Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. The bottom line is, we have these accusations about what the true costs are. So I want to respond to those accusations we have heard that the ``true costs'' of the Medicare bill were somewhat hidden from Congress before the final vote. This is simply political, election year hyperbole. The opponents of the drug benefit are making this claim because the final cost estimate from the CMS Office of the Actuary was not completed before the vote took place. Let me be very clear. The cost estimate was not withheld from Congress because there wasn't a final cost estimate from CMS to withhold. Their cost estimate wasn't even completed until after December 23, long after the House and Senate vote. Let me also be clear we did have the official cost estimate on the Medicare bill before the vote, and that is the one from the Congressional Budget Office. As I have said, as both Senators from Minnesota know, the Congressional Budget Office is God when it comes to Congress having to go by a figure of what something costs. It doesn't matter what the Treasury Department says, OMB, or even CMS. The Congressional Budget Office is what we go by. If you don't go by it, you are subject to a point of order. That point of order takes an extraordinary majority to overcome. No government official should ever be muzzled for providing critical information to Congress. If that happened last year, that was wrong. These accusations about whether information was withheld have raised questions as to whether Congress had access to a valid and thorough cost estimate for the prescription drug bill before the final vote. It should also be made clear that while the cost analysis by the Office of Actuary is perhaps helpful, it is not the cost analysis Congress relies upon but that of the Congressional Budget Office, as I have already said. It is their cost estimate we use to determine whether legislation is within authorized budget limits. For Congress, if there is a true cost estimate, it is by the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate is the only one that matters. When Congress approved a $400 billion reserve fund to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit, this meant $400 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, not according to the Center for Medicare Services. With all due respect to the dedicated staff working at the Center for Medicare Services Office of the Actuary, their cost estimates were irrelevant to the process. The Congressional Budget Office worked closely with the conferees to the prescription drug bill and the staff to ensure a full analysis of the projected costs was complete. The conferees and staff regularly and constantly consulted with the CBO throughout the development of the Senate bill and in preparation of the conference agreement. The Congressional Budget Office worked nearly around the clock and on weekends for months to complete an extremely thorough and rigorous cost analysis of the prescription drug bill. That cost estimate, the official cost estimate, was available to every Member of Congress before the measure was presented to the House or Senate for a vote. It is also pretty disingenuous for the opponents of the Medicare bill--on the other side of the aisle, especially--to suggest the price tag for the Medicare bill causes them concern. The fact is, they supported proposals that cost hundreds of billions more than what we ended up passing last year. The House Democratic proposal last year would have cost nearly $1 trillion, and the Senate Democratic proposal in 2002 cost $200 billion more than the bill that was enacted into law. Further, there were more than 50 amendments offered on the floor of the Senate during the debate on the Senate bill that would have increased the cost of the bill by tens of billions of dollars. The bottom line is, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind we had a true cost estimate for the prescription drug bill last year, and everyone had access to it before the vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that had jurisdiction over the prescription drug bill for seniors, and as one of those who worked on the final product as a member of the conference committee, as one who is very happy we have this piece of legislation passed, as one, after having 36 town meetings in my State since the first of the year, who has come to the conclusion that seniors are beginning to look at this program and see it as something very beneficial to them, I wish to take a few minutes to respond to the exchange that was recently put on by the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Illinois--not to address the enlarged picture they just talked about but to address some misconceptions that can come from parts of their statements. I would start, first, with the issue of the provision in the bill that deals with the Federal Government not negotiating the price of drugs. That was put in there for a very specific purpose. That specific purpose was, we know what the situation is with the Veterans' Administration negotiating drug prices. Yes, prices are lower for drugs because they are doing that, but we have found that the Veterans' Administration will not pay for every particular drug that a doctor might want to prescribe. I had this brought home to me very clearly in my Des Moines town meeting, where the first question I had was from a constituent who was mad because her doctor prescribed a drug for which the VA was not going to pay. We do not want the Government bureaucrat in the medicine cabinet of the senior citizens of America. We do not want the Government bureaucrat coming between the doctor and the patient. We see that in the VA program. What we have done in the legislation is to build upon a 40-year practice of the Federal Government, and all health care, but particularly for prescription drugs for Federal employees, through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. We do not pretend to duplicate that plan, but there is some good experience of those plans negotiating with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs. So we do not have to have the Federal Government negotiating drugs. In fact, as I said, we specifically do not want it negotiating it. We do not want the bureaucrat in your medicine cabinet because we have plans that have been set up in this bill to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs, exactly the same way the plans for the Federal employees bring down the price of drugs. They are very well thought out and a very good practice, but, most importantly, we do not want to duplicate the shortcomings of the Veterans' Administration program. The second point I would give further explanation to is the exchange that went on belittling the AARP for backing this legislation. I compliment the AARP because we would not have a bill without the AARP backing this legislation, because the AARP had the capability of helping us get a bipartisan coalition. Without them, we would not have had a bipartisan coalition, and you do not get anything done in the Senate that is not done in a bipartisan way. Now, what is odd about Democrats finding fault with the AARP backing this bipartisan bill is that the year before, in 2002, the AARP was backing Senator Kennedy's bill. So it seems to me that for Democrats the AARP is OK if they are backing a Democrat bill, but if they want to back a bipartisan bill, it is a sin for the AARP to do such a thing. The AARP is looking at individual pieces of legislation, looking out for the greater good of their members, and helping get a product as opposed to, presumably, people on the other side of the aisle who want an issue rather than a product. So I think the AARP has done very well. I compliment them for doing that. We would not have a bill without them. What Democrats have to get over is that the senior citizens of America are not Democrat property. They are individual Americans, and they ought to be seen as individual Americans, and they and their organizations not be denigrated because the Democrats think they have a grip on all seniors of America; they do not. But that is the resentment toward the AARP. Another issue I want to explain is the impression that we have given the bureaucracy 2 years to institute the permanent program for the reason that we wanted to get way beyond the next election. It was said that maybe the first Medicare Program, in 1965, was implemented in 8 months. I was told it was a little over a year. So, to me, 2 years--38 years later--to do the first major improvement to Medicare in 38 years, to do it right--and it was not the President who decided it would take 2 years, as was indicated. Way back when we were dealing with the tripartisan bill, in the year 2002, I and my staff asked the bureaucracy: We want this done right. How much time should we give you to implement it? These nonpolitical people, being honest with us, said about 2 years. So we gave 2 years for the implementation of it. It had nothing to do with the President of the United States. It had nothing to do with the upcoming election. It is just our desire that if you are going to implement the first improvement in Medicare in 38 years, you ought to do it right. It was not our judgment of how much time it takes but a nonpolitical judgment of how much time it takes. That is what we were told, and that is what we did. We do not wait for 2 years for this program to kick in. We have the temporary program that starts June 1, the discount card, and the subsidy for low-income people to get $600 this year and $600 next year to help them buy drugs while we are waiting to get the permanent program in place. Congress made that decision to take 2 years, not the President of the United States. Now, there was also, throughout this discussion we heard, all sorts of insinuations that somehow this is a bill to benefit pharmaceuticals. Well, let me tell you, if the pharmaceutical companies had their way, there would not be any bill. But they knew there was going to be a bill. The drug companies that patent prescription drugs do not want generics out there. A very major provision of this bill to bring down the cost of drugs is that provision that does away with the legal subterfuge by which drug companies extend the life of their patent by making arrangements today with generic companies to keep their drug off the market, and they pay them to do it, so that, effectively, the patent is extended beyond 17 years. We did away with that. The pharmaceutical companies did not want that provision changed but we did that. Another impression that is misleading has to do with the true cost of this bill. We hear the Congressional Budget Office says it is $395 billion. Then a month or two later the Center for Medicare Services says it is $535 billion. Mr. President, is my time up?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that we have to be here today debating the FSC/ETI bill. The fact is, with America's economic health at risk, the bipartisan JOBS bill should have been debated and voted out of this body last month. Instead, attempts to move this jobs in manufacturing bill has been stymied. As a result, American manufacturing is not only being deprived of a competitive boost that it deserves at a time of no job creation in manufacturing but, in addition to that, U.S. exporters are stuck with a 6-percent European tax on our products going there. This situation has festered for much too long. It has been several years since the World Trade Organization has ruled that the FSC/ETI regime did not meet our World Trade Organization obligations that this Senate and the other body agreed to a long time ago. Since then, we have known that. It is a fact. We have all known that unless we changed our current tax system, tariffs against our exports were looming. To try to avoid these sanctions, Senator Baucus and I came together over a year ago and formed a bipartisan, bicameral working group to find a real, permanent solution to this problem. The result is bipartisan. Remember that nothing gets done in the Senate that is not bipartisan. We have a jobs in manufacturing act before the Senate, and we will be voting on that today. This bill was passed out of my committee by a vote of 19 to 2. That means all Democrats voted for it. It provided a real and permanent solution to our FSC/ETI problems in a way which complies with our WTO obligations. The bipartisan jobs in manufacturing act helps America's manufacturing sector. It helps us compete by giving an across-the-board 3-percentage point tax cut to all companies, large or small, that manufacture in the United States. At a time when manufacturing is flat, this 3-percent tax cut can make a real difference to a company's bottom line perhaps bringing up enough capital and creating enough manufacturing growth to enable it or any company to hire in the manufacturing sector. That is something every Senator would like to see. But because of political games and dilatory tactics by some in the Senate, this relief is not forthcoming. I want Americans to understand that Senators on my side of the aisle are ready, willing, and able to provide a real shot in the arm to America's manufacturing sector. But after working so long in a bipartisan way, we are being blocked. We are blocked from providing the relief that American manufacturing deserves and needs. In effect, this bill and the American manufacturing sector are being held hostage to Democratic demands to load this bipartisan legislation with a bunch of unrelated nongermane amendments. While some of these amendments are legitimate, others amount to nothing more than a wish list of political message amendments that have nothing to do with this very major piece of legislation. I, for one, am tired of watching us bide our time contemplating a wish list. American manufacturing needs solutions. It does not need a political wish list. We have a good bipartisan bill before the Senate, a package that works for America's workers. But our plea for progress is met with nothing but demands for including one more item on some political wish list. You would think adults would make up their minds about what they want and that would be it. It would be one thing if a political wish list did no harm, if it really didn't matter, or if the JOBS bill moved or not. But for manufacturing it does matter. Delay deprives American manufacturing of a much needed economic boost. Delay also inflicts real economic harm on innocent workers across the country. The World Trade Organization has authorized the European Union to impose as much as $4 billion in tariffs in retaliation for our failure to bring our tax laws into compliance with international trade agreements that this body has already accepted--and accepted years ago. Last month, on March 1, the European Union began implementing these sanctions by imposing an additional 5-percent tax on selected U.S. exports. This 5-percent Euro tax automatically increases by 1 percent for each month in which the United States of America remains out of compliance. Thus, when Members voted against stopping debate last month, the last time this bill was before this body, they contributed to a 20-percent increase in these tariffs because that additional 1 percent went into effect on April 1. Because of delay, then we have a 6-percent sales tax on our exports to Europe, making a lot of our businesses uncompetitive. As you can see from this chart, these sanctions will continue to climb unless we act and act fast. In May, they rise another 1- percentage point to 7 percent and continue increasing until they reach a maximum of 17 percent in March of 2005. After that, then who knows what is going to happen. But by then we will have a lot of layoffs and people will wake up to the fact that harm is being done. The European Union is not bound to cap retaliation at 17 percent. That is why I said: Who knows? In fact, they are scheduled to review the effectiveness of these retaliatory taxes at the end of 1 year. If the Europeans conclude that we are not in compliance, retaliation can escalate even further to a maximum of $4 billion a year. If this sounds one sided, America wins more disputes in the World Trade Organization than we lose. We have won some major disputes against Europe. One time we won one about American beef being kept out of Europe. Europe still doesn't like to get some American beef. So we have imposed a tax on European exports coming into our country because that is the legal way of handling these disputes after it has been decided. I use that as an example. Europe has learned a lesson from the United States and they are doing to us what we have done to them. Why? Because in one case Europe did not want to abide by a decision, and in another case, we, up to now, have not abided by a decision. That is why we have the tax. It is quite obvious in most cases countries abide by these decisions. If they did not abide by these decisions, we would have chaos in international trade. We do not. I make clear to the Members of this body: The effect of voting against stopping debate last month contributed strongly to raising tariffs on our exports by 2 percent. If cloture is not invoked this week, it is certain sanctions will escalate another percentage point, rising an overall level of 7 percent on selected U.S. exports. The core legislation should be very clear: A vote against stopping debate is a vote for higher taxes on our exports. Which exporters will be hurt? All of them. No, not all of them, because the European Union was very careful in drawing up the sanctions list. In many cases, they chose to impose sanctions on U.S. exports that would most significantly feel the pain of the higher tax tariffs. They are smart. Thus, highly competitive products with high profit margins are likely to find themselves on the list. A press release from the American Forest and Paper Association dated March 2 of this year says this about European Union tariffs on wood product exports: This is a devastating development for an industry that has already closed more than 220 mills and laid off 120,000 workers since 1997. Our industry works on such tight profit margins that even a 5 percent tariff will likely price many U.S. wood and paper products out of our vital European markets. To have this happen just as United States wood and paper products are beginning to recover from a decade-long stump does irreparable harm to our industry. The European Union has chosen products they could get from other countries, hoping that the higher tariffs on U.S. exports will price our products out of the European market, to be replaced by similar products from other foreign competitors. It is important for Members of the Senate to understand the effect of pricing U.S. exports out of the European market is not just temporary. Longstanding business relationships can be permanently disrupted as European buyers scramble to replace cost-prohibited U.S. products. Even if our price may go down, those relationships that are made because of this uncompetitive atmosphere for American exporters may go on and we never gain back that market. Once a replacement from another country is found, there is no guarantee the European buyer will ever buy from the U.S. producer again. In the end, the lost European export market can be lost forever. If the Senate votes down this motion to stop debate this month, the cancer of sanctions will not only continue, it will spread. On May 1 of this year the European Union will take in 10 more member countries. These countries will be bound by the same import-export regime as France and other European Union countries. Thus U.S. exports to those 10 countries will also face higher tariffs as they try to compete in these markets. Now we will look at another chart that shows the list of countries that will be become part of the European Union starting May 1, 2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia. I hope Senators who vote against stopping debate today appreciate they are voting not only to raise the Euro tax on sensitive U.S. exports but are also voting to have that tax applied to an even broader array of countries. Some people might argue these sanctions only hurt big companies. Do not be fooled. They are big, people might argue, and they can absorb a hit of higher tariffs. The fact is, approximately 90 percent of U.S. exporters in 2001 were small businesses with 100 employees or less. These small exporters can ill afford the sting of sanctions on their bottom line. Products impacted include jewelry, horses, dairy, fruit and vegetables, toys and games, glass and glassware, animal feed, leather goods and handbags, textile products, carpets, footwear, soap and candles, wood products, and electric machinery. That is just a small list of 500 different products being hit. The American people are starting to take notice. I read in part from a letter I received from the Carpet Rug Institute headquartered in Dalton, GA, stating: The United States carpet industry produces 45 percent of the world's carpet and is a $12 billion per year presence at the mill. The carpet industry is extremely competitive, both domestically and worldwide, with profit margins cut razor thin. The potential of an increased duty in the form of a punitive sanction may make the export of carpet and rug products by any United States manufacturer in the European Union market an economic impossibility. For the sake of the collection of an excess tariff an entire industry may be made to suffer. And we are hearing: Voices from across the country are asking relief from the escalating Euro tax on our exports. I will take a look at another letter signed by over 80 businesses and trade associations. These organizations that signed the letter want to emphasize the urgency of resolving the FSC/ETI export tax issue as soon as possible. Quick action on legislation is necessary to both comply with our WTO obligations and avoid or minimize retaliation against U.S. products. . . . the European Union has increased the retaliatory tariffs from 5 to 6 percent on as much as $4 billion per year of American products. These retaliatory tariffs are hurting the U.S. exports to Europe at a time when they are just beginning to rebound in the global economy and showing signs of renewed growth. Moreover, the tariffs negatively impact American workers. The letter continues: We urge the Senate and House to pass FSC/ETI legislation immediately and proceed to conference as soon as possible thereafter. Thank you . . . for doing your part to send FSC/ETI bill to the President's desk without delay, thus minimizing the economically devastating trade sanctions on U.S. products and its impact on American workers who produce them. These organizations span the entire Nation. This is not regional. Almost every State is going to be impacted by this vote this afternoon. So let's go to the Northeast: the Virginia Forestry Association, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Coalition of New England Companies for Trade, and the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce. From our part of the country, the Upper Midwest--the Presiding Officer is from Minnesota; I am from Iowa--we have the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Minnesota Timber Producers Association, the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council, the Missouri Forest Products Association, and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. In the Pacific Northwest, we have the Pacific Coast Council of Custom Brokers and Freight Forwarders and the Softwood Export Council in the Pacific Northwest. From the West, we have the Utah Manufacturers Association, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and the California Chamber of Commerce. From the Plains States and the South, we have the Arkansas Forestry Association, the Louisiana Forestry Association, the Mississippi Forestry Association, and the Texas Forestry Association. From the Southeast, we have the Alabama Forestry Association, the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the North Carolina Forestry Association. So as you can see, the entire country is impacted by this European tax on our exports to that part of the world. Some of the nationally impacted associations include the Agriculture Retailers Association, the American Architectural Manufacturers Association, the American Cotton Shippers Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Peanut Council, the American Soybean Association, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, the Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National Cotton Council. And that is just a partial list. What communication to Members of Congress is all about is businesses crying out for relief--not for the delay that we have already had for 1 month. Let's be clear about what is at stake. American jobs are at stake because American competitiveness is at stake. A vote against stopping debate is a vote against tax relief for America's beleaguered manufacturing sector--tax relief that goes beyond nullifying this European tax. A vote against stopping debate is a vote to prolong the pain across America. A vote against stopping debate is a vote to increase the European tax on American exporters yet more than the 6 percent already there. A vote against stopping debate is a vote to deprive America's small exporters--because 90 percent of our exporters are small businesses of 100 employees or less--continued access to the European market, and access they may never regain. If my colleagues vote against stopping debate, they might as well be telling American manufacturing that the United States is closed for business; that if you want access to the European export markets, you might as well go overseas and do your business because Members of this Congress have refused to give these manufacturers the tools they need to compete. There is an answer. Stop--stop playing political games; stop pushing political wish lists; stop jeopardizing economic recovery. Instead, start supporting the ending of debate; start bringing this bill to finality; support stopping debate and start enhancing the economic recovery that is just around the corner in America's manufacturing sector if we do not snuff it out; support stopping debate and start the process that eliminates the European tax on our exports. The choice is clear: Vote no, and you might make a few political points but I think just for a short period of time. As this Euro-tax goes up, people are laid off and you lose political points. Vote yes to stop debate and you are guaranteed to get economic progress. So let's put aside our political games. Stop this debate. Move to finality. Consider legitimate amendments. That is what this place is all about--legitimate amendments, not just making political comment. I summarize this way: This is like moving the goalposts. We have heard a lot from the Democratic leadership which claims they support this bipartisan bill. That is what we are hearing. I know that is what they are telling their constituents as well. I am afraid the actions of the Democratic leadership speak louder than their words. My sense is that there is a political priority to deny President Bush an opportunity to sign a bipartisan bill either this summer or this fall. It seems that the objective is to prevent that Rose Garden signing ceremony from occurring. Of course, the victims of this strategy happen to be those companies and those workers who are hit by this Euro-tax as it ratchets up. I hope I am wrong. But the record gives me pause. I would hope that those on the other side would put the interests of firms and workers in their States above that of partisan Presidential campaign strategy. If you look at the record, you will see dramatic movements in terms of the demands of people on the other side of the aisle to promote their political message amendments, most often nongermane. This chart draws from a favorite activity that we have in the Midwest, for example, every time Iowa plays Minnesota, and I am talking, obviously, about football. This jobs in manufacturing bill is near the Senate goal line. Unfortunately, it seems politics is driving the other side to move the goalposts. When we came into session in January, Senator Frist was criticized by the Democratic leadership for not moving right away this very bill, the jobs in manufacturing bill. At that time, the goalpost was clear--just 5 yards away. Then, after we were finished with the highway bill and a couple other bills, Senator Frist attempted to go to this jobs in manufacturing bill. Much to my surprise, we were ambushed by the leadership of the other side with unrelated amendments. I thought I had an understanding with the floor manager we were going to do amendments first that were related to the bill and then move to other amendments. That agreement was not carried out. That event caught me off guard. So a second goalpost appeared. It was the overtime amendment of my colleague from Iowa. Now, it did not matter that we had voted on it previously. It did not matter that the amendment dealt with a proposed--not final but a proposed--Department of Labor regulation. None of that seemed to matter. That amendment was, and is still, a show-stopper to this bipartisan bill. So we are at the second goalpost, as it has been moved. The demand of the leadership of the other side keeps changing. We were talking about just a single-digit list of amendments and, for the most part, hopefully germane amendments. We are not talking about that anymore. Now, since it looks like an overtime pay vote may be in the picture, there is a goalpost yet further away. For the first time we are hearing of other amendments--not Finance Committee jurisdiction amendments--such as an increase in the minimum wage, that are new showstoppers. You can't finish this bill, we are told, even though we are told the substance is great. Nobody seems to disagree on the substance of this. So why can't we get a bill to the President? Even though we don't disagree on the substance, there is still a new goalpost. Heaven help us how all that turns out. There is a final goalpost way out there; that is, getting to conference. We may move through all the goalposts, but then we may be blocked on whether we get to conference. I hope I am proven wrong in a few minutes as we vote on this measure. If we can't get cooperation from the other side, we have a couple alternatives: One, to go on with other business; two, to look at reconciliation in late spring. I don't want to go with either of those options because we can finish this bill now. There is always a time when the Senate has goodwill between the two parties represented. That goodwill hopefully will surface just as cream surfaces on milk. Now it is time to get the job done. I hope we can pass this FSC/ETI legislation. It is bipartisan. That is the only way you get things done in the Senate. Consequently, because it is bipartisan, we ought to get it done. And because it is bipartisan, it deserves better treatment than it has received thus far. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to make a statement and, upon the conclusion of my statement, the Senate recess until 2:15 as provided under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota said I could speak before him. I would ask to have 10 minutes right now.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to continue to speak about the Foreign Sales Corporation Extraterritorial Income Act that is before Congress that we call the JOBS and manufacturing act. I wish to bring the Senate up to date on the status of this not just as a jobs bill but as a major economic policy legislation. This, of course, is bipartisan legislation. This is legislation that was designed to respond to the World Trade Organization's adverse ruling on a benefit under the old law for U.S. exporters and to bring our law into conformity with that World Trade Organization ruling, but to do it in a way that actually creates jobs in America and emphasizes domestic manufacturing so American manufacturers are going to benefit from this legislation on what they do in the United States, not what they do overseas. Foreign corporations that come into the United States are going to benefit under this legislation as long as they set up plants and manufacture in the United States. This bill has an acronym, J-O-B-S, and it is truly jobs-creating legislation. We have problems with this now because some people who even support this legislation want to stall it so they can use it as a vehicle for getting some of their pet projects through the Senate. When everybody is saying, and rightly so, that we have not created enough jobs in manufacturing and we have a bill before the Senate that will do it, I do not know why anybody would want to hold this bill up, but there is a playing of politics and, in my view, then when one plays politics, the people's business is neglected. First, there is a lot in this bill on which we all agree: The tax benefit I refer to is the foreign sales corporation extraterritorial income benefit. That benefit provides a roughly 5-percent corporate rate tax cut for U.S. exporters of manufactured products. As everyone knows, there is a disturbing economic statistic about U.S. manufacturing and that was that there was a downturn in the manufacturing index starting March of 2000. I emphasize that because everybody thinks this recession started under President Bush, but if one looks at the manufacturing index, they would find the manufacturing index started to turn down March of 2000. It just now has bottomed out and it is just now that it looks as if there is going to be an increase in hiring in manufacturing. Fortunately, with the tax relief in place in this bill and with other stimulative measures that have been passed last year, manufacturing has come back. Unfortunately, manufacturing employment has not come back to previous levels, and that is what this bill deals with. Both sides, meaning both Democrat and Republican, agree there is a problem with the loss of manufacturing jobs. Both sides also agree that the loss of this previous benefit will result in a tax increase on U.S. manufacturers. Following the simple rules of Economics 101, if something is taxed higher, there is less of it. There is some dissent on my side of the aisle, the Republican side, which I want to mention so that I am candid in not everybody who opposes this bill is on the Democrat side. We have Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles, as an example. They are Republicans. They question the wisdom of the current law benefit. I was also surprised to hear last week that one Member from the other side--quite a liberal Member, as a matter of fact--in effect agreed with Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles. That Member questioned the wisdom of the foundation of this bill--the tax deduction for domestic manufacturers. That Member took to task, as he said, the authors of the legislation. I wonder if that Member bothered to check to see the authors were also Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. In fact, every member of the Senate Finance Committee who is a Democrat voted for this bill to come out of committee. In any event, with the exceptions noted--meaning one Democrat plus Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles, also--there is general agreement on both sides that we need to replace current law with a manufacturing benefit which will agree with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the international agreement that decides the rules of trade. Conversely, I have not heard anyone say it is wise to sit idly by while our exports get hit with tariffs put on our products in a legal way by Europe, causing our products to be uncompetitive. In general, both sides agree we need to deal with this tariff problem. We need to deal with this adverse World Trade Organization ruling. Both sides agree we have a responsibility to remove the tariffs against our exports. But yet there doesn't seem to be agreement it should have been done yesterday. It is OK if it is done down the road in another 6 months when we have another 6 percent tariff put on. At least that appears to me to be the way some people are acting. If we agree on the problem and on the substance of this bill, why can't the job be done? Why can't this bill get to the President? It appears to me the two sides disagree on the outcome for this bill. I think dealing with this bill goes to the heart of our responsibility as a Senate. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides Senators with a unique power somewhat different than in the House of Representatives. That unique power also carries unique responsibilities. Where there is a compelling public policy problem and there is a consensus around the legislation that solves that problem, it is our responsibility as Senators to do everything in our power to make it happen. Said another way: If we have a bill before the Senate that is going to pass the Senate 90-10, or by a wider margin than that, and there is an agreement it ought to be done, why doesn't it get done? We all know the Senate is an institution that renders easily to gridlock and to delay. I suppose we would have to blame our Founding Fathers because they contemplated a Senate where the majority would set the agenda and the minority defines its agenda with amendments and debate. Those powers of delay and obstruction are properly resorted to when the majority is ramming something through on a partisan agenda. There is, however, a reflective responsibility on the part of the minority leadership and its members where the legislative item is a bipartisan product. That seems to me to be a responsibility to be constructive. It is irresponsible then for minority leadership and members of the minority to obstruct a consensus item. It is the height of irresponsibility to obstruct and delay when the item is a bipartisan compelling matter such as this bill is. It is simple. Is the United States going to abide by international agreements we have already approved in this Senate? It is our responsibility to set an example for the rest of the world because we are outstanding in exemplifying the rule of law and the protection of individual freedoms. Some people might say we ought to give that notoriety to England because our law comes from England. But I think you would all agree when it comes to individual freedom we have even advanced beyond England. Are we going to have a constructive approach to this legislation? I have to say to my fellow Senators: It is in our hands. Either we can continue to play these political games or we can do the job we were elected to do. Some have said something such as we will take a limited time on amendments. That misses the point. The point is the majority is led by Senator Frist. We have all played this game straight. The majority amendments to this bill have improved the bill in ways that will get even more votes for it. All those amendments we have offered have been bipartisan. For example, the Hatch-Murray amendment on research and development credit and the Bunning-Stabenow amendment on accelerating the manufacturing deduction--you recognize those Senators' names immediately and know there is one Democrat and one Republican. That is the way things get done in the Senate. The Democratic leadership has taken this bipartisan bill and turned it into a political football. We have an amendment on overtime that was previously voted on and that is a sticking point. There are other showstoppers planned by the Democratic leadership. In this case, you have one side--the majority--using the power of setting the agenda in a constructive way. I define that constructive way as bipartisan because nothing gets done in the Senate that is not bipartisan. Then you have the other side--the Democratic side--using its power of amendments and the power of delay solely for politically destructive purposes. That imbalance can't last for long. If it does last for long, the Senate is brought to a halt. It is kind of like the law of physics. For every action there is a reaction. There shouldn't be this kind of tension on a must-do--in other words, a must-pass--bipartisan bill. When it is this way on a must-pass bipartisan bill, something is out of whack. Republicans will eventually be fed up with the gamesmanship on the other side. It will mean the Republican political amendments--those which the Democrats do not like--are going to be brought up because for every action there is a reaction. That is going to lead to a vicious circle and this bipartisan bill will be more bogged down than it is presently. Another route Republicans could take is to switch to an agenda item that is not like this one. It would be a bill that has heavy political overtones. It would not be as compelling as this bill. It probably wouldn't necessarily be a must-pass bill. Again, if we were to do that, the victim would be this very good must-pass bipartisan bill. From the Republican side, let me say to every Democrat, we don't want to go that way. We will do everything we can to avoid going that way. Maybe the Democratic leadership thinks a designed plan to deter us from taking care of the people's business is good politics. Blame the Republicans, they may be thinking. They may be thinking: We have a liberal press, we can get away with it. They will protect us. They do all the time, anyway. It is kind of an encouragement. Maybe they think it is more important than actually helping the workers which this bill will help; and the U.S. businesses that are at risk because of this Euro tax; in other words, the European tariff on our products going from the United States to Europe. It isn't that simple. There will be accountability. There has always been in the case of cloture votes. We don't want to go the route of a cloture vote. None of us want to go there again. But we could go there again. There is a petition on file. The American people expect us to do our jobs and not play politics. I have talked about our responsibility as Senators. Let me put it in the context in my role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Thanks to the good people of Iowa, I have seniority to chair the oldest standing committee in the Senate, the Finance Committee. I am pleased to work with my friend, our ranking Democratic member, Senator Baucus. Not to toot our horns too much, but I am proud of our committee. We respond to big, tough issues in a businesslike, professional manner. We do not always agree, but most of the time we do agree. From my view, this foreign sales corporation replacement bill has been handled in the best bipartisan tradition of our Finance Committee. Senator Baucus and I developed this bill as partners. All Democrats, even Senators Daschle and Kerry, participated in and supported this bill out of the Finance Committee. They are Members of this committee. All of the amendments I put up for this bill have been bipartisan amendments. They are amendments that have improved the bill. Who can argue with the domestic job benefit extended by the research and development credit? That was a bipartisan bill. Who can argue with enhancing the manufacturing deduction? That was a bipartisan amendment. Democratic Members were accommodated in the committee and on the floor with a managers' package. Senator Baucus and I developed that package shoulder to shoulder. The latest version includes the bipartisan package of energy tax incentives approved by the Senate Finance Committee last year for farmers in the Midwest, the South, timber harvesters in the Northwest, or wind farms across the country. This package is going to produce and create jobs. This package has twice passed the Senate without dissent. For all the Senators from my region and other places who said they could not support cloture on the Energy bill last winter because of the MTBE issue, here is your chance to vote for an energy bill that does not have anything to do with MTBE. Members do not have to worry about your personal injury lawyer friends calling upon you to fight the MTBE thing because they want to protect their own income. Members do not have to worry about offending them. That is not in this bill. Members got a chance to vote an energy bill they wanted. This maneuvering bothers me. So I brought along a chart that draws from a favorite activity in the Midwest. I am talking about a game of football. The gridiron does not necessarily have anything to do with the gridlock that is occurring on this bill, but it illustrates the problems we have. This JOBS bill is very near the Senate goalline. Unfortunately, politics is driving the Democratic leadership to move the goalposts. When we came into session in January, Senator Frist was criticized by the Democratic leadership for not moving to the JOBS bill right away. At that time, the goalpost was very clear, very close, right there where it always is on the football field. That was in January. After we finished the highway bill and a couple of other things, Senator Frist attempted to move the jobs in manufacturing bill. Much to my surprise, we were ambushed by the Democratic leadership with unrelated amendments. I thought I had an understanding as floor manager. That understanding was we were going to do amendments first that were related to the bill and then move to other amendments. That agreement was not carried out. From my standpoint, this was an unfortunate event. In budget discussions, I made clear I opposed putting this JOBS bill in the reconciliation package because I had assurances that the Democratic leadership wanted the bill passed. In fact, my ranking Member, Senator Baucus, 2 days before Republicans went to Philadelphia for our retreat in January to make our plans for this year, told me. I want to move this JOBS bill; do not let the Republicans include this JOBS bill in the reconciliation because reconciliation is obnoxious to the bipartisanship of the Senate. It is obnoxious to the minority. When we were making our plans in Philadelphia, my colleagues responded to that request from my Democrat ranking Member and we did not include this bill in the process of reconciliation. It happens that my view was not shared by the House leadership or even by the Senate leadership or by the White House. I took the position in leadership meetings and in the Senate Budget Committee Republican caucus deliberations that the Democratic leadership would not politicize this bill; we would get it passed. I was ambushed on March 3rd. In fact, it looks like I was wrong and others were right. So we have a second goalpost here. It was the amendment of my colleague from Iowa on overtime. It did not matter that we had voted on that amendment previously. It did not matter that the amendment dealt with proposed--not final, proposed--Department of Labor regulations. No, none of that mattered. That amendment was and still is a showstopper to this bipartisan bill that everyone agrees ought to pass the Senate. When it comes to a final vote, it will pass overwhelmingly. We are now at that second goalpost. The demands of the Democratic leadership still change. We were talking about a single-digit list of amendments. Not anymore. Now that it looks like an overtime vote may be in the picture, there is a goalpost yet farther away. For the first time, we are hearing of other amendments not even in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, such as an increase in the minimum wage, another showstopper. We cannot finish the bill, we are told, even though we are told the substance is great. This is the greatest bill since sliced bread is the opinion of people all over the Senate. But we cannot finish the bill because of this new goalpost. Heaven help us how that might turn out. There is a final goalpost out there. It is way, way out there, as you can see. It is getting to conference. We may move through all of these goalposts but then be blocked from going to conference because the Democrats have decided they should never agree to go to conference on a bill unless they can dictate the outcome. Effectively, that does not just shut down the Senate; that shuts down the whole Congress. Now, let me ask you: Is this any way to legislate? Is this a proper exercise of leadership? Is this right when jobs are on the line and people back home expect us to move consensus legislation? You have to wonder: Is all this obstruction really worth it? Now, my sense is, the political imperative of stopping this bipartisan bill is very strong. It seems the Democratic leadership is so fearful or resistant to getting a bipartisan JOBS bill to the President's desk that they are going to do anything to block it. Just keep moving the goalposts; pretty soon you will not see them. I think the record reflects this view I have that somehow there can be no JOBS bill that gets to the President of the United States. Now, do you know what I would be willing to do? If there is something with the title of this bill, called a JOBS bill, that is obnoxious to the minority, because it might make a Republican President look good, well, I will change the name of it. You guys name this bill. It is OK with me. The title has nothing to do with the substance of it in the sense of legislative dominance, but we try to say, in the title of a bill, what we are intending to accomplish. What we are intending to accomplish in this jobs in manufacturing bill is to stop this outsourcing that you hear so much about, to create jobs in manufacturing in America, and not just jobs but good jobs, because manufacturing jobs that are related to exports pay 15 percent above the national average. They are good jobs. I have predicted they cannot let this bill get to the President of the United States for political reasons. I hope I am proven wrong in the next few days. But I can say this: It is time to get the job done. In a few days, I hope we can move back and pass this jobs in manufacturing legislation. It is, in fact, a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is, in fact, a piece of legislation that deserves better treatment than it has received so far. So tomorrow I hope, for all these reasons, particularly the reasons I gave earlier this afternoon--that there are so many amendments that have been added to this bill at the request of Democrats and Republicans alike, but I emphasize the Democrats--they have something in this bill they have asked for. They have asked for me to consider it. If they do not vote to stop debate tomorrow, to move on this legislation, get it to the President, why did they come to me in the first place and ask me to put their favorite piece of legislation in this bill? It is all good legislation. I do not find fault with the people who have asked me to do it. It is all good public policy. But, also, it was not something real pertinent to the primary purpose of this legislation. But we are helping them get their bill passed by cooperating with them. I would like a little cooperation in return. I would like to have all the Members who we have tried to accommodate-- both Republican and Democrat--vote to stop debate and move on to final passage of this bill, so we can create jobs in manufacturing. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we all know we are likely to pass only a few major tax bills this election year, and we know one of the most important tax bills is the jobs in manufacturing bill that comes up for a cloture vote tomorrow. We know the only way the JOBS in manufacturing bill can pass is a ``yes'' vote on the motion to stop debate or, as we call it in the Senate, cloture. That vote will be tomorrow. Once again, we must ask, will the Democrats say no to cloture? Will they say no to stopping debate? Will they refuse to allow us to get to finality on this very important bipartisan legislation that when it comes to a final vote will overwhelmingly pass in the Senate? Will they go on record opposing the provisions that are in this bill? Democrats should not because this is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that every Democrat member of the Senate Finance Committee voted yes on to report it from committee. Keep in mind that the jobs in manufacturing bill could be the last train out of town this year. It has to get done if we are going to end the sanctions and tariffs that have been put on U.S. exports to Europe as a result of the United States not following our own trade agreements. Each time a Member votes against stopping debate, it lessens the chance that this bill is going to go forward. In fact, it kills off many good measures in the jobs in manufacturing bill. From the very beginning, this bill was overwhelmingly bipartisan. In fact, there was a bipartisan agreement that we need to pass this bill because there is a bipartisan agreement of long standing that the United States agrees to international trade agreements, and we have an obligation to do our part and live up to those agreements. A ``no'' vote on this motion tomorrow is an obstruction to the bipartisanship that is expressed in the language of this bill. I would like to briefly go through some of the measures that are in this jobs in manufacturing bill. What I am going to refer to is what a lot of Members of both political parties have asked for the consideration of by my committee and for inclusion in the language of this bill. I will go over what is in this bill and sincerely ask why the Democrat leadership is willing to tell its members to kill the bill by voting no to stopping debate. This bill will end $4 billion a year of sanctions against the United States and our exports. As of March 1, those sanctions are being imposed against U.S. exports of grain, timber, paper, and manufactured goods. You will later hear my comments on the products that are being hit right now by sanctions. I think each Member ought to know how this is affecting the economy of their district. First, manufacturing jobs are good jobs in America. They pay 15 percent above the national average. If jobs are related to exports, there is a tariff on your exports in another country and we aren't competitive, those jobs aren't going to exist very long. Think about what that would do in Waterloo, IA, for one-fifth of the tractors that come off the assembly line being exported. We couldn't afford to lose one-fifth of the jobs at John Deere in Waterloo, IA, because of these tariffs. We can end the sanctions that are in this bill, but will the Democrats say no to cloture so we don't end sanctions? This bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our U.S.-based manufacturing sector to promote factory hiring here in the United States. It is not going to benefit corporations for that portion of their manufacturing overseas. Will the Democrats say no to $75 billion worth of help, and help create jobs in factories in America, particularly considering the fact that every day you hear comments about outsourcing, and they expect us to do something about outsourcing? This bill will do something about outsourcing. The jobs in manufacturing bill extends the research and development tax credit through next year. This is a domestic tax benefit that generates research and development in the United States. That translates into good high-paying jobs for workers in the United States--not overseas. The amendment we had on research and development passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote. Why would Democrats say no to a bipartisan provision in this bill? Will they? I hope not. The jobs in manufacturing bill extends for 2 years many tax provisions that expired either last year or are going to expire this year. This would include items such as a work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit and make the merger of those credits permanent. Senator Bayh and Senator Santorum asked for these provisions, and we included them. Will these Senators vote for cloture? They should. Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe asked for a provision that allows naval shipbuilders to use a method of accounting which results in more favorable income tax credit treatment. We included that provision in this bill for Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe. They each have reasons to vote for cloture to get these amendments to the President for his signature. There are enhanced depreciation provisions to help the ailing airline industry. Senator Lincoln, Senator Brownback, and Senator Roberts asked for these provisions. I hope they will vote to stop debate tomorrow so we can get to finality on this legislation. There are what is referred to as new homestead provisions. These were requested by Senator Dorgan, Senator Baucus, Senator Thomas, Senator Enzi, and Senator Crapo. I hope these Senators will vote to stop debate so what they have asked me to do can get to the President for his signature. There are rural development provisions to create businesses in counties that are losing population. For example, they provide incentives for starting or expanding rural businesses in a rural outmigration county when it hits a certain percentage of outmigration. At the request of Senator Dorgan, we also included a new market tax credit for high outmigration counties. These credits help economic development in rural counties that have lost over 10 percent of their population. There is only one way this homestead and the new market provisions can become law; that is, to have the Senate stop debate. That takes 60 votes. For Senators we have tried to work with to get their provisions included, if they aren't willing to help stop debate and move this bill along, why would they even ask me to include provisions in the bill if they do not want this bill to move along? The jobs in manufacturing bill includes brownfields revitalization which was requested by Senators Lautenberg, Dole, and Inhofe. The bill helps tax-exempt investors that invest in the cleanup and remediation of qualified brownfields sites. I hope those Senators who asked me to include their provisions in my bill will decide they should vote to stop debate. Without getting over that hurdle, you never get to final passage. Senators Bob Graham, Breaux, and Hatch asked us to include the mortgage bonds revenue measure. It would repeal the current rule that doesn't allow revenue bond payments to be used for issuing new mortgages. There are 70 cosponsors of this bill. The 70 Members who took time to study this provision on mortgage revenue bonds and signed it surely want this bill to become law. Otherwise, why would they put their signature on it? That means that tomorrow those 70 Senators ought to be stopping debate so we can move on to finality. Another provision is allowing a deduction for private mortgage insurance. This was asked for by Senator Lincoln and Senator Smith. It benefits people struggling to afford a home. I hope no one votes against their idea. Home ownership is the dream of all Americans. It is the American dream. This provision helps that along a little bit. Some might say we have the highest percentage of home ownership this country has ever seen at 68 percent. Yes. But what about the other 32 percent? This might help some of those people who might not otherwise be able to afford a home. In most cases, you have to buy mortgage insurance. If you buy mortgage insurance, it costs money for lower income people who are on the edge of owning a home or not owning a home. This might just help them get their loan through. But a vote against cloture would be a vote against this deduction that might bring the American dream to a few more young people. Our bill includes the tax credit for employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called to active duty. Senator Landrieu and Senator Allen asked for this provision. I hope we will have their vote tomorrow, if they are serious about helping our guardsmen and reservists who have been called to action because of the war on terrorism. Otherwise, what is the point of asking me to put this in the bill if they are not helping us to move it to finality? At the request of Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, we have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone bonds provided for the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. We also included $200 million in new tax credits to be used for rail infrastructure projects in the New York Liberty Zone; again, responding to the needs of the people in New York because of what happened on September 11. These two Senators came to me and asked for consideration of these provisions in this bill, and in a bipartisan way, we try to do things and we have responded accordingly. Are they serious about getting these provisions into law for their New York constituents? If so, then they ought to vote for cloture and move this bill to finality. We even included the renewable communities provisions requested by Senators Clinton and Schumer. Will the Senate Democratic leadership ask their members to vote against Liberty Zone funding for meeting the needs of the people of New York by voting no on cloture? We should not deny funding for the Liberty Zone just to prove a political point on a proposed labor regulation that may never be finalized in the first place. Even if it is finalized, Congress can always overturn it under the Congressional Review Act. Hundreds of regulations are proposed in Washington every week. Very few make it to the finish line. So why is the Democrat leadership holding up funding for the Liberty Zone over a proposed regulation? This is not responsible governance. This is not responsible opposition. There is a legitimacy in our form of government, one party being in the opposition and the other party being in the majority. They play a very important role in making people responsible. Do we hold up every piece of legislation because it is an election year and Members think next year they might be in a majority, so they can do what they want to do? All of these requests that are made to me, why not hold them up until next year? Then I would not have to be considering them at this point. If they are important, we ought to move this legislation along. In other words, we should have responsible opposition in the process of everybody making their points. The Liberty Zone needs our help, and we need to behave as adults and get this bill completed. In the jobs in manufacturing act we increase small business industrial development bonds to spur economic development in rural areas. This was requested by Senator Pryor and Senator Thomas. I hope they will vote for cloture tomorrow. We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure. These were requested by Senator Conrad. We have included tribal bonds in the jobs in manufacturing bill, requested by Senator Campbell and Senator Johnson. I am sure this is supported by Senator Daschle, as well, because he has a record of supporting Native American projects. These bonds allow the same rules that apply to tax-exempt bonds for State and local governments to apply to Native American tribes issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance facilities on their reservations. That is just an explanation, not something new. In other words, if it is good for one State and local government, why shouldn't it be good for the governance of our tribes? We have included tribal school bonds, again, as requested by Senator Johnson and Senator Campbell. Under current law, there is no class of bonds designated for the purpose of encouraging school construction on Indian reservations. This provision fills that void. We have a tribal new markets tax credit which was added at the request of Senator Daschle and Senator Campbell. This amendment adds $50 million a year to economic development on reservation land. Will the Democrat leadership tell Democrats to vote against closing debate and kill these Native American measures? Again, if they do not want to get it done, why did they come to me and ask for me to include these things? We have also included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act. This is at the request of Senator Bingaman and Senator Collins. This is very important. We have Senator Conrad and Senator Santorum and Senator Bunning asking we add a change in section 815 of the Tax Code. The provision suspends applicable rules imposing income tax on certain distributions to shareholders from the policyholder's surplus account of a life insurance company. This is included in the bill. We have a special dividend allocation rule that benefits farmers' cooperatives. Senator Lincoln and Senator Coleman asked it be included. We have other farm provisions that give cattlemen tax-free treatment if they replace livestock because of something beyond their own control, such as drought, floods, or weather-related conditions. Senator Daschle and Senator Thomas asked for that. At the request of Senator Cantwell and Senator Thomas, we included a provision that allows payments under the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program to be exempt from tax. This is an important measure to enhance the delivery of medical services in rural America. We included the passenger rail infrastructure tax credits at the request of Senator Carper. It provides $500 million for intercity passenger rail capital projects. We also included the short-line credits requested by Senator Smith and Senator Brownback. At the request of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hatch, we added a provision to allow taxpayers to apply their bonus depreciation against the alternative minimum tax credits. This measure is very important to the steel mills of West Virginia; hence, Senator Rockefeller. A provision benefiting Oldsmobile dealers was included at the request of Senator Baucus and Senator Bingaman. The proposal provides tax-free treatment for Oldsmobile dealers because their franchise is being terminated. How many times have we heard Members talk about the need to make broadband available in rural communities? We know it is essential to the economic competitiveness of rural America, particularly since we see so many Asian companies, so far in advance of the United States in broadband. To keep our economy competitive, it ought to be here. But we also know many Democratic Senators support this. It is, likewise, in the bill. Senator Murray and Senator Smith asked for the forest industry bond provisions in this bill. That allows nonprofits to use tax-exempt bond financing to acquire forest land, to achieve better balance between the goals of conservationists and the timber industry. Up to $1.5 billion in bonds may be issued under this program. That, sir, is a lot of conservation money. At the request of Senator Boxer, we have included a proposal that would allow employers to take a 50-percent tax credit against the FICA taxes for wages paid to the first responders who are called to active duty. We added a second measure at Senator Boxer's request. This proposal would allow farmers and ranchers to take a 30-percent credit for the installation of irrigation equipment which reduces water use. The credit would be limited to land that has received drought assistance during the past 3 years. Anyone who votes against cloture is voting to kill all the items I just listed. Why would people come to me as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and ask me to include provisions in the bill if they do not want to get this bill to the President for signature? Tomorrow, they have their chance. We had debate extended on this bill 2 weeks ago, and we had a vote to stop debate. Debate was not stopped. So tomorrow we vote again. We have to get over this hurdle to get all these provisions that have been requested in this bill and to get it to the President for his signature. I hope Members are sincere about all this legislation that is introduced. I hope Members are sincere in telling me how important their amendments are to this bill. I hope Members will show that sincerity tomorrow when we have a chance to stop debate and complete this bill. All the beneficial provisions I have just discussed are being held hostage this minute because the Democratic leadership is pushing for a vote on an issue that is not even in this bill. The vote is an attempt to embarrass the administration in an election year about a proposed labor regulation on overtime. The Democrats said the regulation was going final, and they had to add it to the jobs in manufacturing bill; otherwise, they would block this bill. That was 2 weeks ago. The regulation is still not final. And who knows, the way bureaucracy moves, it may never be final but continue to tilt at windmills, and what will come. But it seems to me that it is politics all the time. It is politics from the Democrat leadership, and it is obstructing an important piece of legislation. More importantly, right now, it is obstructing legislation that most of the members of the other party have asked me to include in this bill. Now, why do you ask me to include it in the bill if you are not going to vote to get the bill to the President? This sort of obstructionism is inexcusable because we have worked hard throughout this process to make sure that everyone's concerns--both Republican and Democrat--were incorporated into this bill. Why? Because I know you do not get anything done in this body that is not bipartisan. People who want to be partisan can be partisan, but they are not going to get done what they want done either. So you bring the Senate to a standstill. We have tried, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to respond. This legislation and all these amendments included are responding to that bipartisanship. You see that effort in the amendments I just listed. But if it were not overtime, it would be something else to obstruct this bill. It could be the minimum wage; it could be trade adjustment assistance for services; it could be some kind of health care issue-- anything to block the jobs in manufacturing bill at the very same time people on the other side of the aisle are complaining because we are not doing enough to stop outsourcing. This bill will help do that. It is all about the Democratic leadership keeping the European Union sanctions in place to drive down the economy, because if the economy is not very good this fall, they think they have a better chance of electing their people. This is outrageous when you consider the bipartisan history of this jobs in manufacturing bill. The JOBS bill is a completely bipartisan bill. Construction of the bill began when Senator Baucus was chairman of the Finance Committee in 2002. Senator Baucus and I have always worked with our Finance Committee colleagues on the bipartisan development of this Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income Act repeal and also the international tax reform provisions of this bill. Let me emphasize, there is not one provision in this JOBS bill that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. I have already said, every Democrat in the committee--all 10 of them--voted for this bill to be reported out of committee. We have acted in good faith to produce a bill that protects American manufacturing jobs and to make our companies globally competitive--the same thing you hear Senator Kerry speaking about on the campaign trail, about making our corporations competitive. In fact, he even has a proposal that would reduce corporate taxes the same way we do. Let's get on with the business at hand and finish this bill; vote for cloture tomorrow, stop debate, put this bipartisan jobs in manufacturing bill ahead of partisan politics. Then we can show the people of this country that the adults are in charge of the Senate, and we can get the JOBS bill--creating jobs in manufacturing--out of the Senate and eventually to the President. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jarret Heil and Trenton Norman be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on S. 1367.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 6, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing to evaluate chronic wasting and disease in our Nation's water.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 1, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on military installation programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered. Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space MR. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on NASA FY05 Budget, in SR-253. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 1, 2004, for a hearing to consider the nominations of Robert N. Davis, to be Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims, and Pamela M. Iovino, to be Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Congressional Affairs. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 1 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on the implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Building room 226. Agenda: I. Nominations: Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; Peter W. Hall to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Roger T. Benitez to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California; Jane J. Boyle to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas; Marcia G. Cooke to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida; Paul S. Diamond to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Walter D. Kelley, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Matthew G. Whitaker to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. II. Bills: S. 1735--Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 [Hatch, Chambliss, Cornyn, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley, Schumer].

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing On ``Securing Our Borders Under a Temporary Guest Worker Proposal'' on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in SD226. Panel 1: The Honorable Robert Bonner, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; The Honorable Stewart Verdery, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; and Director Donna Bucella, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Daniel Griswald, Associate Director for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, DC and Margaret D. Stock, Associate Professor, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 1, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony for Unified and Regional Commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements, in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 2 p.m. to mark up an original bill entitled ``The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2004.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 1, 2004, off the Senate floor on pending Committee business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Economic Treaties.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for managing the bill while I had to be in a conference to work out compromises on the pension bill. But more importantly, going back to his days in the House of Representatives, he has been a trailblazer in the cause of moving people from welfare to work so that those people have an opportunity to move themselves up the ladder. Families on welfare and low-income families need childcare, and they need it now. This bill will help do that. If Democrats obstruct passage of this welfare bill, we risk losing a significant opportunity to substantially increase childcare funding for welfare families as well as for poor working families. If we simply continue the level of childcare funding under current law, hundreds of thousands of children and working families will lose their childcare. Estimates have been made that nearly 225,000 children could lose childcare assistance by the year 2006, and more than 360,000 children could lose it by the year 2008. Is that what the Democrats want? Is that what they stand for in their vote against cloture on this legislation? That is playing politics on the welfare bill, and playing politics will not get this bill passed. This bill is good policy. Democrats know that. And good policy is good politics. Let me be clear: If Democrats succeed in their efforts to derail consideration of the welfare bill, hundreds of thousands of children will lose childcare. In other words, in order to score political points, Democrats are leaving poor children and their working single moms out in the cold. Without additional childcare resources, many States will be forced to make painful childcare cuts or institute waiting lists or increase copays. If childcare funds are not available, low-income families, working families trying to do the right thing will be unable to help pay for childcare. Children work; children suffer. Or else children don't suffer and parents don't work. Under this situation, they would be forced to resort to inadequate, unstable, probably unsafe childcare arrangements, or even be forced to give up their jobs and return to welfare, all so that political points can be made. That doesn't make sense to me, especially for a party that brags about putting the care of the people in need uppermost in their platform. I think that is shameful. Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves for making political hay on the backs of these low-income people. In addition to the loss of childcare funding increases, if we are not able to enact this legislation--and you have to have cloture to get to finality, or else you have to have an agreement on the number of amendments and their germaneness to move ahead. So without one or the other, we are not able to enact welfare reform. In addition, we would also fail to make needed improvements to child support enforcement programs. We would fail to provide transitional medical assistance for 5 years as well as give States access to the contingency funds they have not been able to use because we liberalized States' access to those contingency funds. We leave States in the dark about what a reauthorization bill next year would look like. Why leave 50 State legislatures in a lurch when if we acted, they can put their State programs in place and move on with certainty? When this is all added together--and there are a lot of other things we could say--it is an extraordinarily irresponsible policy that ends up with the lack of finality on the part of this Senate on welfare reform. But then maybe welfare reform has never been a priority for Democrats. In the 107th Congress, even though my friend, Senator Baucus, reported a bill out of committee with $5.5 billion for childcare, welfare never made it to the floor of the Senate. This year, the Senate Finance Committee reported out a bill with significant Democratic priorities in it, but no Democrat voted for it. Our Republican leader, Senator Frist, gave us a week out of a very crowded legislative schedule because welfare reform--taking care of the needs of the poor, the needs of children--is high on the agenda of Senator Frist. But it also has to be worked in with a very crowded legislative schedule. But he gave us time. He has many Members and many committee chairmen besides this Senator pressuring him for floor time to take up their bills, to consider legislation; yet, this had the high priority of our Republican leader. We passed the bipartisan and Republican-sponsored Snowe amendment, increasing childcare by $6 billion, and still it looks like Democrats are prepared to block action on this bill, this bill that helps poor people, because they have an agenda that somehow outranks welfare. Obviously, their agenda is to make political points. I am sad to say that ultimately children and their working moms are the ones who will pay the price for this political grandstanding. I hope we can do better by them, Mr. President. I have worked hard so that we could in fact do better for these people. It would be a shame if we are prevented from passing a bill that would genuinely help those in need just so the other side can score political points, or at least what they perceive to be political points. The question is whether the Democrats will be held accountable if they succeed in killing welfare reform and killing an additional $7 billion for childcare. This issue is not about a vote on minimum wage. Republicans are willing to take a vote on minimum wage. As my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, said yesterday, ``We are willing to pay the ransom. We just need some assurances that we get the victim back.'' We need to know we can pass this bill and get it to conference. That is the issue over which Democrats are obstructing. It is very unprecedented that Democrats are objecting to appointing conferees. Let me say that more broadly. It is almost unprecedented for the legislative process not to work the way the Constitution writers intended, and that is you get to a point where you work out compromises between the other body and this one, and that takes a conference committee to do it. If you want a product instead of politics, you go to conference. That begs the point, are we ever, then, going to be able to pass anything around here? In order to get a bill enacted, it has to pass both bodies. We have $7 billion in childcare on the table right here. In order to score political points, Democrats are going to leave this banquet that is out there for people in need. Again, the issue is not about getting a vote on minimum wage. Republicans are willing to take a vote on minimum wage. The issue is about getting a bill done, reaching finality. Democrats are preventing us from getting a welfare bill through the legislative process. I hope they have a surprise for this Senator and that we get cloture, and that they deliver to the people what they promised. This is very unfortunate for our country and for families who could have benefited from the bill that it looks like Democrats are going to kill today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday I asked unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to myself and Senator Baucus signed by 41 Democrat Senators. However, at the time of printing it was missing its second page. I again ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we are hopefully at a position today where there is going to be some decision made by leadership--meaning the Democrat leader and Republican leader--on proceeding on this legislation. In the meantime, we will proceed with amendments and hopefully move along as best we can without having a certain finality. I had a chance to listen to my colleagues' statements. I will make this commentary. We have already said to the minority, the Democratic leadership, that we are prepared to vote on amendments that are before the Senate. So the issue is not voting on amendments before the Senate. There is some feeling that we are going to get this bill to finality. That doesn't mean not voting on a lot of amendments. That can be worked in as well. All we want is some certainty that we are going to get to finality. Finality means getting to conference. We have a couple pieces of legislation that have been sitting around this body, after the body has finished work on them, not being able to go to conference. One is the CARE Act, an acronym for legislation that encourages charitable giving. Another one is the Workforce Investment Act. These are two pieces of legislation that have been before the Senate, and the minority, the Democrats, will not let us go to conference on these pieces of legislation. So, in a sense, the Senate has worked its will, but the legislative process has been shut down. It seems to me if this legislation includes so much of what the Democrats want to accomplish in the way of reform of welfare--particularly the vote we had yesterday, very dramatically increasing by $6 billion the amount to be spent on childcare--that they would want this legislation to become law. So we need some assurance from the other side that if we agree to voting on some amendments that they want to vote on--that is no longer an issue--we want to move ahead with germane amendments. There is not an argument about the number at this point. We can get to a vote on this, but most important is not have it stalled in the Senate as those other two pieces of legislation. It seems to me the issue isn't a whole lot different now than it was 2 years ago. The only difference is the Republicans were in the minority, then and the Democrats were in the majority. At that particular time, we saw an Energy bill taken away from the Energy Committee and brought to the floor. That bill never became law. We saw a prescription drug bill taken over by the leadership on the floor of the Senate, with the committee effectively cut out. There were 2 weeks of debate on an Energy bill but nothing happened. There was not a budget adopted that year. We Republicans referred to the leadership at that time as having a graveyard in the Senate because they wanted issues for that election as opposed to products. We Republicans said to the electorate at that time that we want products, not issues. So when we took over in the majority in 2003, the committee system was allowed to work, developing bipartisanship. Nothing gets done in the Senate without bipartisanship. We could bring the issues to the floor and work the will of the Senate and get things through the Senate. That is what we are elected to do-- get things through the Senate and let the process work. So there is nothing that my colleague from Montana said that I disagree with, except we ought to see light at the end of the tunnel. Is there anything wrong with saying: Are you guys--meaning the Democrats--going to do what you did on the Workforce Investment Act and the CARE Act and let the Senate become a graveyard again just because something is happening that you don't like? It seems to me there would be a lesson learned from the last election. When the Senate became a graveyard, the people of this country sent a message that they don't want the Senate to be a graveyard. They gave the majority to the Republicans. We show that we can produce. Yet look what we are running into--the CARE Act, after a year of not going to conference. I don't know how long the Workforce Investment Act has been waiting to go to conference. We were stalled last week on a bill the Democrats agreed ought to become law, the FSC/ ETI bill. That stalled. I would not say the Welfare Act is stalled. But what do we know is down the road? What is wrong with a little bit of transparency. The transparency is that they present an amendment on minimum wage and they want a vote. So we present a plan to get to a vote on that very important issue, but we cannot get some assurance that we may not be in the same boat as with the CARE Act and the Workforce Investment Act. When it comes to the minimum wage being important for welfare, I suggest to the other leaders that, as chairman of the committee, in a letter I received from them last year, which is not dated--I received this letter, and it was signed by 41 Democrats--telling us the things they wanted in this legislation that the Finance Committee was going to be working on at that particular time. They were setting out priorities they believed we had not adequately dealt with. In this letter, there was never any mention of minimum wage being an important part of welfare reform legislation. I did take what they said in this letter very seriously, and they dealt with issues such as universal engagement, ending the caseload reduction credit, strengthening child support, extending TMA, providing additional State flexibility, issues dealing with postsecondary education, no superwaiver, no increase in work without State flexibility. Of all of those provisions they raised concern about, none dealt with minimum wage. I and the majority tried to accommodate the minority members who signed this letter and put these things in this legislation. These provisions are all in this bill. Other priorities, as stated by the Democrats, included some additional funding for childcare, and we passed that overwhelmingly yesterday. It wasn't something I could get done in committee. I, obviously, agreed with that approach because I voted for it yesterday. We also had a request from the Democrats in this letter to increase vocational education eligibility for legal immigrants. We have not dealt with that, but that is going to be an amendment before the Senate. What we have tried to do in this whole process of Republicans gaining control of the Senate and letting the committee system work, as opposed to 2002 when very major legislation, such as prescription drugs and the Energy bill, was taken away from the committees and brought to the floor--we do not develop bipartisanship on the floor, and they never became law--we have tried to make the committee system work. When specific requests are made, such as 41 Democrats sending us a letter raising concerns about their issues, we try to put them in the legislation and accommodate them so that we have a product instead of an issue. The other side ought to tell us if we are going down the same road we went down in 2002 to have the Senate become a graveyard for important legislation because they need issues instead of product. Did they learn a lesson from the last election? Do they want to lose more seats in the Senate? I don't think they do. But I think they have to get a better game plan than shutting down the Senate because we are in the majority to make this place work. I know there are a lot of Democrats who are intent upon making this place work, and I know Senator Baucus, my ranking Democrat, is committed to making this place work. There should not be any reason we have to have a cloture vote, particularly when we made overtures to the other side to vote on a lot of important issues on which they want to vote. All we want to know is that we are going to get an opportunity to develop a product. This Senate is not the only body that passes legislation that goes to the President; it also takes the House of Representatives. We do not get to finality until there is a conference committee if there is a difference between the House and the Senate, and in most major pieces of legislation, we have to have a conference committee. I do not understand why we can't get to conference on the CARE Act, a bill to encourage charitable giving by people who fill out the short form of the income tax by giving above-the-line deduction, or having the tax-free rollover IRAs for people who want to give some of their lifetime savings to charitable giving. There are a lot of other good provisions in that legislation as well. Do you know what is wrong with that, Madam President? What is probably wrong with that legislation is it is one of the No. 1 goals of the President of the United States, and maybe the other side can't let him have a victory. Yet in the scheme of what the President of the United States has to do, it may be a No. 1 goal of his, but it is a very small part of the total agenda that this President has of leading this Nation and being the Chief Executive Officer for our Government. What is wrong with the Workforce Investment Act? One would think that with the other side crying all the time about outsourcing--forgetting about insourcing; we have a $58 billion favorable balance of trade on insourcing versus outsourcing--but we all ought to be concerned about outsourcing. What does Senator Kerry, as a Democratic candidate for President, say we need to do about outsourcing? Educate our workforce. And we have opportunities to move legislation that does that, and we cannot get to conference. What is the game? We have offered to the other side votes on important legislation they want. Can they let us see light at the end of the tunnel so we know there are not games being played? I would hope there are people on the other side of the body who want this place to work, and there are. I would hope people who want product instead of issues will rise to the top, as cream does, and as cream of the crop remind their leadership of what happened in the last election, and do they want to be a less significant minority than we presently are because I think what is good about the Senate is that it keeps the extremes from governing in America--the extreme on the left and the extreme on the right. The Senate, when it cooperates and gets things done, governs from the center. Whether that is 60 votes or 70 votes or 80 votes, we govern from the center. This is a body that is going to make sure that Nazis do not take over America or Communists take over America, and there are none of them in the Congress. But when you do not have the center rule, as Germany learned or as Korinsky learned and tried to show the people of Russia in 1917, when the extremes take over, democratic values are lost.

Mr. GRASSLEY. With that consideration, I do not object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are involved in debate on a nongermane amendment the Democrats have offered on which we Republicans have said we are willing to vote, assuming we can have finality on this legislation and make sure we get to conference. In the meantime, while those procedural issues are being worked out, I wish to express some views on the subject of minimum wage. The proponents of this legislation claim they want to make sure that workers are able to earn a livable wage. Who doesn't know that is necessary for people to get along in this world? It is not very clear to me what the term ``livable wage'' means. But those who use the term seem to believe a person working at a minimum wage ought to earn more than the poverty level. So let us consider that goal for a moment. Although there is more than one way to define poverty, the Department of Health and Human Services publishes the poverty guidelines each year. These guidelines are used to determine eligibility for low-income programs like food stamps. For a single individual, the poverty guideline then would be $9,310 a year. Under current law, any job subject to the Federal minimum wage must pay at least $5.15 an hour. Assuming a person worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, at a minimum wage, they would earn over $10,000 a year. Even after deducting Federal income taxes owed on this amount, a minimum wage worker is left with more money than the poverty guidelines. I would like to repeat that a full-time minimum wage worker already earns more than the poverty level. Now, is that a livable wage? The answer is that it depends. Even in my State of Iowa not very many people would say that is very ideal; in fact, just the opposite. Most people would look for much higher than that. According to the Census Bureau, more than 2 million workers have hourly wages at or below the minimum wage. More than one-fourth of these workers are between the ages of 16 and 19. So is $5.15 an hour a livable wage? If one is a teenager living at home with their parents, they probably feel like they are making a lot of money. But what about other minimum wage workers? According to the Census Bureau, 85 percent of the people earning the minimum wage live with their parents, have a working spouse or live alone. Only 15 percent of the minimum wage workers are trying to support a family. For those few who are trying to support a family, $5.15 an hour is obviously not enough income. Fortunately, these families do not have to get by on $5.15 an hour because under current law these families are eligible for Federal assistance through the earned income tax credit and through the food stamp program, two programs that are meant to encourage people into the workforce in a way that there is good return on it. A single mom with two children working full-time at minimum wage would qualify for more than $4,000 in refundable tax credits and more than $2,000 in food stamps. On an hourly basis, that works out to more than $8 an hour. Even after Federal taxes are withheld, a single mom with two children is left with more than $15,670, which is the poverty guideline for a family of three. Thus, the debate cannot really be about getting people out of poverty. Some people might say that these workers should not have to rely on Government programs to escape poverty, and those people working would look for a day in the future when they were making enough money that they would not qualify for the earned income tax credit or qualify for food stamps. But other people might say that employers should not be so cheap, that they ought to pay their employees more than the poverty level wages. As I have just explained, the poverty level varies by the size of the families. Employers cannot pay their workers based on the size of their families. I do not know that they ever have. When one stops at a local donut shop, they do not charge $5 on Tuesday when the cashier is a teenager living at home with his parents and then charge $7 on Thursday when the cashier is a single mom raising two children. That is not the way the real world of economics or the business place works. Any business that tried to do things that way would no longer be in business. The wages earned by workers are determined by the value that consumers place on the goods and services produced by the workers. Employers cannot pay their employees more than customers are willing to pay. In fact, in most cases, customers do have choices of where to buy their goods and services. They do not have to stop at the local donut shop. If they want to, they can eat at home, or some may just decide to do without. Those who support raising the minimum wage claim that they are helping workers earn a livable wage, but if Congress could wave a magic wand and if Congress would raise wages by legislative decree, why would they stop at $7 an hour? Why not $70? Why not $700? Then everybody could be a millionaire. The reason supporters of a minimum wage stop at $7 is because they know if the minimum wage is raised higher it means yet higher prices and fewer jobs. To deny these facts is to deny economic reality. Proof? There is plenty of proof. It is very evident by the fact that no one has proposed raising the minimum wage to $70 or $700 an hour. Raising the minimum wage by $7 or $70 or $700 all have ensuing ill effects. The only difference is the smaller the increase the smaller the effect. Those who support a smaller increase are hoping that by only raising the minimum wage to $7, the price increases and the job losses will be small enough that no one will complain too loudly. Minimizing the damage will not stop the damage. Raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour is going to cost employers $6 billion a year. That is a $6 billion tax increase on a small segment of our economy, particularly the small business sector of the economy. Ironically, out of those costs of $6 billion, roughly $5 billion will go to workers who are not supporting a family while $1 billion is going to go to workers who are supporting a family. In other words, raising the minimum wage for everyone means only $1 out of every $6 goes to those who are most in need and particularly those we are trying to help with this bill to move people from welfare to work. That is a very expensive way to help low-income families. One might try to justify this costly and inefficient policy if it were the only way to help those in need, but as I have already discussed raising the minimum wage is not about getting people out of poverty. A single mom working full-time at the minimum wage, with one or two children, is already out of poverty, thanks to the earned income tax credit and thanks to food stamps. If we want to help low income workers, we should support policies like the earned income tax credit and food stamps that provide help to those who need it the most. Congress does not have a magic wand. It cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. I yield the floor.