there are still a few practitioners who 
     have gained their knowledge by home study and experience. 
     Characteristically, the members of the profession are 
     graduates of law schools, but some few of their fellow 
     professionals whose status is equal to theirs, whose 
     attainments are the same and whose word is the same did not 
     enjoy that opportunity. Such persons are not barred from the 
     exemption. The word ``customarily'' implies that in the vast 
     majority of cases, the specific academic training is a 
     prerequisite for transfer into the profession.

  This is what we have been operating under for years.

     . . . in the vast majority of cases, the specific academic 
     training is a prerequisite . . .

  Under the proposed rule, work experience--even the experience you 
might have gotten in the military--would disqualify you from overtime.
  I want to make a point on this. I want to make a point on the 
veterans. When we debated this last year, we pointed out in the 
proposed rules it specifically mentioned those who were not learned 
professionals because they had a 4-year college degree but who had 
learned on-the-job training, including training in the military--those 
were the words: ``including training in the armed forces.'' We pointed 
out here on the floor this means someone going into the military and 
who received training in the Army and came out, because they received 
training in the military, they would be exempt from the right to get 
overtime.
  Guess what the administration did. In the final rule, they took those 
words out--``training in the armed forces.''
  But what they didn't do was change the underlying language which says 
basically you don't have to have a 4-year college degree; you can have 
on-the-job training or work experience. It doesn't say they couldn't be 
in the military. They didn't specifically exempt the military; they 
took out those four words.
  Under this final rule, veterans in the future will be different than 
veterans in the past if they receive training while in the military 
which they then use on the job later on. They may have their right to 
overtime pay taken away from them.
  This is sort of an example of the learned professional exemption. 
Let's take a look at chefs. It basically says: Chefs, such as executive 
chefs who have attained a 4-year specialized degree in

[[Page 8145]]

the culinary arts program, generally meet the duty requirement of the 
learned professional exemption. The learned professional exemption is 
not available to cooks who perform predominantly routine mental, 
manual, mechanical, or physical work.
  In other words, an executive chef who has fewer years is 
automatically exempt, but also if you, for example, at some point in 
time supervised someone at a McDonald's, or whatever, then you would be 
exempt.
  That is the ambiguity of these rules.
  I could point out more and more. There are all kinds of different 
workers who are caught up in this kind of web of ambiguity. But I close 
by saying again the new rule is unfair. This kind of a process should 
have been done in Congress. It should have been done with the 
appropriate committees, with appropriate hearings and consultation and 
being very careful about how we are going to address this.
  I see nothing wrong--in fact, I see everything right--in what the 
administration is proposing in raising the threshold to $23,660. It 
should have been done a long time ago. But most of the rules do not 
pertain to them. The 137 pages out of 152 pages pertain to those making 
over $23,660 a year, and it provides one loophole after another to deny 
the right to overtime pay for employees.
  I am hopeful we can have a strong bipartisan vote in support of this 
amendment. We can save the administration from making a terrible 
mistake. We can protect American workers' right to overtime 
compensation and we can support an economic recovery that includes all 
Americans--a recovery that respects and preserves the American dream. 
Our workers deserve an ironclad guarantee that their overtime rights 
will be safe and nurtured as they have been in the past and are today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have listened with interest to my 
colleague from Iowa in his presentation. I rise to disagree with the 
positions he has taken. I will do my best to do it in a manner that is 
not disagreeable either to him or to others who are in support of this 
amendment.
  Let us understand, of course, the Fair Labor Standards Act is one of 
the most important protections American workers have. We all agree on 
that. But these provisions have not been updated, some for as long as 
50 years. Some kind of clear updating is essential. In the process of 
updating regulations that go back as long as 50 years, some explanation 
was, of course, necessary which results in the number of pages my 
friend from Iowa has referred to.
  My problem with the Senator's amendment is with a very broad brush 
and strong ax he cuts out a large chunk of the pages that have been 
made and says those things that are in place are going to stay in 
place. We are not going to allow any changes in these areas. His 
amendment is relatively short but very powerful in its impact on the 
overall bill.
  In an effort to understand this--because I am not an expert in these 
areas--my staff and I have reached out to HR directors throughout the 
State of Utah to get their reactions to the new proposal, and at the 
same time ask them what their response would be to what we understood 
the Harkin amendment to be. The reactions have been unanimous--No. 1, 
that the action of the Department of the Labor Department is long 
overdue and very welcome.
  One of the things I had not known until we got into this particular 
subject was the trial lawyers, whom we hear so much about in the 
Senate, have found a bonanza in class action lawsuits dealing with the 
Fair Labor Standards Act. Indeed, the bonanza has been primarily for 
the trial lawyers and not for the workers in whose name they bring 
these class action cases. This should not come as a surprise. We have 
seen other examples where this goes on.
  To quote from the Texas lawyer: Overtime litigation is attractive to 
trial lawyers because of the ``astonishingly'' high amount of money at 
stake.
  And Lawyers Weekly USA says: Boom in overtime suits, a danger for 
employers but a gold mine for plaintiffs' lawyers.
  In the opinion of the HR directors we have spoken to on this issue, 
this boom for trial lawyers would not go away if the Harkin amendment 
were passed. Indeed, in their opinion, if the Harkin amendment were 
passed, it would mean more ambiguity, more uncertainty, and more 
opportunities for trial lawyers to file class action lawsuits. The 
reason for that is by freezing certain classifications that are in the 
current regulations forever forward as a result of the Harkin amendment 
and allowing other classifications to remain as they are in the new 
regulations, you could very well end up with two employees doing 
absolutely identical work, but because one of them was in place when 
the Harkin amendment was passed and the other was hired after this 
legislation was passed, they would have different classifications. A 
trial lawyer would come along and have a great deal of fun with that, 
perhaps win a judgment of some kind, tremendous fees for himself and 
not that much for the workers.
  Everyone we have spoken to on this issue has said over and over 
again: The Harkin amendment would make things much more difficult; the 
Harkin amendment would create an administrative nightmare to try to 
work our way through; the Harkin amendment should be opposed.
  They are all unanimous in saying the proposal by the Department of 
Labor is a good proposal. It will make their lives a whole lot easier 
because it will bring the regulations up to date, bring the regulations 
that are 50 years old into the 21st century, and allow people to begin 
to deal with these challenges in ways that are consonant with today's 
labor market.
  My friend from Iowa talks about the jobless recovery. I recommend he 
spend a little time looking at the jobless claims that are being filed. 
The number of jobless claims being filed keeps going down week after 
week. People are no longer being laid off in the degree they were 
during the recession. As we saw in the month of March, 308,000 new jobs 
were created. We are waiting for the April figures. The expectation is 
it will be over 100,000 new jobs created in April. The effects of the 
recession and the recovery period are wearing off, the jobs are coming 
back, the labor market is tightening up, and the Federal Reserve is 
talking about raising the overnight rate because they say the economy 
is coming back. They have not given a date for that. Economists have 
been expecting that to happen in September. After Chairman Greenspan's 
appearance before the House Banking Committee, some thought it would 
happen as early as July. I do not have a crystal ball on that and do 
not pretend to know. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I do 
know that virtually every economic indicator we have is up and pointing 
up. The economy is coming back very strongly.
  I hope the rhetoric about the terrible economic conditions in which 
we are currently operating will begin to change in light of the current 
economic information that contradicts it and says the economy is coming 
on very strongly. In that kind of economy, in that kind of situation 
where we are looking to the 21st century workforce, it only makes sense 
to upgrade, revamp, and modernize those portions of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act that are, in fact, 50 years old and have been languishing 
for a long time. There are definitions in that act of jobs that no 
longer exist. There are circumstances described in that act that are 
clearly out of touch with today's economic reality and today's labor 
marketplace.
  I congratulate Secretary Chao and the Department of Labor in the very 
careful way in which they have approached this issue. As nearly as I 
can tell, the only people who have any reason to fear these new 
regulations, the only people who have any reason to fear their incomes 
might go down as a result of these regulations are the trial lawyers 
who have taken advantage of the anachronisms in the existing regulation 
and filed all of these class action suits I have talked about.

[[Page 8146]]

  I have some examples of how the class action suits have muddied the 
water, based on the current regulations, many of which would be frozen 
in place by the Harkin amendment. Courts have interpreted the confusing 
regulations differently. In the Virginia court, a designer of electric 
equipment gets overtime; but in a New York court, a designer of 
electric systems does not get overtime as they have tried to determine 
a different meaning of these phrases. This would be cleared up by the 
new regulations proposed by the Department of Labor. In a Louisiana 
court, purchasing agents are entitled to overtime; but in an Oregon 
court, log merchandise buyers--to me, that is a purchasing agent--are 
not entitled to overtime. This is because these definitions are in the 
old regulations, the existing regulations. These definitions are 
anachronistic, they are uncertain, and they are being brought up to 
date, brought up to standard by Secretary Chao and her associates at 
the Department of Labor.
  But the Harkin amendment says, no, we will freeze these changes in 
place to make sure the past pattern does not change. Quite frankly, I 
want the past pattern to change. People who are involved, caught up in 
the difficulties of trying to handle the past pattern want them to 
change. They want modernization. They want these things to be updated. 
It is not being done in an effort to try to deny anybody overtime. If 
that had been the case, the administration would have left the number 
at 8,000 instead of raising it close to 24,000 as the threshold by 
which people could be reclassified.
  No, this is not an attempt to deny overtime to anyone. This is simply 
an attempt to bring the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations into the 
21st century, bring them up to date with current economic reality, make 
them available and understandable to the HR directors in the various 
firms that deal with these challenges, and remove from the lives of 
those HR directors the tremendous ambiguity, uncertainty, and, frankly, 
stupidity that comes from regulations that are half a century old.
  I say to my colleagues, if there are portions of the work that the 
Labor Department has done that Members think you can improve upon, let 
us hear your arguments, let us look at your amendments. I am willing to 
do that. But to take a whole section of the bill and lock it in place 
in the way the Harkin amendment does, in my view, cuts against the 
whole purpose of this revision. It says we are going to keep in the law 
anachronistic positions that are 50 years old just because we are 
afraid something might happen. In a dynamic economy, something is 
always happening. Yes, sometimes it can be very painful.
  I know what it is to be looking for a job. I know what it is to be 
laid off. I know what it is to go without health insurance. I know what 
it is to dig into one's savings and then see those disappear and slip 
into debt in an effort to keep things going. I have founded businesses, 
some of which have failed. And I do not get unemployment compensation 
when I am the boss and my business fails. I know how difficult this can 
be.
  So it is not a matter of not having appropriate sympathy or 
appropriate experience with those who are caught in economic changes. 
But at the same time, I recognize the genius of the American economic 
system is its ability to grow under all circumstances, as we 
traditionally have. We have had fewer recessions and more shallow 
recessions than our friends around the world who have attempted, 
through government, to monitor the economy and keep it under some kind 
of governmental control.
  Yes, it can be painful. But ultimately it produces more jobs, more 
wealth, more opportunity, and more security for more Americans if you 
allow the free market to work better.
  The regulations that are being proposed by the Department of Labor, 
in my view, meet that criteria. They provide a change in the situation 
that will allow the economy to be more responsive to today's economic 
opportunities and challenges in a worldwide, borderless economy. I 
believe they should be adopted, as proposed, without the encumbrance of 
the Harkin amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to join with 
my friend and colleague, the Senator from Iowa, in urging the Senate to 
accept this amendment he has proposed on overtime. I want to take a 
moment or two this afternoon to review, very quickly, where we are in 
terms of what our workers in this country are facing at this time in 
terms of our economy.
  First of all, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
excellent editorial entitled ``Timeout on Overtime Rule'' in the Los 
Angeles Times be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will mention, very quickly, some of the points that 
were made in this editorial, ``Timeout on Overtime Rule.'' This is what 
they mention:

       Unfortunately, the new Labor Department overtime rule 
     intended to clear things up just makes them murkier. . . . 
     Despite [Secretary] Chao's assurances that she's worked hard 
     to ``get it right,'' the National Assn. of Police 
     Organizations determined that ``while many police are 
     protected, others are not.''
       A former Department of Labor investigator last week told a 
     House committee the ambiguous wording threatens [many] 
     protection[s] now afforded to many workers--including nursery 
     school teachers, nurses, chefs, team leaders, outside sales 
     people and financial service employees--who earn from $23,660 
     to $100,000 a year.

  It continues: ``American workers have fueled recent productivity 
gains but failed to share in the newly created wealth because, as Alan 
Greenspan recently told the Senate, `virtually all of the gains in 
productivity ended up in rising profit''' suggesting that the 
investments are not going back to those in terms of the increasing 
productivity but are all going back into profits.
  And then it points out:

       A panic about their overtime is the last thing workers 
     need. . . .

  As we know--and the figures point out very clearly--American workers 
work longer and harder than any other workers in the world. They 
average working longer than any other nation in the world--2\1/2\ weeks 
longer in a year than workers in the United Kingdom; 7 weeks longer in 
a year than workers in France; 4, 5 weeks longer every year than most 
of the industrialized countries in Western Europe. American workers 
today are working longer, and they are working harder. But what has 
happened is we have seen that 8.4 million Americans are out of work. We 
have seen the loss of jobs over the period of the recent years. We have 
seen the economic record of 2.4 million more unemployed workers today 
than we had in 2001. So American workers are working longer, they are 
working harder, and we have seen a significant loss of jobs.
  I heard my friend and colleague from Utah refer to those who have 
gone back into the labor market. But as the Senator knows very well, 
many of those people are working part-time because they still can't 
find full-time work. This is a reflection of the fact that we have seen 
American workers working longer and working harder. And there is also a 
loss of some 2 million jobs.
  What has happened to the wages of those workers? Look at the 
difference in the wages of those workers who were working in the year 
2000 versus 2002. In the year 2000, they were averaging $43,848, and 
now they are averaging $42,408. We have seen a significant reduction--
some $1,400--in wages that have been lost during the period of the last 
2 years for jobs that are already in existence. And this administration 
is trying to cut back even more.
  What is the administration's problem with working families? They 
oppose an increase in the minimum wage. They oppose extending 
unemployment compensation. And now they are trying to cut back on the 
income of working families.
  Well, we hear: Look, we have created, under this administration, some 
new jobs. The interesting point is, the new jobs that have been created 
are averaging 21 percent less in pay than the

[[Page 8147]]

old jobs that were there. So we have seen a significant reduction in 
the pay that workers receive if they have been able to hold their job. 
If you have lost your job, and then you get a new job, it is paying 21 
percent less than what it was paying in the year 2001, and still the 
administration wants to reduce those figures even more for hard-working 
Americans who are trying to make it.
  Now, what has happened? What are these families doing? These families 
who were making $44,000, and maybe now they are coming back into the 
market and making 21 percent less? Let's look at the kind of burden 
those families are under. Let's look, for example, at what has happened 
in terms of if those families are sending one of their children to 
college. We find out if they are sending their children to a 4-year 
college, the average increase in college tuition has increased 26 
percent since 2001. Virtually nothing has been done by the Bush 
administration to try to get a handle on that.
  There are things that can be done. We have had good ideas and good 
suggestions of trying to work with colleges, work with States, work 
with the Federal Government in trying to get a handle on the increased 
costs. We have families working harder, working longer, and making 
less, and finding out--when they are trying to put their children 
through college--college tuition, in the last 2\1/2\ years, has gone up 
some 26 percent. They see they are making less money now. If they have 
their old job or even if they have a new job, they are finding out, if 
their children are going to college, what is happening at a 4-year 
public school.
  Let's look at what has happened in terms of their health care 
premiums. The costs are virtually out of control. This chart shows 
their premium increase versus the CPI. The CPI might represent what 
some of these workers are getting in their increased wages in terms of 
their employers, but look what has happened to the costs that are out 
of control. Over the period of the last 4\1/2\ years, the increase in 
health care costs have gone up 43 percent. How are the average working 
families in this country able to make it? Their pay is going down. 
There are new jobs paying less. Tuitions are going up. Health care is 
going up. We have a proposal on the floor of the Senate. That is not 
bad enough, if they work even harder and longer, we are going to cut 
back on that.
  You can take the same with regard to the issue of prescription drugs. 
I see my friend from Oregon in the Chamber, Senator Ron Wyden, who has 
done so much in the area of prescription drugs and trying to get a 
handle on the costs of prescription drugs. He is a real leader in the 
Senate on this issue.
  If you look at what families are paying in increased costs for 
prescription drugs, those costs are virtually out of control.
  That is why those of us on this side of the aisle have asked: What in 
the world does this administration have against working families? Why 
now, the first time in more than 60 years, are you going to undermine 
or assault or attack overtime pay for workers? Why? It just isn't right 
and it just isn't fair.
  Look at what has happened in the recovery we have had, briefly, in 
the last several months. Let's look at how that recovery has affected 
workers and how it has affected the profits for companies. Here we have 
a chart that shows the difference between the recovery in the early 
1990s and today's recovery. This chart reflects what the difference is 
between workers wages and corporate profit.
  In the early 1990s, when you had a recovery in the 1990s, you found 
out that the workers participated in expansion of wages 87 percent and 
the corporate profits went up 13 percent. Here it is today. With 
today's recovery, it is 60 percent goes to corporate profits and 40 
percent to wages. And company after company, industry after industry is 
trying to cut that back in terms of wages.
  Just look at some of the industries, what they requested in terms of 
this administration. I will illustrate with the restaurant association, 
but the list goes on.
  The National Restaurant Association requests that DOL include chefs 
under creative professional categories as well as the learned 
professional category.
  Then from the Federal Register, April 23: The Department concludes 
that to the extent a chef has a primary duty of work, requiring 
invention, imagination, originality, or talent--imagine telling a chef 
that he didn't have those, how long would he work in a restaurant; of 
course, it means all the chefs--such chef may be considered an exempt 
creative professional.
  There is the request of the National Restaurant Association. There is 
the result.
  Take the insurance companies. Here is their request, the National 
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' letter to the Department of 
Labor: The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies supports 
the section of the proposed regulations that provides that claims 
adjusters, including those working for insurance companies, satisfy the 
fair labor administrative exemption. Therefore, will not qualify for 
overtime.
  From the Federal Register just 10 days ago: Insurance claim adjusters 
generally meet the duty requirements for the administrative exemption.
  There is the request of the special interest; there is the result. I 
could take the rest of the afternoon. You could go industry by 
industry. We are talking about modernization, to make these regulations 
more understandable. This is what it is all about. It is the bottom 
line. The bottom line of those industries, taking it out of the pockets 
of the men and women who are working hard, working longer, as the first 
chart showed, more than any other industrial nation in the world, 
having a hard time making ends meet, paying for the education of the 
kids, affording the health care, paying for the prescription drugs. 
That is what this is all about.
  Here are the various groups that are affected: nurses, nursery school 
teachers. Imagine this, nursery school teachers. I looked through the 
regulations. Imagine denying nursery school teachers. When we 
understand the importance, anyone who has had the opportunity to read 
``From Neurons to Neighborhoods,'' Jack Shonkoff's brilliant book that 
summarized three Academy of Sciences studies that showed that the 
intervention in the early years make the greatest difference in terms 
of children.
  We are concerned about education and we are going to make sure those 
nursery school teachers, even if they are qualified, even if they 
deserve it, no way, are they going to be excluded. The list goes on. 
The list goes on.
  Finally, I want to mention this chart that shows what happens when 
you either have protections for overtime or you don't have protections. 
Protections meaning if you are required, you pay time and a half versus 
you don't pay time and a half, what is going to be the impact on 
workers.
  Workers ought to listen to this. Workers ought to take a look at this 
chart. If you have overtime protection and you work more than 40 hours 
a week, only 19 percent of the workers are going to be required to work 
overtime. But if you don't, if the employer doesn't have to pay the 
overtime, it goes up to 44 percent, more than double. Workers beware. 
That is how you are going to end up. You are going to be required to 
work much more than the 40-hour workweek and you are not going to get 
compensated for it.
  And it isn't only the 40-hour workweek. If you have a 50-hour week, 
you are three times as likely to work longer than if you have the 
coverage under overtime.
  This can be summarized very easily as a continuation of this 
administration's war on working families. Working families are not 
asking for much. They want a decent job with decent pay and decent 
opportunities for the future. They have a sense of pride, and they want 
to do a good job in the job they are doing. And they want to work. We 
are stacking it against them. We are saying we will not increase the 
minimum wage, even though it is 7 years since the last time we saw an 
increase and even though its purchasing power is at an all-time low and 
that it

[[Page 8148]]

affects 7 million Americans, fellow citizens who work hard, play by the 
rules, primarily janitors, teachers assistants, people who work in 
nursing homes. Those are the recipients of the minimum wage. And it is 
mostly women. This overtime issue is a women's issue. This overtime 
issue is a women's issue because we have seen the expansion and the 
growth of hours that women are putting in in the workplace.
  This administration has been opposed to an increase in the minimum 
wage, opposed to unemployment compensation, and now opposed to 
overtime. It is basically wrong. It is unfair.
  This Harkin amendment addresses the unfairness. Americans understand 
fairness and unfairness. This underlying proposal of the administration 
is unfair.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an excellent summary 
by Eileen Appelbaum from Rutgers University that talks about 
reinvestment in the United States as a share of corporate profits has 
hit a postwar low.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       It is not a lack of profits that has kept U.S. corporations 
     from investing. As Figure 3 shows, the after-tax capital 
     share is at its highest level in the post-War period. Indeed, 
     the Wall Street Journal reports that 60 percent of U.S. 
     companies and 70 percent of foreign-owned companies in the 
     U.S. didn't pay ANY federal taxes for the years 1996 to 2000 
     (Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2004, p.1). Nevertheless 
     profit reinvested in the U.S. as a share of corporate profits 
     has hit a post-War low.
       In 2003, corporate taxes fell to just 7.4 percent of 
     federal tax receipts--its second lowest share since 1934. 
     Further tax cuts for corporations are not likely to spur 
     investment or create jobs. The problem is the overhang from 
     overinvestment in IT and telecommunications during the latter 
     half of the 1990s and the on-going restructuring of 
     companies. This, combined with a lack of attention to 
     strengthening manufacturing where nearly 40 percent of 
     investment takes place, suggests that low rates of business 
     investment are likely to be a drag on the economy and private 
     sector job creation for several more years.
       Investment has begun to rise over the last two quarters, 
     but the growth in corporate profitability has been even more 
     impressive. If companies continue to grab productivity gains 
     and a larger slice of the economic pie for themselves, and 
     profits continue to squeeze wages, consumption growth will 
     not be able to continue to sustain the economy. Growth in 
     investment is unlikely to be able to overcome the drag on the 
     economy from giving workers a smaller slice of the economic 
     pie.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Make no mistake about it. What this is about is 
increasing the profits. Do we think those profits are going to be 
reinvested in the worker? There is no indication that they will be. 
This is about the bottom line.
  The question is, Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of 
working families trying to make it in America or are you on the side of 
the companies trying to increase the bottom line? That is what the 
issue is.
  I applaud the Senator from Iowa and hope the Senate will support that 
effort.

                               Exhibit 1

          [From the Los Angeles Times Editorial, May 3, 2004]

                        Timeout on Overtime Rule

       Overtime pay makes ends meet for many U.S. workers. But the 
     federal regulations that determine who merits overtime are so 
     complex that employers and employees end up in court way too 
     often, Unfortunately, the new Labor Department overtime rule 
     intended to clear things up just makes them murkier. A 
     timeout is called for, if just to figure out who the winners 
     and losers really are.
       An earlier version of the new rule drew 80,000 comments 
     from befuddled workers and employers alike. The final rule 
     published in April--though a clear improvement--has provoked 
     outright argument about what some of its provisions really 
     mean.
       Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao maintains that, when the 
     rule takes effect in four months, it will guarantee overtime 
     protection to workers earning less than $23,660 a year and 
     strengthen overtime rights for 6.7 million other American 
     workers, including 1.3 million low-wage, white-collar workers 
     who previously didn't qualify. Workers, though, aren't taking 
     Chao's word for it.
       Despite Chao's assurances that she's worked hard to ``get 
     it right,'' the National Assn. of Police Organizations 
     determined that ``while many police are protected, others are 
     not.''
       A former Department of Labor investigator last week told a 
     House committee that ambiguous wording threatens protection 
     now afforded too many workers--including nursery school 
     teachers, nurses, chefs, team leaders, outside sales people 
     and financial service employees--who earn from $23,660 to 
     $100,000 a year.
       American workers have fueled recent productivity gains but 
     failed to share in the newly created wealth because, as Alan 
     Greenspan recently told the Senate, ``virtually all of the 
     gains in productivity ended up in rising profit.''
       The economy isn't spinning off jobs quickly enough to get 
     the unemployed back to work, and young workers are frustrated 
     by a minimum wage that hasn't budged since 1997. A panic 
     about their overtime is the last thing workers need, even 
     though the regulations surely do need some straightening out.
       Rather than take Chao's word, Congress should order the 
     Labor Department to delay implementation of the complex 
     overtime regulations until everyone knows what really will 
     happen to workers' paychecks. Get a think tank on the job.
       Replacing one flawed set of regulations with another won't 
     diminish lawsuits and may allow unscrupulous employers to 
     take advantage of more workers. As Chao has noted, key 
     portions of the rule hadn't been changed in more than 50 
     years. A few more weeks isn't going to matter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk 
about the overtime rules. I believe they are a marvelous step in the 
right direction. After 40 to 50 years of inaction and lack of review, I 
believe we are in a position to make some changes today. Secretary of 
Labor Elaine Chao is one of the finest members of this administration. 
She is a determined public servant. She advertised those changes. She 
solicited information from various groups and individuals and got 
70,000 responses. They evaluated those responses and made the proposed 
rule changes that are before us. I think it is clearly a step in the 
right direction and will add to the number of people who are covered. 
The final rule updating part 541 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
regulation is important.
  When these rules were established, we used words and terms that don't 
really exist today. They used terms like ``gang leader.'' That has 
quite a different tone today than it did when that rule was set up. 
There was also ``linotype operator'' and overtime was guaranteed only 
for persons who made less than $8,060 a year. So this rule change 
improves the regulations in quite a significant way.
  I had the personal experience of working as a lawyer and representing 
two individuals who had problems with overtime. I represented the first 
individual against a company. I had not studied the law that much, but 
I had been a Federal prosecutor and I knew the people. One was a friend 
from my high school days and he operated heavy equipment. He said: 
Jeff, I think I have been entitled to overtime. I worked extra hours. 
When the weather was good, we worked extra hours.
  They saw him as a contractor and he saw himself as an employee. I 
began to look at the law and I thought he was right. We filed a lawsuit 
and the company knuckled under and paid him. I took a fee out of it, 
and I am sure the company paid their lawyers a fee for representing 
them. A pretty significant chunk of the man's overtime had to be paid 
on litigation fees.
  I represented an administrative assistant. The group she worked for 
had meetings at night. She would be required to go take notes and keep 
records, but they didn't pay her overtime. We filed an action on that 
and, eventually, they agreed to pay her. Interestingly, that lady 
worked for a union. So the union wasn't paying one of its own employees 
overtime as they were required.
  What we need is more clarity in this situation. We need a legal 
system that everybody can understand. When you know who is covered, 
then people can demand their overtime and they will get it. It is my 
experience that you will not have quite as many situations where people 
blatantly violate the law if they know what the law is. If the law is 
confusing, they will play in the gray areas and take advantage of 
people. If it is clear, people will tend to follow it--most employers 
will. I think that is what we are looking at here.
  The Department of Labor did not prematurely propose this rule. It was 
after

[[Page 8149]]

a great deal of work and effort and listening and evaluation and 
changing and updating and altering the proposal. I think they have done 
a terrific job. It meets the realistic needs of the modern workplace so 
much better than this 50-year-old rule that has not been changed since 
the beginning.
  I have been disappointed that our friends in the labor movement 
leadership have sought to utilize this change as an opportunity to 
attempt to scare working Americans and cause them to believe they are 
somehow being taken advantage of in this process. That is not so. I was 
disappointed to learn that the AFL-CIO prepared ads attacking the rule, 
before it was even published. That is not the right way to do things. 
We all ought to be a part of the process. If you have a specific 
example of something that is wrong, bring it up with the Secretary of 
Labor, as many did, and as labor groups did, and they will evaluate it 
and make the changes that work.
  This is an attempt--and a successful attempt--to make the rules 
simpler, fairer, and clearer. We have to do better than the current 
law. Under this final rule--and this is so significant--workers making 
$23,660 or less per year are absolutely guaranteed overtime. In the 
past, a worker making $14,000 annually could be classified as a manager 
and be denied overtime.
  Under the new rules, that worker and 6.7 million others will be 
guaranteed overtime protection regardless of whether you call them a 
manager, a boss, or whatever you want to call them. If they make less 
than that, they are classified as eligible and have to be paid overtime 
if they work more than the 40 hours per week. This will cover the 
person at the print shop, the fast food place, and the laundry. Maybe 
they have been classified as a manager because they do the business and 
manage some. Under this, if they are paid less than $23,660, 
automatically they will be covered. That is 6.7 million workers who are 
going to be guaranteed overtime protection.
  This is not something that is trying to harm the worker. I know my 
friend, Senator Kennedy, is quite an advocate. But I have to tell you, 
I don't appreciate him saying that this rule change is a war on 
American workers. What kind of rhetoric is that? What kind of 
partisanship is that? What kind of collegiality and respect for the 
process is that? This is a good series of rules, not a war on the 
American worker.
  He talks about college tuition, health care, prescription drugs, and 
all these issues he wants to talk about but not specifically what is 
wrong about this regulation. There is not anything wrong with it. It is 
a step forward. It is good for American workers and we need to do that.
  I know he talked about a lot of things. One thing he did not suggest 
was that if we got a handle on the number of illegal workers in this 
country, there would be more jobs for American workers? We will get 
more people at that $18, $20, $25 range. That is where we want people 
to work at. He didn't talk about that.
  There are lots of things we can do to improve the life of the working 
American man and women. One of them is to update the overtime rules. I 
believe this has been done openly and publicly by a Secretary of Labor 
who is a lady of integrity and great ability, who listened to the 
complaints and ideas and suggestions, and she has made progress.
  For example, I believe Senator Harkin mentioned law enforcement 
officers. The largest law enforcement group in America, a workers 
group, a labor group, the Fraternal Order of Police, has clearly 
supported this rule change. They participated in the process and they 
made their suggestions. They were happy when it was over. This is what 
the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, said 
when the Department of Labor issued the final regulation. He said it 
was ``an unprecedented victory for police officers and their 
families.'' These are America's first responders, the police, firemen, 
and EMTs.

       He goes on to say that ``the Fraternal Order of Police is 
     extremely grateful for the work of the Secretary of Labor, 
     Elaine Chao, and Wage and Hour Administrator, Tammie 
     McCutchen, to take into consideration and incorporate the 
     views of the FOP in developing their final regulations.''

  He goes on in great praise of them. It has also been repeated on the 
floor earlier today that somehow veterans are unhappy with this bill 
and it is going to hurt veterans.
  But I have a letter from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. They are one 
of the largest veterans groups. They say in a letter to Secretary Chao 
on April 22:

       The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 
     appreciates your soliciting our comments and recommendations 
     on the revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act to strengthen 
     and clarify

  That is how he referred to it, ``strengthen and clarify''--

     the overtime protection provisions; particularly provision 
     addressing veterans and the training they received while 
     serving in the Armed Forces. Much confusion and erroneous 
     misinformation was disseminated.

  Boy, that is true. There has been so much misinformation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, for a question, without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator is correct in the fact that the 
earlier provisions certainly apply to the training veterans received. I 
think my own reading of this is that they may very well apply to this 
group of veterans who have specialized training. Why didn't the 
administration add a line saying that anyone who received training in 
the Armed Forces would not be covered? That would have resolved the 
issue. If the Senator wanted to add that as an amendment, I would 
encourage the Senator from Iowa to accept that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
comments. As a lawyer--and I know Senator Kennedy is a lawyer--these 
things get pretty complicated. Sometimes making blanket rules like that 
can create unfairness in the system.
  Let me go on and continue with what the Veterans of Foreign Wars said 
on April 22 about this legislation:

       Much confusion and erroneous information was disseminated 
     with respect to how the proposed regulations could adversely 
     affect veterans. You and the staff of the Veterans Employment 
     and Training Service and the Wage and Hour Division's 
     willingness to engage the VFW and other Veterans Service 
     Organizations in constructive dialog resulted in the removal 
     of language pertaining to ``training in the Armed Forces,'' 
     thus ensuring veterans would not be denied overtime as a 
     result of such training. Again, the VFW appreciates your 
     recognition of those who serve our Nation in war and peace.

  The Disabled American Veterans, a good, strong group that does a lot 
of good work here:

       Dear Secretary Chao: On behalf of the 1.2 million members 
     of the Disabled American Veterans, I would like to express 
     our gratitude for keeping us and other veterans' service 
     organizations informed throughout the revision of rules 
     governing overtime eligibility for workers under the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act. We also commend your efforts to protect 
     veterans by ensuring that a worker's status as a veteran 
     cannot be used as a basis for exemption from overtime pay.

  And from the American Legion--I suppose they know what is good for 
veterans. I certainly know they advocate for them on a daily basis. 
National Commander John Brieden III wrote to Secretary Chao, April 26, 
last week:

       I am writing in support of the recently released regulatory 
     changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The American Legion 
     has a long history of advocating in support of veterans 
     employment and training entitlements, and we are pleased with 
     the Department of Labor's part 541 final regulations that 
     seek to clarify overtime pay eligibility rules.

  They are happy with them.

       He goes on to write, recent assertions that the proposed 
     regulatory changes target veterans who rely on overtime pay 
     caused undue concern for those proud veterans who have 
     successfully transitioned into the civilian workforce.

  Who has been telling them all this misinformation? They are all 
saying that. How are they being told this? I am afraid the truth is, we 
are in a political season, and the Secretary of Labor stepped up to the 
plate to make some changes that needed to be made. They have not been 
changed in 50 years, and those who have a political agenda who want to 
try to embarrass President Bush, frankly, because Secretary Chao is a 
Cabinet Secretary in

[[Page 8150]]

his administration are going to blame him for adversely harming 
workers, and it is not right. Listen to the people who were there:

       Recent assertions that the proposed regulatory changes 
     target veterans who rely on overtime pay caused undue concern 
     for those proud veterans who have successfully transitioned 
     into the civilian workforce. The removal of language 
     referencing training in the Armed Forces will ensure that no 
     worker will be unjustly penalized for their veteran status as 
     a result of these regulatory changes. At a time in our 
     history when American service members are answering the 
     Nation's call--

  Indeed they certainly are--

     to arms in more than 130 countries worldwide, this country 
     must ensure that all military and veterans entitlements are 
     preserved rather than stripped away.
       The American Legion supports the Department of Labor's 
     efforts to clarify eligibility for overtime pay, and we 
     applaud you, Madame Secretary, for ensuring that the 
     employment rights of America's veterans are protected.

  It is time for us to deal with this situation. These rules are 
better. A lot of people who have been called managers, who are making 
$18,000, $19,000, $20,000, $21,000, $22,000 a year and are being denied 
overtime because their employers crafted a job description that made 
them a manager, will be guaranteed overtime. If you make below $23,660, 
you are guaranteed overtime. If you make over $100,000, you are not. 
But for the others this will be guaranteed.
  This is a step forward for clarity. It is going to reduce litigation. 
It is going to reduce class action lawsuits. It is going to reduce the 
excessive cost that comes from those lawsuits, and it will make lives 
better for American workers. That is our only goal. If I thought it 
harmed our American workers, I would not support it.
  I believe the Secretary of Labor is on the right track. I ask our 
colleagues to oppose the Harkin amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I wish to respond this afternoon to some 
of the statements that have been said, and also to rise in opposition 
to the Harkin amendment.
  First, I wish to join in what the Senator from Alabama was saying 
about the outstanding leadership of our Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. 
If there has ever been an American success story, she is it. She is a 
minority woman who has been in several very critical leadership 
positions, has always done a wonderful job, and she is showing real 
courage as Secretary of Labor. Anybody who would suggest she would be 
advocating positions or rules that would be antiwomen, I don't think 
there is any possibility that would be something she would do. I have a 
knowledge of her and a faith in the leadership she is providing.
  She is trying to change rules that have not been touched in 50 years. 
Whatever they were 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, one would 
think they probably need some reconsideration and updating. That is 
what she is trying to do.
  As far as being concerned about the low income and entry level of 
working Americans, I feel a real concern for that. My dad was a 
shipyard worker, a pipefitter, a union member. My mother taught school. 
She subsequently kept books because she could not make enough money 
teaching school. My son employs a lot of entry level, low-income, unwed 
mothers, and he worries about his need for insurance coverage.
  I do not step aside for anybody as far as coming from a low-income, 
middle-income background. I want to make sure we do right by the low-
income people and the entry level people.
  In that connection, in talking about the economy and what is 
happening, I remind all Americans and my colleagues the economy is not 
perfect. The economy would never be as good as we would like for it to 
be. We would like it to be growing at 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 percent GDP and 
hope we can make that happen. I believe we in America can always make 
the pie bigger. We do not have to make the slices smaller. We can 
challenge every American to think about what the opportunities are that 
are being offered and try to take a part of the American dream. And we 
are moving in that direction. Productivity is up.
  The point was made maybe it is going to the bottom line, the profit. 
I figured out if Litton Industries did not have a profit, my dad 
probably would not have had a job doing pipefitting in that shipyard.
  Jobless claims are down, housing starts are at an all-time high, and 
the American dream of owning your own home is doing fantastically. I 
met last week with homebuilders from my home State. They are doing 
great. They are providing good quality, affordable housing like never 
before, probably because interest rates are low, historically low, and 
have been so. The markets are up.
  When I hear, woe is me, the economy is not good--it is not perfect, 
but there are a lot of indicators going in the right direction.
  Then when I hear our workers in America work more than people in 
France, are we now trying to imitate France? Pretty soon they will be 
down to working maybe 25 hours a week, and they have huge economic 
problems because they have not been able to bring themselves to address 
the difficulties they are getting into with all their pensions and all 
the stuff they are committed to they are not going to be able to pay 
for.
  I do not want to follow France's example, for Heaven's sake. So what 
do we have in this particular instance? Again, we are trying to update 
the rules on overtime. It looks to me as though for low-income workers, 
they are going to be the beneficiaries. The Department estimates that 
few, if any, workers between $23,660 and $100,000 would lose their 
overtime. As a matter of fact, 1.3 million salaried workers who earn 
less than $23,660 would get the overtime, and they would not need to go 
to court or to try to deal with the difficulties of the vague language. 
They are going to clarify when these workers would be eligible for 
overtime.
  Certainly, people who are making $23,000 or $24,000 ought to get 
overtime when they work extra hours. I think we ought to be commending 
the Secretary of Labor. She listened to us. She heard our complaints. 
Where there were weaknesses that were pointed out, they went back and 
tried to address those. These are not the same rules we were debating a 
year ago. They went back and raised the level that would be applied. 
The salaried level was $65,000. In the final version of rules, it is up 
to $100,000.
  There are new provisions in the rules that specify certain classes of 
employees also, such as police officers and firefighters, as 
automatically eligible for overtime pay. Do we not want to make that 
clear? Do we not want to specify that firefighters and police officers 
would be entitled to get overtime pay?
  It also declares that licensed practical nurses and certain veterans 
would be eligible for overtime pay. So there is a clarification with 
regard to the nurses. When one looks at what has happened, what they 
are trying to accomplish is to bring the rules up to date with the 
realities of employment today, and this is the first time we have done 
it in 50 years. As a matter of fact, low-income workers have certainty 
that they are going to get overtime. Specific groups such as 
firefighters, policemen, veterans, and licensed practical nurses will 
be guaranteed that they will get this overtime pay.
  Now there are certain categories of people I am sure are defined in 
these rules who are executive or administrative in position. They may 
make over $100,000, $120,000, or $130,000 a year. They may have to work 
overtime. How many people in our offices work overtime? How many 
overtime hours do we work, 50, 60, 70, 80? We understand when we run 
for the Senate that we are not going to get overtime pay. I am not 
advocating that. That is my point. I do not expect it, and I work 70, 
80 hours a week because of the opportunities, the way of honor and 
because of the understanding of what we would be paid.
  I think these rules are the right thing to do. There is clarity about 
the fact that more people would be covered. I do not know how many 
people might actually have some risk of not getting overtime, but it 
would be in

[[Page 8151]]

the higher brackets. The number is probably 107,000 workers earning 
more than this $100,000 might lose their overtime pay.
  This effort has shifted the emphasis to the low-income people who 
have not been certain that they could get overtime. We should be 
commending the Secretary of Labor, not trying to pass the Harkin 
amendment that would block these changes.
  I fear once again what we have is people wanting more. They are not 
satisfied that this is good enough. Good, maybe, yes, that maybe it is 
fine if it applies to first responders, nurses, blue collar workers, 
cooks, paralegals, public service inspectors, union contracts, and 
veterans. That is all good, but we want more. We are going to defeat 
the good in pursuit of the perfect.
  It will not happen.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this Harkin amendment. Let us 
put these rules in place. It will not be the last pass at this. We are 
going to find that there are some weaknesses, or we should have maybe 
considered another group. The rules will be changed again.
  I had to take a little time to talk about the facts with regard to 
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, to talk about the economy and talk 
about how these rules have been modified. They have moved in the right 
direction, and we should allow them to go into place and continue to 
work to make sure they are applied properly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine and the Senator 
from Oregon would each like to offer an amendment. I would like to get 
them in a queue for consideration after the Harkin amendment. I have 
cleared this with the majority manager.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending Harkin amendment be 
temporarily laid aside so that Senator Collins may offer an amendment; 
that after she has been able to do so and speak to her amendment the 
Collins amendment be temporarily laid aside, and that Senator Wyden be 
recognized to offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 3108

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3108.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 a manufacturer's jobs credit, and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 139, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MANUFACTURER'S JOBS CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits), as amended 
     by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 45S. MANUFACTURER'S JOBS CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, in the 
     case of an eligible taxpayer, the manufacturer's jobs credit 
     determined under this section is an amount equal to the 
     lesser of the following:
       ``(1) The excess of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year over the W-2 wages paid by the 
     taxpayer during the preceding taxable year.
       ``(2) The W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer during the taxable 
     year to any employee who is an eligible TAA recipient (as 
     defined in section 35(c)(2)) for any month during such 
     taxable year.
       ``(3) 22.4 percent of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The amount of credit determined under 
     subsection (a) shall be reduced by an amount which bears the 
     same ratio to the amount of the credit (determined without 
     regard to this subsection) as--
       ``(1) the excess of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer to 
     employees outside the United States during the taxable year 
     over such wages paid during the most recent taxable year 
     ending before the date of the enactment of this section, 
     bears to
       ``(2) the excess of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer to 
     employees within the United States during the taxable year 
     over such wages paid during such most recent taxable year.
       ``(c) Eligible Taxpayer.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `eligible taxpayer' means any taxpayer--
       ``(1) which has domestic production gross receipts for the 
     taxable year and the preceding taxable year, and
       ``(2) which is not treated at any time during the taxable 
     year as an inverted domestic corporation under section 7874.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, W-2 wages 
     and domestic production gross receipts shall be determined in 
     the same manner as under section 199.
       ``(e) Certain Rules Made Applicable.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 52 shall 
     apply.
       ``(f) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.''.
       (b) Credit To Be Part of General Business Credit.--Section 
     38(b) (relating to current year business credit), as amended 
     by this Act, is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of 
     paragraph (29), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (30) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(31) the manufacturer's jobs credit determined under 
     section 45S.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this 
     Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 45S. Manufacturer's jobs credit.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.
       On page 335, line 8, strike ``December 31, 2004,'' and 
     insert ``the date of the enactment of this Act''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I turn to the subject matter of 
the amendment which I have just submitted, I rise to take a moment to 
thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their courtesy, and 
in particular to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee and their staffs for their assistance in advancing 
this important legislation and in helping to bring this amendment to 
the Senate floor.
  Over the past year, the American economy has emerged from a period of 
recession and slow growth into a period of economic recovery. The last 
half of 2003 saw the strongest growth in two decades and the growth 
continues to be strong, 4.2 percent in the first quarter of this year, 
a clear sign of a healthy and sustainable economic rebound.
  There are hopeful signs on the job front, too. Last month, 308,000 
new jobs were added to our Nation's payrolls. This is very good news, 
but the recovery has not affected all sectors equally. One sector in 
particular, manufacturing, is struggling to cope with the long-term 
decline that has cost so many workers their jobs.
  Job losses in the manufacturing sector did not begin with the recent 
recession, nor with this administration. It is not a Democratic issue 
or a Republican issue. In each decade since World War II, employment in 
the manufacturing sector has declined as a share of total employment. 
In absolute terms, the number of American manufacturing jobs has fallen 
each year since the end of 1997. In fact, if one examines the past 84 
months since March of 1997, the number of manufacturing jobs has 
declined each and every month except 7.
  No State has been harder hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs than 
my home State of Maine. According to a study by the National 
Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis Maine has lost more 
manufacturing jobs than any State in the Nation. We have lost nearly 
18,000 jobs during that period, good jobs that once provided lifelong 
employment to Mainers living in communities such as Millinocket, 
Brewer, Wilton, Waterville, Fort Kent, Dexter, Westbrook, and Sanford.
  Many people are asking: Why are so many manufacturing jobs in this 
country disappearing?
  According to a recent study conducted by the National Association of 
Manufacturers, one answer is the disparity in manufacturing costs in 
our country versus other countries. In fact, compared to other 
countries, it costs an average of 22 percent more to manufacture goods 
in the United States.
  While it would surprise no one that U.S. manufacturers face a higher 
cost of doing business compared to manufacturers in countries such as 
China or

[[Page 8152]]

Mexico, it would be a mistake to assume wage rates alone explain this 
difference. They do not. In fact, the productivity of the American 
worker is unrivaled, allowing American workers to receive more value in 
terms of wages for the goods they produce. As the NAM study states, if 
wages were the only factor, then:

       U.S. manufacturers would be much more dominant . . . in the 
     global markets than the current trade situation suggests.

  It is other structural costs such as the high corporate tax rate we 
impose on manufacturers that make it much more expensive to manufacture 
goods here in the United States relative to the costs elsewhere. 
Indeed, the NAM study shows it is significantly cheaper to produce 
goods even in high-wage industrialized nations such as Japan and 
France. This fact illustrates the critical impact these high structural 
costs have on manufacturers in our country.
  In essence, these costs have the same effect as imposing a 22-percent 
additional tax on making goods here, rather than overseas. To compete, 
American manufacturers must somehow do more with less, move operations 
overseas, or get out of manufacturing altogether. None of those is a 
good solution. The result is fewer jobs, a weaker economy, and a 
manufacturing sector in crisis.
  Earlier this session I introduced legislation known as the Growing 
Our Manufacturing Employment Act. This legislation provides a 9-percent 
deduction for manufacturing income, and contains additional provisions 
benefiting the forest products industry, an industry critical to 
manufacturers and jobs, good jobs in my home State. I am very pleased 
the underlying bill we are considering, the JOBS Act, has already been 
amended to accelerate the deduction for manufacturing income and it 
contains these important forestry provisions. But I believe we need to 
go further to address the loss of these vital manufacturing jobs. For 
that reason, I am offering the final provisions of the Growing Our 
Manufacturing Jobs Act as an amendment to this bill. My amendment is 
aimed at reinvigorating the manufacturing sector, boosting the level of 
domestic manufacturing, and preventing the further loss of these 
important jobs.
  My amendment would help to reduce the 22-percent cost differential 
American manufacturers face by providing a jobs tax credit to those 
manufacturers that increase their payrolls by hiring displaced workers 
who are receiving trade adjustment assistance. That would mean we would 
be providing an important incentive for manufacturers to rehire workers 
who have been laid off because of the impact of foreign competition.
  In Maine alone, nearly 60 manufacturers are currently TAA-certified, 
and more than 4,200 Maine workers have been deemed eligible for 
benefits under TAA since the start of 2002. The credit I have suggested 
would provide a powerful incentive to hire these workers and help them 
get back to work.
  This credit is very carefully targeted. For that reason, it carries a 
modest pricetag, which, thanks to the efforts of the Finance Committee, 
would be fully offset by other provisions included in the amendment.
  Finally, this amendment is designed to ensure only those companies 
that are helping to build America's manufacturing base obtain the 
credit. It has both a carrot-and-a-stick approach. Companies that move 
jobs offshore will see their benefits reduced. Most important, 
companies that chose to reincorporate in offshore tax havens to avoid 
American taxes will not be eligible for this credit.
  I am hopeful that by working together on this proposal and the 
important provisions of the underlying bill, we can take the important 
steps that are needed to strengthen American manufacturers, to preserve 
our manufacturing capacity and, most of all, to help ensure hard-
working Americans have the jobs they need and deserve.
  Let me once again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
ongoing efforts to advance this significant legislation. It has been a 
pleasure working with them to bring this proposal before the Senate. 
Few subjects the Senate will address this year are as important as 
creating and protecting good jobs, and few bills are as important to 
advancing that goal as the legislation before us today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 3109

 (Purpose: To provide trade adjustment assistance for service workers, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, 
Senator Dayton, Senator Brownback, Senator Dodd, and Senator Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for himself, Mr. 
     Coleman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Dodd, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3109.

  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Montana on the 
floor, and the Senator from Massachusetts, both of whom have done so 
much for working families, as has the Senator from Maine.
  I bring this bipartisan amendment to the floor tonight because I 
think it illustrates a point Senator Lott expressed earlier when he 
talked about updating our laws to make sure they are fair and practical 
for the times.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, which this amendment speaks to, 
has been a great asset to folks who have been laid off in the 
manufacturing sector. It was written more than three decades ago. Of 
course, that was the key sector in our economy and still is 
tremendously important today, but the fact is, the trade adjustment law 
today doesn't apply to about four-fifths of our workers, the folks who 
have been laid off in the service sector and in the high-technology 
sector. So what we have is millions of unemployed workers in the 
service sector and in the high-tech sector who are walking on an 
economic tightrope every single day, balancing their food costs against 
their fuel costs, and their fuel costs against the skyrocketing medical 
bills, as Senator Kennedy has pointed out.
  What this bipartisan amendment seeks to do is establish parity 
between folks in the service and technology sector and those in the 
manufacturing sector. So people who lose their jobs when their employer 
closes or lays them off because of import competition, people in the 
public and private sector who lose their jobs when their facility moves 
overseas, and secondary service workers who provide services to a 
primary firm where workers are eligible for trade adjustment and whose 
closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm--when those 
people are in the high-tech and service sector of our economy, under 
our bipartisan amendment those people would be able to get benefits 
under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act.
  In effect, this bipartisan coalition wants to persuade the Senate to 
support it. It is a proposition that no matter where an American works, 
if you lose your job because of imports, because your job moves 
offshore, you ought to be able to get retraining, income support, and 
help with your health insurance.
  Workers in the high-tech sector in my home State and across the 
country have taken a pounding in recent years. The American Electronics 
Association reported recently the tech sector lost 775,000 jobs in 2001 
to 2003 and another 3.3 million jobs could be lost in the next decade. 
A Deloitte & Touche survey of telecommunication companies forecasts 
that well over 275,000 jobs, or 5 percent of the total workforce, will 
move offshore in the next 4 years and more than half of all Fortune 500 
companies are outsourcing software development or expanding their own 
operations overseas.

[[Page 8153]]

  The fact is when you have a software developer earning $6 an hour in 
Bangalore, India, and 10 times that amount in Beaverton, OR, every 
single day this critical sector of our economy--services and high 
technology--faces extraordinarily tough competition. When the starting 
salary of a software engineer in India is $5,000 and top level IT 
professionals earn $20,000 there, you can be sure the competition is 
intense. The question is, Who is going to stand up for these American 
workers in the high-technology and service sector that plays such a 
critical role in our economy?
  Some argue increased trade is an overall plus to the United States 
because it lowers prices for consumers. There is no doubt about that. 
That is why I have consistently supported trade. But there are negative 
effects on some of our workers.
  Exports of high-tech products from my home State jumped 18 percent 
from 2001 to 2002, but in the technology industry jobs fell 11 percent. 
The Oregon Employment Department reports in the 2001 to 2003 period, 
3,300 computer systems and design jobs were lost, 5,300 professional 
and technical service jobs have been lost, and 1,400 architectural and 
engineering service jobs were lost. Many of these have been lost due to 
trade.
  I say it is time to update--as Senator Lott has said--this critical 
law, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, so millions of workers in the 
high-tech and services sector are not left without a safety net. They 
have a safety net in the trade adjustment law if they are in the 
manufacturing sector, and that has been a great benefit to those 
families. But for four-fifths of our workers, those in the high-tech 
and service sector, that safety net has not been there. This bipartisan 
amendment will restore it.
  High-tech workers, as we know, have been the envy of the American 
workforce. Certainly during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, they 
were responsible for a tremendous amount of economic growth. The 
ingenuity of these programmers, engineers, and designers helped drive 
our economy into the 21st century. The creativity of these workers 
generated an exceptional wave of economic prosperity. Trade agreements 
on services and intellectual property helped carry the fruit of these 
dedicated workers around the globe.
  Globalization of technology is unquestionably globalizing the 
technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in 
determining where a job can be done. Globalization of information 
technology hardware production from 1995 to 2002 cut information 
technology hardware costs 10 to 30 percent, translating into higher 
productivity growth and adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the 
U.S. gross domestic product. Information technology became affordable 
to business sectors previously bypassed by the productivity boom, 
small-sized and mid-sized companies, health care and construction.
  But as information technology hardware prices decline, the importance 
of information technology services and software increased, to almost 70 
percent of information technology spending in 2001. One economist found 
offshoring reportedly saved most information technology organizations 
on the order of from 15 to 25 percent in the first year. With growth in 
software and services outpacing hardware spending by almost two to one, 
the demand for cheaper information technology services has lent 
strength to this ``offshoring tsunami'' and hammered many of our 
information technology workers in the process.
  Certainly no one could have anticipated the shocking speed or scale 
of globalization in information technology. The American Electronics 
Association 2003 Cyberstates report found unemployment among computer 
programmers jumped from 4.5 percent in 2001 to 6.2 percent in 2003; 
that high-tech employment fell by 540,000 jobs to 6 million in 2002; 
and that a further loss of 234,000 jobs was expected in 2003.
  Hardly a day goes by without a front-page story in virtually hundreds 
of communities across the country about an American programmer on his 
or her way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace them. 
It is a very rich irony that some of the same workers who launched the 
technology revolution have in fact become its victims.
  The average American may think the Federal Government is helping 
technology and service workers displaced by trade, but it is not. That 
is because a law written in 1962, when so many of our workers were in 
the manufacturing sector, has not been updated. Now we have tens of 
thousands who have lost jobs in the services sector and the technology 
sector who are not eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. 
The bipartisan amendment I offer today will open the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Act door to these and other displaced services and 
technology sector workers.
  The act is a lifeline for millions of these workers. It provides 
retraining, income support, a health insurance tax credit, and other 
benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help 
secondary workers who supply parts and services who may lose their jobs 
when the facility or service shuts down due to import competition. This 
is exactly the type of help trade-displaced services workers need.
  A self-described ``newly unemployed software engineer'' from 
Hillsboro, OR wrote in December: ``My job was moved to India where the 
company can pay Indians a fifth of what they pay Americans.''
  Another wrote: ``As a 50-year-old high-tech manufacturing engineer 
with 26 years of experience, I was laid off in December 2002. I am sure 
the new factory the company is building in China will prevent my ever 
returning to the company. I can't even get hired into an entry-level 
position anywhere because I am over-qualified.''
  These unemployed Oregonians--and there are thousands of others who 
are employed in the information technology sector and the service 
sector who have lost their jobs--deserve to have this law, as our 
friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott said, updated so they can get 
benefits in the safety net the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act offers. 
I have heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts champion 
this.
  It is in effect a trampoline that allows individuals in our country 
who have been laid off through no fault of their own to get the 
training and the assistance and the kind of health care to in effect 
bounce back in our economy.
  It seems to me workers reeling from the offshoring of service sector 
jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher skilled jobs that economists 
keep promising them are just around the corner. Higher value, higher 
paid systems integration jobs may come along, but I am telling you in 
my home State--and I think in communities across the country--a lot of 
unemployed information technology professionals think they are more 
likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help-wanted ads for 
new, highly skilled information technology jobs.
  When a worker is displaced by trade, it should be irrelevant whether 
the person worked in services or technology or manufacturing. Every 
worker displaced by trade should be eligible for this very same 
benefit. This bipartisan amendment ensures that will be the case.
  I again thank the distinguished Senator from Montana, my friend 
Senator Baucus. He has been so helpful to me on this and so many other 
matters during my service in the Senate.
  I also thank the Senator from Minnesota who will be joining us. He 
has worked with the distinguished Senator from Montana and me on this 
bipartisan amendment.
  The Senator from Minnesota has joined us. But we have colleagues who 
come from every part of the country who have joined us. Senator 
Brownback has joined us, Senator Snowe has joined us, Senator Dodd has 
joined us, and Senator Coleman, Senator Baucus, and Senator 
Rockefeller. I am very hopeful that the Senate will resoundingly 
support this bipartisan amendment. This is about updating a law that is 
now more than three decades old, a law that does not

[[Page 8154]]

cover services and high technology, to the detriment of millions of 
workers. We have a bipartisan proposal that allows that. I thank my 
good friend from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon. He has 
worked very hard on this issue. It is, frankly, a very bright spot in 
this whole bill. That is, it is a major way to help people who need 
help. It has been worked out very aggressively and thoroughly by an 
awful lot of Senators.
  The real leader is the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. He has done a 
wonderful job talking with lots of different Senators and working out 
the different points of view to come together with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                         prescription drug card

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Bush administration drug cards do not 
pass the truth in advertising test. They are no solution to sky-high 
drug prices, and there will not be a solution until we have a President 
and Congress who care about fairness for patients instead of higher 
profits for pharamaceutical companies. The drug companies keep gouging 
all Americans on exorbitant drug prices, and the Bush administration 
keeps cheering them on. It is no accident that the drug companies are 
working ``hand in pocket'' with the administration in hyping these 
cards and keeping prices high.
  The Bush administration has a perfect batting average on providing 
information to the American public about Medicare--they are misleading 
every single time, and the drug cards are no exception. In the great 
tradition of suppressed cost estimates and false advertising comes the 
new revelation that the administration cannot even give the public 
honest figures about prices for drugs under the new cards.
  The millions of taxpayer dollars that the Bush administration is 
spending to peddle its plan cannot disguise the fact that seniors would 
get a better deal taking a bus to Canada to buy drugs at fair prices 
there.
  The drug cards will offer small discounts from already inflated 
prices. It is like used car dealers who raise prices just before 
customers come to the lot, so they can offer phony discounts and make 
it sound like a bargain. Studies show that the savings from the cards 
are not significantly better than those provided by already existing 
discount programs.
  Unfortunately, there is no lemon law for these drug cards. If seniors 
sign up for a card that does not deliver the promised discounts, too 
bad. They are stuck with it. The card companies can change their 
discounts every week, but seniors are locked in for a year on the card 
they choose. The card companies don't even have to pass all the 
discounts from drug companies along to patients. They can keep their 
kickbacks and let seniors foot the bill.
  Let's end these deceptive tricks and find honest solutions to the 
crisis of excessive costs for prescription drugs. Americans should be 
able to buy safe drugs from abroad at the same fair prices that 
Canadians or Europeans pay. Medicare should be able to use the 
purchasing power of 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate the same low 
prices on prescription drugs that the Veteran's Administration 
negotiates for veterans. But the Bush administration won't allow that. 
Why not? Because it is joined at the wallet with drug companies and 
their armies of lobbyists and tens of millions of dollars in campaign 
contributions.
  Senior citizens want a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. 
Americans want fair prices for prescription drugs. The Bush 
administration and Republicans in Congress offer slick advertisements, 
a well-oiled public relations machine, and lots of promises, but no 
performance. It is time for a change.
  I will share with the Senate exactly what these cards will do and 
what they will not do. This chart is entitled, ``The Medicare Drug 
Cards: No substitute for real cost savings.'' This is the cost of a 1-
month supply of the top 10 drugs which seniors most often use. This 
line represents the U.S. Federal supply schedule, $587. That is the 
cost under the VA system through the negotiation. It is $596 for the 
same 1-month supply of the top 10 drugs for Canada; $972 at Walgreens. 
RXSavings is $1,046, with $1,061 for the PCA, the two Medicare drug 
cards.
  If we had in the Medicare bill the ability for the Secretary of HHS 
to negotiate the prices down, we would be at $587 or the $596. Instead, 
it is the higher figure.
  This next chart shows the same thing. These prices available to 
Medicare beneficiaries are well below the prices available with the new 
Medicare discount cards. Again, the price for the market basket of the 
top 10 drugs, drugstore.com, $959. This is without any annual fee. The 
annual fees can go up to $30 in Medicare. You cannot go above $30. 
Under Costco.com, $990 with no fee. Total cost is $959 and $990. Under 
Walgreens, it is $972. The annual fee of $20 puts it at $992. Pharmacy 
RXSavings is $1,046 with a $30 annual fee, to put it at $1,076. At 
Pharmacy Care Alliance, $1,061, plus $19 for the annual fee, and that 
equals $1,080.
  This is what could be received today. It clearly reflects no savings 
on this. The other chart showed the difference if we had in the 
Medicare bill the ability for real negotiations. We would have the 
savings reflected in the VA or as it is in Canada.
  The administration now is pulling out all the stops in terms of what 
it is going to do for the seniors. This does not pass the truth in 
advertising test. It is not effective savings at all. Our seniors are 
able to receive better pricing through drugstore.com and Costco.com.
  This is a continuation of the kind of challenge we are facing. 
Hopefully, before the end of this session we will have the opportunity 
to get back to doing something about real negotiations on prescription 
drugs.


                                 Sudan

  Mr. President, I commend the Foreign Relations Committee for its 
action last week in reporting a resolution urging action by the United 
States and the international community to respond to the ongoing ethnic 
violence in Sudan. The Senate should act on this resolution as soon as 
possible.
  It has been 10 years since the Rwanda genocide. A decade ago, 8,000 
Rwandans were being killed every day, yet the international community 
was silent. We did not stop the deaths of 800,000 Tutsis and 
politically moderate Hutu, in spite of our commitment that genocide 
must never again darken the annals of human history.
  Sadly, we may now be repeating the same mistake in Sudan.
  In 1998, President Clinton made a special visit to Kigali, Rwanda's 
capital, ``partly,'' he said, ``in recognition of the fact that we in 
the United States and the world community did not do as much as we 
could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred'' in 
Rwanda. His visit and strong words remind us that we must not hesitate 
to act, when the horror is clear and when so many lives may be lost.
  Over the past few weeks, reports of severe ethnic violence have come 
from Darfur, a region of western Sudan. We have heard accounts of 
thousands or even tens of thousands of people murdered, of widespread 
rape, and of people's homes burned to the ground.
  The Sudanese government has refused to allow full access to western 
Sudan. International monitors and humanitarian workers have been 
prevented from reaching the area. We need immediate access to gather 
more information on what is happening and to provide urgent 
humanitarian relief to the one million people the United Nations 
reports have been displaced internally in Sudan or across the border to 
Chad.
  Many of us hoped that the humanitarian cease-fire and agreement 
earlier this month between the Sudanese Government and rebel forces in 
western Sudan would end the many months of violence against entire 
communities. It has not. The bombing of villages by the Sudanese Air 
Force continues, and so does the mayhem by the paramilitary forces 
unleashed by the Government of Sudan.
  The burning of homes and crops of desperately poor villagers has left 
in its ashes a humanitarian disaster.

[[Page 8155]]

Without immediate relief, experts predict deaths in the hundreds of 
thousands. The cruelty of the Government of Sudan and its paramilitary 
allies against other ethnic groups raises the very real specter of 
genocide.
  The United States and the international community need to act now, to 
stop this brutality, to save lives.
  President Bush should make a strong public statement alerting the 
world to the violence in Darfur. He should call the international 
community to action, and increase pressure on the Sudanese Government. 
Doing so would send a strong signal that the international community 
will not accept these continuing atrocities. Sudan has been seeking 
better relations with the United States. It must be told that our 
Nation will have no relations with a genocidal government.
  The United States should propose a resolution in the United Nations 
Security Council to condemn the violations of international law being 
committed in Darfur, particularly the indiscriminate targeting of 
civilians and the obstruction of humanitarian aid by the government. 
The U.N. should demand immediate international access to the region to 
assess the full scale of the need for assistance. The U.N. should also 
insist on adequate support for international human rights monitors and 
for monitors of the cease-fire agreement reached last week.
  The international community must demand that Sudan stop the violence 
now, and give full humanitarian access to Darfur without question or 
qualification.
  To minimize the suffering of those affected by the violence, we 
should immediately identify funds and food aid to meet at least the 
traditional U.S. share of the $110 million appeal from the U.N. Office 
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to support urgently needed 
assistance for internally displaced persons and refugees. These 
internally displaced persons and refugees must also be allowed by the 
Sudanese Government and militias to return safely to their homes, to 
rebuild their lives and communities, as soon as possible.
  The European community, African countries and the rest of the 
international community should use their considerable influence to 
pressure Sudan to end the violence in Darfur, and end it now.
  If the international community fails to act--and to act now--the 
consequences will be dire.
  United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was eloquent in his 
statement at the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda 
genocide. He said that he would not permit Darfur to become the first 
genocide of the 21st century.
  There will be discussion in Washington and around the world about 
whether the ethnic violence in Darfur is, in fact, genocide, but we 
cannot allow the debate over definitions obstruct our ability to act as 
soon as possible.
  It is a matter of the highest moral responsibility for each of us 
individually, for Congress, for the United States, and for the global 
community to do all we can to stop the violence against innocents in 
Darfur. We must act, because thousands of people's lives will be lost 
if we don't.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3109

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see Senator Coleman of Minnesota on the 
floor. I want to say how much I deeply appreciate all the effort he has 
undertaken on behalf of the pending amendment. He is one of the two or 
three who worked mightily to get this amendment in shape. I want the 
people in Minnesota and our Senators to know how much he has done. I am 
very honored to have been a part of his team in working with him as he 
has crafted and offered this amendment we are now debating.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend and colleague 
from Montana for his kind words and for giving me the opportunity to 
work with him in a bipartisan manner on this important amendment. 
Actually, earlier this year, I was able to join with my friend, Senator 
Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, in introducing 
legislation to extend trade adjustment assistance to American service 
sector workers. I call that good Minnesota commonsense legislation.
  Today I rise to join Senators Wyden and Baucus to offer a modified 
version of this important legislation as an amendment to the JOBS bill. 
Our amendment not only extends trade adjustment assistance to service 
sector workers, but also improves and strengthens the TAA program for 
all American workers.
  I say to my colleagues, if you care about the issue of offshoring and 
outsourcing and are searching for a positive, constructive, forward-
looking way of addressing these challenges, this is it. I say to my 
colleagues, if you support trade and expanding trade opportunities, but 
recognize that along the way there are going to be some workers who are 
going to be hurt as we grow and expand--and we need to grow and expand; 
and trade is part of that--we can address that.
  I am a strong supporter of trade adjustment assistance because trade 
adjustment assistance is critical to achieving a balance: the expansion 
of trade but meeting the needs of those workers who are negatively 
impacted.
  Earlier when Senator Wyden, my colleague from Oregon, spoke, he 
talked about the bipartisan support this amendment appreciates and 
enjoys. Senator Smith has supported this legislation, and Senator 
Snowe, Senator Brownback, and many others.
  It is also important to note this legislation has received industry 
support--most notably support from the Information Technology Industry 
Association and the Business Roundtable--for extending TAA to service 
sector workers.
  The TAA program has a history that dates back more than 40 years. The 
program was created in the early 1960s, and it is fascinating to go 
back and review the speeches President Kennedy and Members of Congress 
made on this same topic more than 4 decades ago.
  We often assume issues such as globalization and the offshoring and 
outsourcing of jobs are new issues, but it is striking to note how some 
of the arguments we hear being made today were made 40 years ago. Of 
course, some of the terms used, such as ``globalization,'' are of 
recent vintage. But the underlying desire to address the needs of these 
who are harmed by trade is almost identical to those discussed 40 years 
ago.
  At that time, the President and Congress agreed to go forward in the 
pursuit of free trade, but they also agreed to provide financial 
support to workers who lose their jobs and to provide retraining 
benefits to assist them in finding new jobs.
  Over the years, some of the specifics of the program have changed. 
Some initiatives have worked and others have not worked so well. The 
TAA program has evolved as we have learned more and faced new 
challenges.
  The most comprehensive effort to update TAA was in the Trade Act of 
2002. In much the same way they had 40 years ago, the President and 
Congress decided to pursue a policy to go forward, seeking the benefits 
of free trade, and decided to build a comprehensive program to deal 
with the needs of those harmed by trade.
  I will not try to list every single amendment to TAA made in that 
legislation; There are simply too many to mention. But in the 2 years 
that have passed, we have seen things that have worked and seen things 
that need improvement. Addressing the shortcomings is the impetus for 
the amendment we are offering now.
  This amendment may not address all the problems with regard to TAA. 
In a number of areas, such as the new program for farmers, the solution 
may simply be more vigorous congressional oversight to ensure the 
program lives up to the law. The Court of International Trade has 
criticized some of the administrative decisions made in implementing 
the program. This may be a place where Congress should step

[[Page 8156]]

in to see that the ideas it put into legislation become a reality.
  Our amendment makes at least one commonsense fix to a problem our 
dairy farmers are having with the program. We worked closely with the 
National Milk Producers Federation on a solution to this problem.
  I would add that although President Kennedy advocated TAA for farmers 
some 40 years ago, it did not come about until a couple years ago, and 
probably never would have come about but for the hard work and efforts 
of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. Senator 
Grassley said at that time:

       I am very concerned that if we lose farm support for free 
     trade it will be very hard for us to win congressional 
     support for new trade deals when they are concluded.

  Some good food for thought for the folks who administer this program: 
We have to make this program work for the farm industry.
  With regard to the taconite workers in my State, I believe vigorous 
oversight can help the Department of Labor find ways to use TAA to 
address their concerns. Here again, we have made one legislative 
modification in hopes of putting this issue to bed for good. This is 
good news for the Iron Range in Minnesota.
  In other areas, new problems requiring legislation have become 
apparent. There have been numerous newspaper stories in recent months 
covering the tragedy of computer programmers and others who have seen 
their jobs move to India and elsewhere. From reading these stories, one 
might think these are obvious cases for TAA, but most of these computer 
workers have been denied TAA because they produce ``services'' and TAA 
presently only covers ``goods.'' Since the overwhelming majority of 
working Americans are officially classified as service workers, this is 
an enormously significant distinction.
  I note that in conversation with many of my colleagues, I am not sure 
they are even aware the current law does not cover service workers. 
There was a sense, when we passed TAA, that we covered the needs of 
those who were impacted negatively by trade. But the reality is, 80 
percent of the workers are service workers. They are not currently 
protected. This amendment would do that.
  This is an area where I understand some litigation is underway, but 
we do not have to wait for a court to decide. It seems obvious that 
workers employed as computer programmers are just as unemployed as 
workers in a textile factory when they lose their jobs. They should be 
entitled to the same benefits. Splitting hairs in defining services and 
goods misses the undeniable point that service workers deserve no less 
than workers in the ``goods'' sector.
  Specifically this amendment would make three important changes to the 
TAA program to ensure service workers are treated fairly.
  First, in cases in which service workers lose their jobs because of 
service imports, these workers are made eligible for TAA. The best 
known example of a situation similar to this is the case of Mexican 
trucking firms which are striving to carry freight within the United 
States. U.S. truck drivers that might lose their jobs to such 
competition would be eligible for TAA under this amendment.
  Second, service workers who lose their jobs when the facility they 
work in moves out of the United States--the problem we have read about 
in recent months--would be eligible for TAA. Thus, under this 
amendment, if a call center or computer programming facility moves from 
Minneapolis to India, the workers would be eligible for TAA.
  Finally, in those cases where the service workers provide services to 
a plant or facility that closes, moves, or reduces employment, these 
workers are eligible for TAA if the primary plant or facility is 
eligible for TAA. This simply parallels the so-called secondary workers 
provisions now in the law for workers producing goods.
  For example, under present law, if a U.S. plant producing lawnmowers 
closes due to import competition, the workers at the plant and the 
workers at the facilities that supply lawnmower parts to the 
manufacturing plant would be eligible for TAA. But if the closed 
lawnmower plant contracted for janitorial services, the janitorial 
workers that lose their jobs would not be covered. This amendment 
eliminates this obvious inequity and treats the workers that provide 
services to the lawnmower plant just as it does those who assemble 
lawnmower motors.
  The issue of TAA has special significance to airline workers from my 
State and around the country. Last night members of the Aircraft 
Mechanics Fraternal Association flew from Minnesota to Washington to 
share their stories and the stories of workers they represent from all 
around the country with some of my colleagues who represent their 
membership. These folks represent service workers who, when they lose 
their jobs, receive little if any help in getting back on their feet. 
Folks like George Sleva of Forest Lake, MN, and Kurt Kulschar from 
Lakeville, MN, are just some of the airline mechanics left out in the 
cold under the current TAA program. One of the guys described it this 
way:

       I worked hard. I was a great taxpayer. Everything was going 
     well. And then the table turned and now I'm in a world of 
     hurt.

  Our amendment would take some of the sting out of this world of hurt 
that thousands like George and Kurt have had to go through.
  The second major feature of this amendment provides TAA benefits to 
all workers who lose their jobs when the plant or facility that employs 
them closes and moves out of the United States, regardless of where the 
plant moves. Thus, if the lawnmower plant closed and moved out of the 
country, its workers and those supplies would be covered regardless of 
whether the plant moved to Canada or to China or to India. I was 
disappointed to learn recently that the 2002 law apparently requires 
that if a factory closes and moves to Mexico, its workers are 
automatically eligible for TAA, but if the same plant moves to China, 
they are not. This is one of those things that Lincoln talked about, a 
``skunks giving their own publicity'' kind of thing. It doesn't make 
sense. It is obvious to make the change, and this amendment makes that 
kind of change.
  But we can clear up the air, if you will, or any ambiguity by 
rewriting the law to clearly state that all workers who lose their jobs 
when their employers leave the country are eligible for TAA regardless 
of the country they move to. That makes sense. That is what this 
amendment does. I want to applaud President Bush's strong leadership in 
this area. I appreciate the administration's shared goal that TAA 
coverage should be expanded to include workers affected by shifts in 
production to any country, not just Mexico or Canada.
  One of the most valuable portions of the 2002 act was the extension 
of a tax credit for health insurance to TAA workers. Without some 
assistance to gain health insurance for themselves and their families, 
it is hard to imagine that workers could really take advantage of TAA. 
The amendment we are offering improves this health insurance provision 
in several important ways. First, it makes a series of technical 
amendments to ensure that TAA recipients get a meaningful opportunity 
to really obtain health insurance. The most important provision on this 
topic, however, raises the percentage of health insurance costs covered 
by the program from 65 percent in existing law to 75 percent. This is 
the same level of health insurance premium assistance that workers in 
the private sector receive.
  I understand this was the provision when TAA was passed in 2002 that 
the Senate advocated at 75 percent. Affordability of health insurance 
is a problem for everyone, but for people who have lost their jobs, it 
is of particular hardship. This amendment improves affordability of 
health insurance, which will improve access to care, a goal we all can 
agree upon.
  One of the problems that have limited the effectiveness of the 
current health care system is dislocated workers have had difficulty 
finding the 35 percent of the health insurance bill that must come out 
of their pocket. I am sure that for many workers it will

[[Page 8157]]

still be a challenge to find 25 percent as required under this 
amendment, but our amendment will make it a little bit easier.
  I know that some will say that including health care provisions in 
TAA is controversial, but it is important for all Senators to 
understand that this concept was originally advanced by a bipartisan 
Trade Deficit Review Commission, a bipartisan group with some very 
prominent Republican members, including Ambassador Robert Zoellick, 
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former President Bush's Trade 
Representative Carla Hills. I emphasize that the recommendation for 
transitional health insurance was supported unanimously by the 
Commission.
  Finally, this amendment would allow wage insurance to be extended to 
workers who are 40 years of age or older. The current law only applies 
to workers over 50. In my opinion, wage insurance makes sense for 
workers over 50, but I think it also makes sense for workers who are 20 
years old. It may be that traditional retraining will also benefit 
workers in their 20s just as it might workers in their 50s, but I think 
that is a decision best left to the individual worker and not one best 
made by government.
  Given the fact that we are still building a record on wage insurance, 
this amendment only lowers the requirement to 40 years of age. This is 
certainly a step in the right direction and is likely to allow many 
workers to make choices with where they want to go in their career and 
how best to prepare for their new jobs.
  Also I note the maximum cost of wage insurance under the law is less 
than the maximum cost of traditional TAA under current law. In other 
words, wage insurance might also be a cheap approach to retraining. We 
should make it available to as many TAA recipients as possible for 
their own good and to limit the burden on the Federal budget.
  There are many other good ideas for improvement in the TAA program, 
but this amendment makes some important steps forward and deserves the 
support of the Senate.
  In my opinion, TAA is an honest, responsible, productive way to 
directly address the needs of those harmed by trade and globalization. 
There are real needs out there as evidenced by the hundreds of 
applications from my home State of Minnesota alone, hundreds of which 
have been certified and probably nearly as many denied for the reasons 
this amendment today seeks to address.
  When I was mayor of St. Paul, I used to point out that the best 
welfare program was a job; the best housing program was a job. Access 
to health care often comes with a job. Putting people back to work in a 
job is exactly what TAA is designed to do. Of course, there is no 
single solution to all the problems, but TAA is a real solution not 
just a snake oil suggestion.
  It is a real chance to address the needs of workers, and as such it 
can do a great deal to help Americans adjust and prosper through the 
challenges of globalization and offshoring. TAA is not free. It will 
require an investment of resources to make it work. But if it can help 
all Americans grow and prosper in a competitive global economy, it is 
money well spent. I note in this regard that we have identified a full 
budget offset for our amendment, an offset recognized by Treasury and 
OMB as saving about $5.7 billion over the course of 10 years.
  America cannot turn its back on trade. To do so would be bad policy. 
But America must not turn its back on our working men and women either. 
To do so would be wrong. Trade adjustment assistance is a way to 
embrace both trade and our Nation's hard-working men or women. It is 
the right thing do.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I thank, again, my good friends 
from Minnesota and Oregon, Senators Coleman and Wyden, for their very 
strong work on this amendment. I support this very strongly for a 
special reason. I have the privilege of representing the State of 
Montana. About 20 years ago, Montana lost a lot of copper miners and 
smelter workers. Why? Because of foreign competition. At the time it 
was probably employment overseas--in Chile, for example--and, in 
addition, it was the subsidized smelter operations north of the border 
in Canada. These folks worked very hard, and it affected the lives of a 
lot of these men, and sometimes women, who held these jobs for a few 
generations. We had created trade adjustment assistance for these 
workers.
  I can tell you a lot of people who lost their jobs on account of 
trade were able to get some retraining, get a lifeline thrown to them 
because they had no place else to go. Many of them were 45, 50, 55 
years old. They didn't know what to do. There were no other jobs 
around. Those were good-paying jobs, very good-paying jobs. We had TAA. 
I remember that I had to do battle with the Department of Labor to get 
the Montanans who were laid off; in this case, they were smelter 
workers. Finally, we got a little relief from the Department of Labor 
at the time when trade adjustment assistance was granted--not in very 
large measure, but it was granted to smelter workers particularly in 
Montana. You could see it was just enough to keep them from being 
totally despondent. Those were the early days of TAA. The retraining 
provisions really didn't work terribly well. But based upon my 
experience with TAA in Montana, I see the great need for training.
  Now, clearly, the need for retraining workers who lose their jobs on 
account of trade is even greater than it was back then. It is much 
greater now for a few reasons. No. 1, the United States is much more 
engaged in a global economy. We are so interrelated worldwide. It is 
much more likely, therefore, that the actions taken by a headquarters 
in Tokyo, or in any other country around the world, has a direct affect 
on workers in the United States, and vice versa. American global 
companies, or multinational companies, have to compete vigorously in 
order to stay in existence. It is a very competitive world.
  Other countries have very aggressive ways to help their companies. We 
know many of them are subsidized in ways that are not available in the 
United States. Other companies are helped by their host countries. In 
many ways, American companies are not helped by America. It is 
basically because we have much more of a free enterprise system. Our 
Founding Fathers came over from England years ago and wanted freedom 
and independence--``go West young man,'' and sending a man to the Moon. 
We are an entrepreneurial country. We like freedom. We like doing 
things more on our own. It is probably one of the main reasons the 
United States has become such a great country. That is why we are, in 
some respects, the biggest and strongest and wealthiest country in the 
world.
  Global competition has been very good for the United States. I think 
that is probably because we are a little more entrepreneurial. We try a 
little harder and we are probably a little more creative. It is because 
of the nature of what it is to be an American. At the same time, 
clearly, the jobs in America are in greater jeopardy as a consequence 
than they were 20 or 30 years ago. It is because of this competition. 
You will also find that a category of jobs is in greater jeopardy 
today, and those are service industry jobs. Why? Because of the 
unbelievable advances in technology, particularly communications 
technology. Information is now digitized. We have much more broadband 
capability worldwide. So a lot of services, whether financial services, 
medical services, or many kinds of services, can be sent by wire or by 
speed of light anyplace in the world. People around the world are 
taking advantage of that. They are training people maybe at a lower 
wage, so the American jobs that otherwise were here can go overseas, 
and vice versa. All countries are finding that their employees are 
losing jobs on account of trade. All the major countries are finding 
that. Germany is finding that, as are France, Japan, and others.
  We are also finding that we are all losing jobs due to outsourcing,

[[Page 8158]]

offshoring. In effect, jobs are going overseas. But on a net effect, we 
are still creating many more jobs than we are losing.
  Having said all that, the purpose of this amendment is to address one 
part of the competitiveness problem. That is, what do we do about the 
people who lose jobs through no fault of their own? Clearly, we should 
come up with something. The answer in this bill is trade adjustment 
assistance. It is expanding the current trade adjustment assistance 
program that applies only to manufacturing workers to also service 
industry workers who lose their jobs. We have heard some describe some 
additional provisions of this trade adjustment assistance amendment. It 
is attractive in some cases and has good health benefits. That is 
important, too, because the current trade adjustment assistance hasn't 
been working terribly well. One reason is because the health provisions 
don't work well. The lingo is the ``uptake,'' or whatever it is. What 
it comes down to is, how many people who theoretically qualify for 
health insurance benefits under trade adjustment assistance actually 
take them? The answer is a very low percentage, 2 or 3 percent. It is 
because there are so many bureaucratic hurdles, procedural hurdles, and 
it is so difficult.
  We made a lot of changes in this bill so that more people who lose 
their jobs on account of trade also are able to get not only retrained, 
but get health insurance benefits, where they pay 25 percent and the 
Government will pay the rest for a certain period of time. As we all 
know, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance. If 
you lose your health insurance, it is a double whammy. Not only have 
you lost your job, but you cannot pay the medical bills.
  This throws in a lifeline and helps people who lose jobs on account 
of trade. As has been stated, it is totally bipartisan. We are working 
on both sides of the aisle. Why is it bipartisan? It is because it is 
that important, it makes that much common sense, and it is very much 
the right thing to do. I am very proud to be associated and working 
with the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Minnesota. I thank 
them very much for their good effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I see my colleagues still in the Chamber. I 
thank the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Minnesota, 
especially as the Senator from Montana touched on the issue of health 
insurance costs for people who have been laid off in high-tech and the 
manufacturing sector. As we heard earlier, these are folks who are 
getting hit by a wrecking ball with respect to health care. They 
literally have nowhere to turn. Many of them are not old enough for 
Medicare, not poor enough for Medicaid. They don't fit into a lot of 
the categories--these boxes by which you get health care in our 
country.
  So what we did in these bipartisan negotiations--and the Senator from 
Minnesota was particularly helpful, but I also commend the Senator from 
West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who is very much involved in this 
effort to get a bipartisan agreement with respect to a 75-percent 
allocation of the coverage--we were able to add critical benefits for 
spouses, which is something that was so important to help people where 
there was an interruption in coverage.
  So what the Senator from Montana has outlined with respect to health 
care issues was exactly, in my view, how the Senate ought to move to 
deal with a very real problem but to do it in a bipartisan way. As we 
began those discussions, we had some folks who wanted to go even higher 
than the number we set out. Some people said you cannot go there at all 
because of the deficit.
   But we made the judgment on a bipartisan basis that you could not 
afford not to cover these people because if, for example, as has been 
documented in the Finance Committee, these people cannot get coverage 
on an outpatient basis, what will happen again and again is they will 
face the need to have more extensive and much more expensive medical 
services. I was very glad the Senator from Montana brought up the 
bipartisan agreement as it related to the health care issue.
  The Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. 
Rockefeller, were especially helpful in the efforts led by the 
distinguished Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask my friend a question? Is it 
also true that other Senators have contributed to portions of this 
legislation, such as Senator Bingaman who added a provision with 
respect to trade adjustment assistance on communities; is that not 
correct?
  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator from Montana is absolutely right. A lot of 
Senators have been at this issue for many of years. Senator Bingaman's 
contribution with respect to community services in the health care area 
is very important. I heard my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, 
talk about the health care needs of folks laid off in the high-tech and 
service areas. He has been supportive as well.
  The Senator from Montana is absolutely right. There have been a lot 
of Senators who have been at it with respect to this issue. It is a 
bipartisan proposal, but right at the heart of that is dealing with the 
health care issue. Health care, as we all know, has been the toughest 
issue for the Senate to deal with for some time. This is an area where 
there has been a real breakthrough with respect to health care. It had 
to be bipartisan--the Senator from Montana is right--or a lot of 
Senators would not be involved.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I also ask a question of my good friend from 
Minnesota? This amendment adds new dollars for retraining. Doesn't the 
Senator agree that the new jobs in the future are going to have to be, 
for want of a better expression, smarter jobs; that is, even someone 
who repairs automobiles today has to understand computers? You do not 
just have a wrench and a screwdriver these days to build and repair 
cars; you have to learn computer skills, maybe programming skills. 
Isn't it true, if we are going to compete in the world, that we have to 
spend a lot of time and effort on retraining because of the additional 
needs in the future, and that is another reason for supporting this 
amendment?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my friend, the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, is absolutely correct. We have the strongest economy 
in the world. The way we are going to keep that strong economy and keep 
moving forward is if we have the best training and the best skilled 
workers.
  The reality is the jobs of yesterday may not be the jobs of today or 
tomorrow. So my friend from Montana is correct in what this amendment 
does. It provides opportunity for those who may be impacted by a job 
that may be a job of yesterday, to give them an opportunity to have a 
job of tomorrow to take care of their families.
  I also note in response to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, in 
talking about the health insurance provisions, we are talking about a 
tax credit. This is a tax credit. I think that is important. I support 
tax credits. I think that is a very fiscally responsible way to provide 
opportunities.
  I also note that under the existing TAA, I believe less than 5 
percent of those eligible are using this tax credit. The Senate 
originally intended to do better than that. I was not here in 2002. I 
am still relatively new in this body, but I have to believe that my 
colleagues, when they enacted the tax credit, the health insurance 
provision, anticipated that more folks would take advantage of it. The 
reality is they have not. What we are doing here is providing an 
opportunity to make use of something that I believe was the intention 
of my colleagues.
  As I noted earlier, I found it fascinating in talking with many of my 
colleagues about the idea that we should extend this to service workers 
that many of them actually presumed they were included. I think there 
was an intention in extending TAA 2002 to cover those impacted. What 
this amendment does is expand it.
  I ask a question of my colleague from Oregon, and Oregon is a State 
known as one of the high-tech centers of this

[[Page 8159]]

country, is it correct, as I understand, that both the Business 
Roundtable representing employers and the High-Tech Council have 
indicated their support of extending TAA to service workers?
  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is right. In addition to the bipartisan 
support in the Senate, there has been very significant bipartisan 
support in the business community. There are an awful lot of business 
leaders who have been looking for these kinds of ideas that the Senator 
from Minnesota has really touched on. This is a question of updating 
our law. I don't think anybody got up in the morning years ago and 
said: Let's be rotten to service workers. That was not what happened at 
all. I think people just did not really see what a critical role 
service and high technology were going to play in the economy. The 
business organizations that the Senator from Minnesota has mentioned 
do. They get it. They understand it is absolutely critical to not leave 
something like four-fifths of the workers behind.
  I join with the Senator from Minnesota and commend him and thank him 
for his support.
  Mr. COLEMAN. If the Senator will yield for another question, in 
addition to updating this law, would it be fair to say it would make it 
easier for folks to use? Today, for instance, current law makes it 
automatic that you get TAA if it is with a country that has an 
agreement with the United States. So Mexico and Canada fit into that 
law. As we read the papers, so many jobs we are talking about today 
that negatively impact workers are jobs that may be lost to China and 
India. Would it be fair to say in addition to updating, we make it 
easier for workers negatively impacted to take advantage of provisions 
under law?
  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is right. I think it is fair to say that the 
certification process today for the workers is almost a kind of 
bureaucratic water torture. It involves essentially a different process 
with different countries.
  What we tried to do in our bipartisan discussions is to try to 
streamline the process, make it worker friendly. I think this is really 
going to expedite the processing, expedite the certification.
  Obviously when these families are hurting--and we are talking about 
people who have been laid off after years and years of employment--they 
are on this economic tightrope trying to figure out how to balance and 
pay for essentials. The last thing they need to do is jump through hoop 
after bureaucratic hoop to get these benefits. The Senator from 
Minnesota is right, that is a significant improvement as well.
  Nobody knows more about this subject than the Senator from Montana 
because he and his staff have worked on this issue at length. 
Streamlining is very helpful.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, again I thank the Senator from Oregon and 
the Senator from Montana for the opportunity I had to work with them on 
this amendment. I am pleased we are able to include Senator Snowe's TAA 
for communities bill and Senator Allen's Homestead Act that will 
protect dislocated workers' mortgages and their homes. Those are also 
included. I think it adds to the broad bipartisan support this 
amendment enjoys.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at one time I had the floor. I yield at 
this point and again hope the Senate will support the bipartisan 
initiative that has involved many months of work and is critically 
needed in the economic challenges we face today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have made good progress today. The 
Senate has had good debate on the Harkin overtime amendment, finally. 
Senator Collins has proposed an amendment on manufacturing jobs credit. 
Senator Wyden and Senator Coleman have offered their amendment on trade 
adjustment assistance. I am hopeful the Senate will be able to vote in 
relation to these amendments tomorrow afternoon.
  We are also looking forward to Senators Dorgan and Mikulski having an 
opportunity to offer their amendment on runaway plants tomorrow. 
Thereafter, we hope to continue to work through other amendments as 
they become available. We hope to continue to make good progress with 
amendments and completion of this bill on a fairly timely basis.
  Again, I thank my colleagues very much for the work we have done 
today. We are off to a very good start.
  I just feel that we are going to make our way through this bill this 
week. At least that is my hope. I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor, and 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. REID. 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. REID. What is the status of the Senate at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Harkin amendment is pending to S. 1637.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    A Positive Presidential Campaign

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am very happy for all Nevadans today that 
Senator Kerry is now beginning a message of positive accomplishments in 
the State of Nevada. We have waited some time for this. The Democratic 
nominee was really selected the first part of March. During the 60 days 
since then, Senator Kerry has been obligated to get his campaign in 
order after the very difficult and hectic primary.
  Of course, during this period of time there has been $70 million 
spent to try to define him in a way that was very negative. Senator 
Kerry's message beginning today is one of a very positive message. It, 
of course, talks about his being a combat veteran and having received a 
number of awards for heroism during the time he fought in the jungles 
of southeast Asia. Senator Kerry not only was decorated for his 
bravery, but some of those acts of bravery occurred during a time when 
he was injured.
  One time when he was injured, he directed fire to protect somebody 
who had been knocked off his swift boat into the water, and Senator 
Kerry himself brought this man to safety even though Senator Kerry 
himself was injured at the time.
  The message to the people of Nevada is that he cares about people, 
especially the middle class. He is a man of principle. I have served 
with Senator Kerry now in Congress for some 22 years. He has had 
extensive experience in State government. He has served the people of 
Massachusetts now for 30 years. I believe he is a man of integrity and 
that he will establish to the people of this country that he believes 
in a stronger America. I am very happy the message that is being 
pronounced today in the State of Nevada and other places in the country 
is one of a positive nature. I think we need that.
  I hope this campaign for the Presidency of the United States can talk 
about the positive of each of the two men running for President. I can 
remember when I first ran for public office, no one would ever consider 
a negative campaign ad. You searched for what was in your record that 
you could give to the people, in my instance the State of Nevada, and 
sometimes as a young man it was very hard to find things because you 
had not had much experience. But these two men now are very mature and 
both should run on what they can give the American people and not try 
to downgrade and belittle the other. I repeat that I hope the campaign 
will be kept on that high basis. There is no reason it should not. The 
American people, I think, are tired of negative campaigning.
  I see my friend is here. I had a longer statement, but I can work on 
that later. I don't know if the Senator is wishing to close this body 
this evening? I am waiting for him to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

[[Page 8160]]



                          ____________________