Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this is my opening statement for April 1, and I will withdraw any request for those consent agreements. It is an April 1 wish. It is what we should be doing. But we will proceed in the normal order.

Mr. FRIST. I did mean it sincerely, and it included all, I say to the Democratic leader. It included welfare, FSC/ ETI, the 22 judicial nominations. We would really be rolling if that were the case. Unfortunately, it is April 1.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be making my comments on leader time. We will have the hour of morning business as laid out in the unanimous consent for our side so people can plan their morning. My remarks will only be about 10 minutes or so. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to comment on the Democrats' decision last week to filibuster the JOBS Act, the FSC/ETI and the Jumpstart JOBS bill. It is a bill that goes right at the heart of manufacturing job creation in this country. It is critical to our manufacturing jobs base. As has been pointed out again and again, it was developed in a strong, bipartisan fashion under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee. It is critically important. It has broad support, yet every Senate Democrat except Senator Miller from Georgia voted to sustain the Democrat-led filibuster. Since that time we tried to work out some sort of agreement so we could consider this bill and have debate on germane amendments, but every time we attempt to do so we are met with an increasing list of irrelevant, mainly political message amendments that the other side insists be a part of this bill. Last week a filibuster was open on the floor. This week, in a less obvious way, it continued by foot dragging. What does a filibuster mean? What are the practical implications of this filibuster? It means leaving in place a Euro tax the European Union began imposing on March 1 last month against the U.S. manufacturers. The Europeans have been authorized by the WTO to impose $4 billion in sanctions that began March 1--30 days ago. The tariff started at 5 percent of the $4 billion authorized and will increase 1 percent on the first of every month thereafter. Thus, in supporting this filibuster, whether it is the active filibuster last week or the more passive filibuster of this week, the Democrats are supporting the sanctions. Again, today being April 1st, it will kick up another 1 percent, another $40 million increase, in those sanctions because of the delay. If the other side of the aisle is not in favor of this JOBS bill, then what do they support? Let me look at some of the legislation that has been introduced and statements made in the Senate. As of late, a lot has been made about outsourcing--a lot of conversation, a lot of proposed amendments--regarding the whole issue of offshoring. Time and again, the Senate Democrats have introduced amendments, bills, and statements expressing grave concern over this issue. The conversation has, unfortunately, been quite one-sided. When we look at the numbers--and increasingly people are looking at the numbers--we learn foreigners outsource far more work to the United States than American companies actually send abroad. Indeed, the value of insourcing, what is coming into the United States--including legal work, computer programming, banking, telecommunications, engineering, management consulting, other private services--was $133 billion in 2003. Outsourcing of such private services was valued at $77 billion and $133 billion for insourcing. When measuring outsourcing to insourcing, the United States posted a $54 billion surplus last year in trade and private services with the rest of the world. Again, look at both sides of the equation. Far from being bad for the economy as a whole, this balance of offshoring and insourcing creates a net additional value for the United States economy, lowering prices to consumers who are making purchases and, in effect, increasing their standard of living. Each dollar of cost that is outsourced creates $1.46 of value globally. Of that $1.46, the United States captures $1.13 and the receiving country captures the 33 cents. These numbers suggest, by the way I have described it, that efforts to restrict outsourcing will backfire by provoking a retaliation which is detrimental to our economy and our trading partners. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan captured the gist in these words on this issue: These alleged cures would make matters worse, rather than better. They would do little to create jobs. And if foreigners were to retaliate, we would surely lose jobs. Where would the jobs be lost? Everywhere. The Census Bureau says in the year 2000, 6.4 million Americans were employed in jobs that were insourced by foreign companies operating in the United States. Mr. President, 223,000 of the jobs were in Massachusetts; 246,000 were in Michigan. Washington State had 104,000. Pennsylvania had 281,000. My home State of Tennessee had almost 149,000 insourced jobs, but that is less than half of the 307,000 jobs in Florida and well behind the 259,000 in Ohio. When we talk about outsourcing, we need to remember there is another side of the equation, a side representing 6.4 million jobs. We cannot lose sight of that. While we all agree the loss of any job to outsourcing is regrettable, we need to focus on the training, retraining, and education. If we look at the solutions offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we find them to be surprising and startling. Senator Kerry has introduced S. 1873, requiring operators at call centers to disclose their physical location. Senator Kerry described this bill as being necessary to ``address the growing problem of United States corporations moving hundreds of thousands of service sector jobs abroad.'' I have to admit Senator Kerry's premise strikes me as a bit unusual. It seems there should be some sort of assumption that if Americans discovered a foreigner was on the other end of that telephone, they would either hang up the telephone or otherwise lodge some sort of protest upon hearing that foreigner was in another country. The only way this bill would save jobs is if we assume Americans are so violently xenophobic we do not and would not tolerate even this modest level of international agreement. Senator Kerry's legislation is indicative of the choice we face as a country. We can choose the path of freedom, where every individual and every company can do as he or she sees fit and trust that people are going to work hard on their own behalf, and in doing so promote the common good or we can choose a path of more Government, more Government mandates with less freedom, with less prosperity, and fewer jobs, one in which every time you call a company to see if they have an item in stock, the Federal Government will force you and the company to identify the exact longitude and latitude of the operator who is on the other end of that telephone call. The reality is we compete today in a global economy. We cannot close our borders to the world. Some think we can retreat into economic isolationism, but we simply cannot. Times are different. We shouldn't. That, in many ways, given our world economy, would be a declaration of defeat. We are the most innovative society in the world today. Our workers lead all others in the world in productivity. If we are allowed to compete on a fair playing field, United States manufacturers can and indeed will lead the world. We had a chance last week to help U.S. manufacturers by repealing the Euro tax on our U.S. manufacturers. Unfortunately, we were met by obstruction on the other side. While I was disappointed at this outcome, recent history indicates that should not have been much of a surprise. If there has been one thing consistent over the last several months, it has been the Democrats' steadfast refusal toward legislation that would help reduce the cost of manufacturing in the United States. Every time we attempt to move legislation forward that addresses the concerns of manufacturing, we have been met by obstruction. With class action, with energy, with medical liability, to Workforce Investment Act, we have been blocked. It is either by filibuster or by objections going to conference. Next month we are going to be addressing issues that I hope will bring some fairness and justice to certain challenges that we have today. I have pointed out that we would like to address the issue of asbestos litigation reform. I look forward to hopefully being able to address that in a bipartisan way. The loss of a few hundred thousand jobs per year to offshoring is a small part of the constant pace of job creation and destruction that goes on in the U.S. labor market. We need to address dislocation. We can do that with aggressive education and training. But it is precisely because each job loss is painful that we need to focus on ways to stimulate employment generally rather than focusing on legislation to address a tiny percent of the population. In closing, we need to keep our focus on proposals that look to the future to help companies create and keep new jobs. We cannot be focused on the past but really the present. We need to be looking ahead all the time. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan stated earlier this month: Time and again through our history, we have discovered that attempting merely to preserve the comfortable features of the present, rather than reaching for new levels of prosperity, is a sure path to stagnation. We only need to look across the Atlantic to see the results of those policies of stagnation. Instead, Republicans will keep working for policies of growth and for innovation to help America compete and win in the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. With that, Mr. President, this morning there will be a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, and that morning business will be followed by an additional 60 minutes of debate with regard to the cloture motion with respect to the welfare reauthorization bill. At the conclusion of that 60 minutes of debate time, we will proceed to a rollcall vote on invoking cloture on the committee substitute to H.R. 4. That is the welfare legislation. As I stated in closing last night, if we invoke cloture on this bill, I hope we will be able to finish it this week. Over the last few days I had hoped we could reach an agreement to finish the bill in reasonable fashion, but because we were unable to reach a formal consent agreement, we will go forward with the procedural vote in hopes of bringing this bill to a conclusion. If we do invoke cloture, Senators will still be able to bring forward their amendments, and I believe we could finish the bill this week. If cloture is not invoked, it will be clear that this legislation will be gridlocked by these unrelated matters and therefore will be difficult to finish. We also continue to seek ways to finish and complete the JOBS bill, the FSC/ETI bill from last week. That bill has been held up as Members insist on offering amendments that have little to do with the underlying legislation. Additional procedural votes will occur in relation to that bill as we try to find a way to get the FSC bill done. Order of Procedure Mr. President, in order to facilitate the use of our time this morning, I ask unanimous consent that during the period for morning business the Republican-controlled time be divided in the following manner: Senator Cornyn, 5 minutes; Senator Ensign, 5 minutes; Senator Thomas, 5 minutes; Senator Smith, 10 minutes; Senator Cochran, 5 minutes.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have a few comments to make in terms of an opening statement. I will be happy to turn to the Democratic leader.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Tomorrow the Senate will be in session for the transaction of routine morning business. There will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session. The next rollcall vote will occur on Wednesday of next week. I will have more to say on that in the morning. Next week, there are a number of issues that may be addressed. There is an important medical liability bill being introduced by Senator Gregg and others, Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004. That bill deserves to be debated and voted on. We will try to schedule that bill for next week. I will continue to hold out hope that we will be able to finish the JOBS bill, which is the FSC/ETI bill. Senators have come to the floor over the course of the last several weeks discussing the importance of this bill. Yet we have been unable to vote on the legislation as the WTO sanctions continue each day. In fact, today, since this is 1 month after the sanctions began, the sanctions were increased by $40 million. We must move expeditiously on that bill. It is a priority for the Senate. We will have an opportunity next week to speak on this bill. The pension reform conference report is another piece of legislation that should be moved expeditiously. The House may act on that conference report later this evening or on Friday. I will be talking to my colleagues about scheduling that conference report for Senate action. Finally, the conferees on the budget resolution continue to meet and it is important to address the budget conference report as soon as that does become available. Having said that, we have a lot of work to do and not a lot of time to do it. We will be working each day next week with an effort to schedule the above-mentioned items throughout. In addition, next week we have accommodated Members' schedules for the observance of Passover. I will have more to say on the specific schedule for rollcall votes on Wednesday, April 7. However, we will have no vote prior to 2:15 on that day on Wednesday.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Friday, April 2nd. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 596, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 16, Treaty Document No. 107-70, on today's Executive Calendar. I further ask that the treaty be considered as having passed through its various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; further, that the committee conditions and understandings be agreed to, that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read, and that the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the resolution of ratification; further, that when the resolution of ratification is voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following the disposition of the treaty, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for a division vote on the resolution of ratification.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on leader time, I would like to just make a couple comments on two events that took place last Wednesday. On that day, two organizations made decisions that were very disappointing to me. One of those organizations was the European Union and the other was the Senate Democrats. I was disappointed by the Senate Democrats because they chose to filibuster a very important piece of legislation that is critical to our jobs base, to our manufacturing jobs base. That bill is called ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength, (JOBS) Act,'' which is an important bill. In fact, the title itself--``Jumpstart Our Business Strength''--underscores the importance of this manufacturing jobs bill. I was also disappointed by the European Union's action to impose a record fine of $610 million against a company, Microsoft, because it, frankly, demonstrates arrogance, I think--arrogance--requiring Microsoft to sell a version of Windows that we are all familiar with without the built-in ability to play audio files or video files. I mention both of these incidents really almost in the same breath because they occurred on the very same day last week, and they are illustrative of the choice that is facing America and Americans today. I released a statement last week and pointed out these overreaching attempts to register e-commerce. They include trade barriers against American beef and other agricultural products, and they all demonstrate the European Union relentlessly pursuing these protectionist policies that disproportionately harm America's workers. The JOBS Act is a bill that is absolutely critical for us to address. As I said, the fact that the Democrats chose to filibuster that bill has been very disappointing to me. It was developed in a strong bipartisan fashion, coming through the Finance Committee with every single Democrat on the committee voting in favor of the bill, including the Democratic leader and the junior Senator from Massachusetts. It is absolutely essential that we address this bill and that we pass this bill in order to accelerate job creation in this country. The purpose of it is to bring our trade laws in compliance with our trade agreements and at the same time provide some of the badly needed reforms to further stimulate manufacturing growth. I mention both of these issues because I think both need to continue to be addressed. I hope we can work out an appropriate arrangement to address the JOBS bill in the very near future. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 98, S. 275.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McCain substitute be agreed to; the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 1. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for the transaction of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that following the 60 minutes of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H. R. 4, the welfare reauthorization bill; provided that there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee for debate only; provided further, that the Senate then proceed to the cloture vote on the substitute amendment to the bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow, following morning business, we will resume consideration of the welfare bill. Shortly after 11:30 in the morning, the Senate will proceed to the cloture vote on the substitute amendment. It is unfortunate we have had to proceed with the cloture vote on this very important piece of legislation, but given the desire to offer unrelated amendments, the procedural vote is necessary. If cloture is invoked, we will be able to continue to consider welfare amendments, and we will finish the bill this week. It will be very unfortunate if cloture fails and we are unable to complete this bill this week because of unrelated issues. Additional votes are possible tomorrow, and Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Grassley.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will conduct a period of morning business until 10 a.m., with the first half of the time under the control of the majority leader and the second half of the time under the control of the Democratic leader. At 10 a.m., the Senate will conduct 90 minutes of debate prior to appointing conferees with respect to the budget resolution. Following that action, the Senate will resume consideration of the welfare reauthorization bill. Last night, we were compelled to file cloture on the committee substitute to that bill. That cloture vote will occur tomorrow. We hope cloture will be invoked to allow us to finish this very important piece of legislation, the welfare reauthorization bill. I do hope we will be able to move forward today with germane amendments to the welfare reauthorization bill and make progress over the course of the day. Rollcall votes are possible. Senators will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are in discussion now determining the best pathway to completion on the underlying bill, the welfare bill, an important bill that I know both sides of the aisle do want to appropriately address, through amendments and through the debate process, and we are working on the best way to accomplish that. As I set out really 3 weeks ago, but in the early part of last week, we have set this week aside to address welfare and we are doing just that. But I really need to do everything possible to see that we do complete it this weekend. To help accomplish that, I will be sending a cloture motion to the desk on the pending committee substitute. cloture motion

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are currently discussing plans both for later tonight and tomorrow and the next 2 weeks. I had the opportunity to talk to the Democratic leader, and that discussion will go on for a while. While we are in, and have been in a quorum call, I wanted to take the opportunity to address an issue that has to do with gasoline prices, energy policy, something that every single American who drives or benefits from driving is feeling; that is, the price at the gasoline pump. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was in the news this morning expressing his concern about rising gasoline prices. He is right to be concerned. We are all concerned. But what he should be concerned about is his own dismal record in terms of addressing this very issue. Again and again, he has taken positions that result not in what Americans want--that is, lower gas prices--but again and again in his position as a Senator and before, he has been on the other side and engaged in policies and supporting policies that drive the price of gasoline higher and higher. The Senate record is familiar to most, but in 1983, when he was Lieutenant Governor in Massachusetts, the Dukakis-Kerry administration supported a $50 million gas tax hike on the citizens of Massachusetts. In 1993, in the Senate, he voted for the largest tax increase in American history, the Clinton tax bill, which increased the Federal gasoline tax by 4.3 cents. He also voted twice for the Clinton-Gore Btu tax which, had it been signed into law, would have increased gas taxes by another 7.5 cents per gallon. The following year he backed a 50-cent increase in the gas tax for all Americans. He wrote a letter at that time to the Boston Globe expressing his disappointment that a scorecard issued by a deficit reduction organization in Washington did not accurately reflect his support for this half-dollar gas tax increase. The list goes on. The Senator from Massachusetts also wants the United States to accept the Kyoto Protocol which, according to Wharton Economic Forecasting Associates, would raise gasoline prices an additional 65 cents per gallon. And just last year, Senator Kerry voted for climate change legislation which would have imposed a Kyoto-style regulation on 80 percent of the U.S. economy and would have raised gasoline prices by 40 cents a gallon. That is a little bit of the history and the background for this new concern about gasoline prices by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry. Put aside a moment the impact that these proposals would have had on an issue that we have talked a lot about on the floor today, and that is jobs and the importance of job creation. The most immediate impact, the most immediate result of Senator Kerry's positions would be to force America's consumers to pay at least a dollar more for each gallon of gasoline they purchase, and that is a conservative estimate. It is also worth noting that Senator Kerry has consistently opposed any increase in domestic production of energy and any proposal that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Energy bill, which we all know fell two votes short in the Senate last year, is probably the most recent example. Senator Kerry has expressed opposition to this measure, although he was not present in the Senate when we cast that critical vote on the conference report. In opposing the Energy bill, Senator Kerry is opposing not just the creation of 800,000 new jobs, he is opposing the development of new domestic resources, new resources that come in the United States, including such things as renewable resources such as wind and solar energy. To that you could add clean burning ethanol, and to that you could add advanced coal technology or zero emission nuclear energy and, yes, the development of domestic oil and gas resources as well. I come to the floor to mention all of this, especially mentioning his record on the floor of the Senate, because it is simply very difficult to take seriously Senator Kerry when he says he is concerned about high gas prices and then blames others for not having addressed them. Throughout his career, Senator Kerry has consistently taken positions that will result in even higher gas prices and lower domestic supplies of energy and jobs lost. If the Senator from Massachusetts, indeed, wants to engage in a serious discussion about energy policy, I ask that he come back to the Senate and help us do what we should be doing, and that is pass an Energy bill which he and his party unfortunately have been blocking for months. I appreciate the opportunity to review the record since we had this available time. I do challenge Senator Kerry to engage in a serious discussion about helping us pass that very policy which we know would lower gasoline prices in the United States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we will be closing here shortly, as soon as we wrap up a few things in a few minutes.