[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8790-8791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     CLOTURE VOTE ON THE JOBS BILL

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Albert Einstein once advised, everything 
should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. In other words, 
know when you have done enough.
  On the JOBS bill that will soon be before the Senate today, we are 
near time when we have done enough. The Senate has returned to the JOBS 
bill now for the 14th separate day over the course of 5 separate weeks. 
The Senate has considered 28 separate amendments. It adopted 17 
separate amendments. Many of the amendments the Senate considered, such 
as Senator Harkin's amendment on overtime regulations and Senator 
Wyden's amendment on trade adjustment assistance, have not been 
strictly germane to the bill at hand.
  The modern Senate does not regularly devote such time and freedom of 
amendment to major bills. It is really not that normal for the Senate 
to consider every amendment until no other Senator seeks to offer 
amendments.
  My colleagues will remember the Senator from Louisiana, Russell Long. 
Senator Long served as chairman of the Finance Committee from 1965 to 
1981. When Russell Long would bring a major tax bill to the Senate 
floor, he would frequently file cloture early, just to require that 
amendments be germane.
  With the advent of the budget reconciliation process in 1981, the 
Senate began considering major tax increases in Senate reconciliation 
bills. The reconciliation process, as we know, limits debate to a 
maximum of 20 hours, pretty much 2 or 3 days, and reconciliation 
restricts Senators to only germane amendments.
  In 1996, the Senate began considering tax cuts under the tight rules 
of the reconciliation process. Since then, almost every major tax bill 
has been a reconciliation bill. This year, a number of Senators sought 
to have this JOBS bill considered in reconciliation. To his credit, the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, fought these 
efforts. He and I talked about this several times. He frankly prevailed 
on many on his side of the aisle in arguing that this tax bill, the 
FSC/ETI bill, should not be under reconciliation under those very tight 
conditions but should be a regularly considered bill, and he prevailed. 
I commend him for that.
  Let us now look at this bill. This bill began as a venture of both 
Democrats and Republicans working together in the Finance Committee. I 
might add the vote was 19 to 2. Only two members in the committee voted 
against this bill, and they were on the other side of the aisle.
  This bill's major provision, tax cuts for American manufacturing, is 
really a Democratic priority. Democrats have sought all along to create 
and keep good manufacturing jobs in America. We advanced this priority 
when many House Republicans sought to maximize tax breaks for 
international businesses or, to put this another way, the Finance 
Committee decided after consulting with Members on both sides of the 
aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, that it made more sense for the 
FSC/ETI placement bill to have a deduction for manufacturing produced 
in the United States rather than the approach taken by the majority 
party in the other body, which wanted a corporate tax reduction, 
international tax reduction bill, not a domestic manufacturing jobs 
bill. So it is a very different approach.
  Again, to his credit, the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Grassley, agreed with Members on both sides of the aisle that the best 
solution is the Republican and Democratic approach, the bipartisan 
approach, to help create more jobs in America by providing for the 9-
percent manufacturing deduction. Contrast that with the House majority 
approach, which is much different, and I am quite certain a majority of 
our Members, certainly on this side of the aisle, are against it.
  When it comes to the question of how much and how long we need to 
fight for amendments on the Senate floor, I think it matters whether we 
are talking about a partisan bill where the majority has closed the 
minority out of the process or are we talking about a bipartisan bill 
where Senators have worked together across the aisle. This clearly has 
been a bipartisan bill.
  Our bill advanced the Finance Committee as a cooperative venture. The 
chairman of the Finance Committee and I working together included many 
of the provisions in the bill in response to requests from Senators on 
this side of the aisle. I daresay many provisions in this bill are in 
response to a request by Senators on this side of the aisle, although a 
good number are in response to Members on the other side of the aisle. 
So therefore this bill reflects a very open and democratic process.
  Once we came to the Senate floor, this Senator tried to ensure that 
the Senate consider the maximum number of amendments, as many as we 
possibly can. Twice before on this bill, I have fought cloture, worked 
against cloture, to ensure that the Senate could address, for example, 
Senator Harkin's overtime amendment and others. The Senate did consider 
that amendment. The Senate adopted that amendment. Over the course of 
last week's Senate consideration, the chairman of the Finance Committee 
and I have attempted to maximize the number of amendments the Senate 
could consider, and now the Senate has considered 28 amendments. It 
adopted 17 of those. That, I believe, is a very respectable record.
  Now, when the Senate appears to be stymied over whether to vote on 
the amendment of the Senator from Washington on unemployment insurance, 
I continue to work for a vote on that amendment.
  So here is where we stand: If the majority can see that there is a 
prospect that the Senate will invoke cloture on this bill, then I 
believe the majority will allow a vote on the unemployment insurance 
amendment; but if the majority sees that Senators on this side of the 
aisle are united against cloture, regardless of whether they allow a 
vote on the unemployment issue, then I believe the majority will not 
allow a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment. That is where we 
are. It is that simple.
  If Democrats want the Senate to vote on unemployment insurance, then 
we need to show some prospect of bringing this bill to a close. I 
believe we should accept that offer to get a vote on the unemployment 
insurance amendment. To do so, we should support cloture.
  We should acknowledge that we are near the time when we have done 
enough. I say ``near time'' because even after the Senate invokes 
cloture, the Senate may still consider germane amendments. There are 
several amendments I believe the Senate will be able to consider 
postcloture. For example, there is the amendment by the Senator from 
South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, to strike the international provisions. 
There is the amendment by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, on tax 
shelters. There is the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. 
Landrieu, to provide tax benefits to reservists. There are amendments 
by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to strike energy tax 
provisions. There may be other germane amendments. Based on my 
understanding of the intention of the two leaders and the two managers, 
I believe that if the Senate invokes cloture, the Senate will work 
through these and other germane

[[Page 8791]]

amendments postcloture. In fact, the majority leader has publicly 
indicated so.
  Thus, I do believe we are near time when we have done enough. I 
support efforts to get a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment, 
and I support invoking cloture thereafter. So let us make this bill as 
good as possible but not better. Let us advance this bill to create and 
keep good manufacturing jobs, especially in America. Let us invoke 
cloture on this bill tomorrow.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________