Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10 a.m., on Passenger and Freight Rail Safety.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on ``Counterfeiting and Theft of Tangible Intellectual Property: Challenges and Solutions'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Panel I: The Honorable Jon W. Dudas, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, The Honorable Christopher Wray, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Mr. James Mendenhall, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intellectual Property, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Washington, DC, The Honorable Earl Anthony Wayne, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, United States Department of State, Washington, DC. Panel II: Mr. Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, United States Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Richard K. Willard, Senior Vice President, Legal and General Counsel, The Gillette Company, Boston, MA, Mr. Brad Buckles, Executive Vice President for Anti-Piracy, Recording Industry Association of America, Washington, DC, Ms. Vanessa Price, Intellectual Property Specialist, Burton Snowboards, Burlington, VT.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10 a.m. on ``A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Preserve Traditional Marriage'' in the Russell Senate Office Building Room 325. Panel I: The Honorable Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator, R-CO, The Honorable Barney Frank, U.S. Representative, D-MA, The Honorable John Lewis, U.S. Representative, D-GA. Panel II: Ms. Phyllis G. Bossin, Phyllis G. Bossin Co., L.P.A., Chair, American Bar Association, Family Law Section, Cincinnati, OH, Professor Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law, Minneapolis, MN, Reverent Richard Richardson, Assistant Pastor, St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, Director of Political Affairs, The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, President/CEO, Children's Services of Roxbury, Boston, MA, Professor Katherine S. Spaht, Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Professor, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, Professor Cass R. Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL.

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 Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 23, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications be authorized to Meet Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on Spyware.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. for a joint hearing with the House Committee on Government Reform, titled ``The Postal Service in Crisis: A Joint Senate-House Hearing on Principles for Meaningful Reform.''

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 March 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense financial management in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, March 23, 2004 from 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night the majority leader set up a process for moving this bill to a cloture vote. This is not our preferred route for moving what is clearly a bipartisan bill voted out of committee 19 to 2. The two dissenting votes happened to be Republicans, not Democrats. This is clearly a bipartisan bill. A bipartisan bill should not require a cloture vote to get passed. I remain hopeful we will be able to work out an agreement on moving the bill forward without the need for this extraordinary parliamentary process, but if cloture is the only way to move this bill, then I hope everybody will support cloture. We need to support cloture in the same bipartisan manner we used to build this bill. It is urgent that we move this bill immediately. This bill reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the United States and sold overseas so we can create jobs in America. We give a priority on taxation to goods made in America. Everybody in this body is concerned about outsourcing. If we want to do something about keeping jobs in America and adding to the number of jobs in America, this bill will do it. It is going to make our costs of operation less and consequently competitive with world competition. That is why we call it the JOBS bill. The reason we are in a bad position right now is because under the international agreements we have on trade, the World Trade Organization has ruled that our pretax policy is an illegal export subsidy, and consequently the World Trade Organization has authorized Europe to do up to $4 billion a year in sanctions against U.S. exports. It isn't just the case of our tax system causing us to not be competitive. On top of that, we now have $4 billion of sanctions to further weigh down our ability to compete in the export market. These sanctions began on March 1. These sanctions started at 5 percent, which is just like a 5-percent sales tax on the stuff we are going to sell. The rule of Economics 101 is if you tax something at a higher rate, you get less of it. But not only is it 5 percent now, it is going to be 5 percent for each month we do not conform our tax laws to our trade agreements. Remember, we have trade agreements because the U.S. Congress enacted those trade agreements. It has been done by a majority of the representatives of the American people. One percent a month can take us all the way up to a maximum of 17 percent over the course of a year. By November, we are going to have a 12-percent tax on our exports. This is a very serious threat for all States because the sanctions hit a wide range of products--agricultural, timber, and manufacturing products that we sell overseas. We need to get this issue behind us very soon or we will never get this bill passed and we will continue to have this mounting level of taxation on our products being exported to a point where we are even more uncompetitive, to a point where workers may be laid off; whereas just the opposite can happen if we pass this legislation. We are going to be able to make our manufacturing more competitive and across the board with a wider range--not just for big corporations in America but for individuals that export, for sole proprietorships that are in manufacturing; you name it. People are going to get the benefit of a lower rate of taxation if they manufacture in America--not if they have a company in America and they manufacture overseas but just American jobs, American products made in America, or if a company wants to come over here and invest in America and build a plant and hire American workers, they will get the benefit of it as well. We had 3 or 4 days on this bill 2 weeks ago. We started on it again yesterday. I think it is very important that we move ahead on this legislation. But the opening debate and the procedural shenanigans confirm my worst fears because there are some on the other side who want to use this legislation to move things that are unrelated to making our industry competitive and unrelated to the motivations behind this bipartisan bill. Senator Baucus and I agreed on an order of amendments that would improve the bill and broaden important relevant issues. That agreement was undermined by the process coming from the other side of the aisle. It means Members there presumably do not know the importance of this legislation, do not want to debate the substance of the bill but debate everything else. In a sense, this bipartisan bill is being turned into a political football. That is inexcusable because we have worked hard throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns, both Republican and Democrat, were incorporated into this bill. You do not play political games with a bipartisan bill that affects the jobs of manufacturing workers across this land. I take a moment to talk about how bipartisan this bill is. It is bipartisan and was built that way from the ground up. It is the construction that began when my friend and colleague, Senator Baucus, was chairman of the Finance Committee. Senator Baucus held hearings on this issue in July 2002 to address the FSC/ETI controversy going on within the World Trade Organization. The title of the hearing was ``The Role of the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act in the International Competitiveness of U.S. Commerce.'' Talk about a chairman taking his responsibilities seriously, Senator Baucus did. Even then we were concerned about the outsourcing of jobs. We were concerned about American manufacturing being able to compete with the global environment we are in. We heard at that time vital testimony from a cross-section of industries that would be adversely affected by the repeal of this extraterritorial income act. We also heard from U.S. companies that were clamoring for international tax reform more broadly than FSC/ETI because our tax rules were hurting their competitiveness in the foreign markets. If you want to create jobs in America, and we have a tax system that makes us uncompetitive, would you not expect the Congress of the United States to respond, and respond in a bipartisan way to that problem for our manufacturers? Or if you did not, why would you harangue about outsourcing? You need to do something about it. These companies that testified in the summer of 2002 told us their foreign competitors were running circles around them because of our antiquated international taxing rules. During this hearing, we had our colleagues, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Hatch of Utah, express concerns about how our international tax laws were impairing the competitiveness of U.S. companies. After some discussion on forming a blue-ribbon commission to study this problem, we all decided that decisive action was more important than the usual commission approach that usually ends up with a lot of public relations and high talk but no action. During that hearing, then-Chairman Baucus formed an international tax working group that was joined by Senator Graham, Senator Hatch, and this Senator, and was open to any other Finance Committee Senator interested in this issue. The bipartisan Finance Committee working group formed the basis for the bill we are debating this very minute. We directed our staff to engage in an exhaustive analysis of many international reform proposals that have been offered. Our efforts were intended to glean the very best ideas from as many sources as possible. Senator Baucus and I also formed a bipartisan, bicameral working group with the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee of the other body in an effort to find some common ground on dealing with this repeal of FSC/ETI. Obviously, that did not go so well because the other body has come out with legislation somewhat different than ours. Consequently, they are finding it very difficult to get the votes to pass it in the other body. That is another reason, if we move quickly, maybe we can impress upon the House of Representatives that this body can function, this body works; we have a good product and maybe that will encourage bipartisanship in the House of Representatives. Through this working group we continued our efforts in cooperation with Senator Hatch, Senator Bob Graham, and other members of the Finance Committee who wanted to do what was fair and what was right in complying with this World Trade Organization ruling. We continued our bipartisan efforts when I became chairman in 2003. In July last year, we held two hearings on the FSC/ETI and international reform issues. One hearing focused on: ``An Examination of the United States Tax Policy and Its Effect on Domestic and International Competitiveness of United States-Based Operations,'' building upon the very successful hearing that chairman Baucus had in 2002. Our second hearing was entitled ``United States Tax Policy and Its Effects on International Competitiveness of United States-Owned Foreign Operations,'' as opposed to United States-based operations in the first hearing. These two hearings concluded our final bipartisan effort in reviewing all of the policy options that led to the creation of the bill that is before the Senate right now. Let me again emphasize there is not one provision in this JOBS bill that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. We have acted in good faith. We have acted in the best of faith to produce a bill that takes American manufacturing jobs and ensures that our companies remain the global competitors we want them to be. We did this in a fully bipartisan manner, which is what the American people expect on such an important issue as manufacturing jobs in our Nation's economic health. These efforts that have been expended to bring this bill to this point are apparently not enough for some. They still view this whole process as political punt, pass, and kick competition. I now realize there are some who do not want this bill to pass, and maybe not having it passed will serve their political end. They want economic downturns that continued sanctions will produce to continue economic doldrum. Several weeks ago, an article in the Washington Post quoted a Democratic tax aide as saying: ``There is not a lot of incentive for us to figure out this problem.'' The Democratic aide went on to say that allowing the extraterritorial income controversy to fester would yield increased sanctions that somehow would benefit the Democrats in November. That is an appalling statement because we hear the concern that is legitimately expressed about outsourcing. We have a bill before the Senate that can do something about outsourcing. We have a situation before the Senate that if we do not pass this bill, not only will we not have some tax advantage we thought we once had, but we will have the sanctions on top of that to weight down American industry so more people are laid off. How can Members one day give a speech about outsourcing and the next day slow down a bill that does something about outsourcing? Outsourcing only comes as a matter of competition. There is not any American businessperson sitting around anyplace that decides, I want Mary's job to go to India. I want Pete's job to go to China. I want Ralph's job to go to Russia. There is not any American businessman who speaks in terms of: I don't want this American to have a job, because they would not have hired them in the first place. This outsourcing happens because they look at what their competition is paying to produce a product. In the economics of business, when you are a businessperson, wherever in the world, if you do not make a profit, you are not going to be in business. So a businessperson seeing that he is not competitive, that is where you lead to outsourcing. Now these American manufacturers come and testify before our committee. They tell us what makes them noncompetitive. One is the cost of capital in America being high. We have an opportunity to reduce the cost of capital and, at the same time, encourage manufacturing in America. That is what this bill does. So everyone on both sides of the aisle who talks about outsourcing--I do myself--needs to band together if we are serious about doing something about outsourcing and get behind this effort to get the bill passed because manufacturers tell us this bill will help. And, for sure, they know these sanctions that are on American manufacturing now are an additional burden they cannot withstand. America's farmers and manufacturing workers must not pay the price for the sort of stonewalling we are seeing. Efforts to delay this bipartisan bill with unrelated measures is a bad excuse. Why would they raise political issues that are unrelated to this bill in an attempt to undermine the JOBS Act? Delay will allow sanctions to continue and drive down our economy. That will allow sanctions to increase to 12 percent by the November elections. Maybe that is too tempting for some people who are worried about the election instead of the next generation to pass up. I am hopeful we will see the best politics ends up being good policy. That is what we have with this bill. We help domestic manufacturers. We help U.S. companies compete overseas. Putting politics ahead of good policy is exactly the wrong approach. In effect, this political game does not help those who face the sanctions. It does not help domestic manufacturers and workers in those industries. A vote against this bill is a vote to continue European Union sanctions, already at 5 percent--6 percent in April, 7 percent in May, 8 percent in June, 9 percent in July, 10 percent in August, 11 percent in September, 12 percent in November. We are here to represent the interests of the United States. On this bill, we are here to represent the interests of jobs in America. We are here to represent the symbol ``Made in America.'' If we do not pass this bill, whether people realize it, they are representing the interests of the European Union, because it is the European Union which is going to benefit with European jobs. We have 5.6 percent unemployment in America, which is probably less unemployment than most of my life in politics as an index of how the economy is going. But still, it is bad to have 5.6 percent unemployment. What is worse than the 5.6 percent unemployment is the people who are complaining about the 5.6 percent unemployment and not passing this bill that is going to make employment in America better. Oh, maybe they are looking over to Germany. Their unemployment rate went up last month to 10.7 percent. By not passing this bill, we might help some German workers get a job, some of the German unemployed get a job. Well, I do not think we ought to put the interests of the European Union first. The only way to honor our trade obligations and to make American business competitive and to create jobs in America is to pass this bill and repeal the extraterritorial income provisions of our law. It is very simple. It is so simple that is why this is a bipartisan bill. As I said before, I hope the leadership of this body can cooperate, both Republican and Democrat, to focus on this legislation, to focus on the task at hand, and particularly on the other side where all the amendments are coming from, to know the importance of passing this bill, not stalling this bill, and moving forward. Repealing FSC/ETI raises about $55 billion over 10 years, and 89 percent of that money comes from manufacturing. It gives us an opportunity to use that $55 billion to emphasize American manufacturing, the creation of jobs in America, and to use that $55 billion as an incentive to American manufacturers to manufacture here and not to manufacture overseas. We need to send that money back to the manufacturing sector because if we do not, then besides these sanctions, we have a $50 billion tax increase on American manufacturing. The Congressional Budget Office says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since July of 2000. Is this manufacturing decline something the Bush administration did? No. It started in July of 2000. A $50 billion tax increase will not stimulate manufacturing jobs. Again, simple principles of economics 101: If you tax something more, you get less of it. The JOBS bill uses all of the money from the FSC/ETI repeal to give a 3 percentage point tax cut on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States. Let me emphasize: just in the United States. It is not for manufacturing by American companies overseas. The relief applies not only to big manufacturers but sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations if they are manufacturing in America, and also plain big or small foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the United States. We also include international tax reforms, mostly in the foreign tax area, and most of which benefit manufacturing. Our bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad support in both bodies of the Congress. The Finance bill is revenue neutral. That is another thing we have to do: have it carefully crafted in order to get bipartisan support for this legislation and not add to the deficit; there are both Republicans and Democrats who do not want to pass a tax bill that loses revenue. So we have the ability, by extending Customs user fees--and, more importantly, by shutting down illicit tax shelters, corporate tax shelters, and closing abusive corporate tax loopholes--to raise money to do even more than we have described to be able to do some reform of the international taxing regime generally beyond just FSC/ETI. As with all bills, there is never complete agreement on this approach. That is even considering the fact it was voted out of committee in a bipartisan way 19 to 2. Remember, all Democrats voted for this bill to come out of committee. Our bill contains a haircut on the rate reduction some of us would like to remove and others would like to retain. Some Members prefer a reduction in the top corporate rate across the board in place of the international reforms and the manufacturer's rate cut in this bill. I understand the desire for this simpler approach cutting taxes, but a top level rate cut would only go to the biggest corporations of America. Local family-held S corporations and partnerships, which presently get some extraterritorial income benefits, get nothing from this. If we redirect FSC/ETI money to an across-the-board corporate cut, then the manufacturing sector will be the revenue offset. In other words, we are going to be shifting from tax advantages from manufacturing to services where we have some problem, but I think we generally agree not as much of a problem as we have in manufacturing. The international tax reforms largely fix problems our domestic companies face with the complexities of the foreign tax credit. These reforms are necessary if we are to level the playing field for U.S. companies that compete with our trading partners. The Finance Committee bipartisan bill has been improved with an amendment to extend the research and development tax credit through the end of 2005. That is a domestic tax benefit that incentives research and development, makes our businesses competitive and prepared for the next generation of technology. This, however, translates also into good, high-paying jobs for workers in America and not overseas. In addition to the previously agreed upon R&D amendment, there are several additional provisions to improve this bill. We have the amendment by Senators Bunning and Stabenow, a bipartisan amendment to accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This amendment ensures the tax relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI. This is now part of the bill. Second, there is an amendment I offered with Senator Baucus to extend for 2 years tax provisions that have expired. Some expired in 2003, some this year. This includes items such as the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit which have been merged and simplified into a single credit as proposed by Senator Santorum and others in the bill S. 1180. This is now a part of the legislation. A third provision on net operating losses is also included. This provision allows companies that operated at losses during the difficult economic conditions of last year to offset those losses against their income of the previous 5 years. So this provision is going to accelerate tax relief to companies that need it to continue operations and to continue their recovery from the recent economic difficulties. This provision is now in the bill. The JOBS bill before us also contains many other items that are widely supported by the Members. We have enhanced the amount of transition relief for U.S. manufacturing companies that will be harmed by the FSC/ETI repeal. We have enhanced depreciation provisions, brownfield revitalization, mortgage revenue bonds. We allow deductions from private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a home. The bill includes tax benefits for reservist employees that provides a tax credit to employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called up to active duty. We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone Bonds for the rebuilding of New York City, particularly requested by its two Senators. We have increased industrial development bond levels to spur economic development. We have included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act. We have provided for rail infrastructure and broadband. All of these benefits are being held hostage because some Members are pushing politically motivated votes on an issue that is not even in this bill. Let's get on with the business at hand and finish it. Let's put good economic policy first in the Senate. We do have the issue of cloture which comes up periodically when we have to get to the completion of legislation. I, for one, was hoping this cloture would not be filed. That is the way Senator Baucus and I hoped it would happen. I have to deal with the fact it is filed. My colleague Senator Baucus has to deal with that fact as well. This needs to be dealt with on a little higher plain than from bill to bill. I propose to the leadership of the Republican and Democratic caucuses that somehow, if we are going to get between now and adjournment this fall, without a lot of waste of time on the part of the Senate and the 100 Members equally affected, that we get a list of the so-called amendments I referred to as politically motivated. I think the other side sees they have certain issues that ought to get before the American people, ought to be discussed. Republicans have some of those issues as well that Democrats would just as soon we not bring up. I don't know why there can't be some agreement unrelated to a specific bill before the Senate that certain of these issues are going to be brought up, and we will find someplace to handle one on this bill, one on another bill, a third one on another bill, so they don't get dumped at one time all on one piece of legislation. Then we know ahead of time what the situation is; there will be a plan for the functioning of the Senate. I should not speak for Senator Baucus but I believe I can. He comes from a philosophy that this place ought to work, that it ought to make product. We ought to do our job. And I am sure that even though he might have a different view than I do on this issue of cloture, he wishes it were not that way. I wish it were not that way. He wishes there was a plan before us to move every important piece of legislation in an expeditious way because that is what we are sent here to do. We all ought to want to make this place work because when it does not work, it makes all of us look bad. It puts the good of the American people secondary to politics, whether it is Republican politics or Democratic. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. We have a very important vote tomorrow. That vote is cloture to stop an effort to bring nongermane issues into and stall this bill. I spoke this morning, spending a great deal of time explaining how the JOBS bill is a fully bipartisan bill built from the ground up in a bipartisan manner. We cannot get anything through the Senate that is not bipartisan. We can get a lot of things through the House of Representatives that are partisan but not through the Senate. Now we are facing an attempt to defeat this bipartisan measure by injecting politically charged amendments into the JOBS bill regarding an issue that is not even dealt with in this bill. Somebody wants to write a law. Why does the other side insist on amending this important bill for a matter that is not even the subject of this legislation? We need to focus on what is in this bill and what will be killed if we do not get cloture approval tomorrow. We know the only way this bill can pass is by a ``yes'' vote tomorrow on stopping debate and moving to finality. But will the Democrats say no to cloture? Will they go on record opposing the provisions that are in this bill--very important provisions for creating jobs in America, preserving jobs in manufacturing, answers to concerns that the people of this body have expressed about outsourcing, about not enough manufacturing jobs being created? If you look at this bill, you will find, then, that there is very important provisions for creating jobs that the other side is preparing to kill, so, in a sense, their vote tomorrow will be a vote contrary to what they have been complaining about for a long period of time about this recovery not providing enough jobs, and particularly about jobs going overseas. This bill will prevent that. I do not understand why people would not vote to move a bill along that is going to solve a lot of the problems about our not creating enough jobs in manufacturing. If this bill does not move along, actually the situation is going to get worse, and we are going to lose jobs that we presently have in manufacturing. So why would they be prepared to kill this bill? This bill will end $4 billion a year of tariffs put on U.S. exports by Europe. Those tariffs are already being imposed against U.S. exports of grain, timber, paper, and manufactured goods. We can end those tariffs now at 5 percent, growing 1 percent a month into the future. We can end them with this bill. But will the Democrats say no? A vote against the JOBS bill is a vote in favor of that 5-percent tariff going up 1 percent a month into the future. And that goes up very fast, making our business, our American manufacturing uncompetitive. The Congressional Budget Office says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since the manufacturing downturn started 6 months before President Bush became President. This bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our manufacturing sector to promote rehiring in U.S.- based manufacturing. But will the Democrats say no? The Democrats claim they are worried about the scope of the proposed overtime regulations. The regulations are not even final yet. But how can you worry about overtime if you do not have a job in the first place? Shouldn't we first worry about creating manufacturing jobs and take care of overtime on another bill instead of slowing this one up? Or will the Democrats say no? The money from the FSC/ETI repeal gives a 3-percentage point tax rate cut on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States. It is not for manufacturing done offshore. We start this tax relief immediately. This manufacturing rate cut relief applies to sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, even foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the United States to manufacture here with American workers. This should keep the Government out of their pockets while they try to recover from the economic downturn. That is what this bill is all about: helping these manufacturing companies recover from the economic downturn. Now, will the Democrats say no to the opportunity to help American manufacturing? This bill includes international tax reforms, most of which benefit American manufacturing, to keep it competitive in the global marketplace. This bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad support in both the House and the Senate. It has both Republican and Democrat sponsors. But will the Democrats say no? This bill extends the research and development tax credit through the end of 2005, something very necessary to keep our industry ahead of the curve, building for the next product, building for the next service, particularly in the technical areas. This is a domestic tax benefit that incentivizes research and development, translating into good, high-paying jobs for workers here in America, not across the ocean. But will the Democrats say no tomorrow on the cloture vote? In addition, there are several additional provisions that are important to this bill. Senators Bunning and Stabenow sought to accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This ensures that the tax relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI. The bill extends, for 2 years, tax provisions that expired in 2003, last year. Some of them already expired. Some of them are expiring this year. They need to be included because those incentives are very important to the prosperity of companies that rely upon these tax incentives. This would include items such as the work opportunity tax credit, helping young people, helping low-income people to get jobs, to get job training. It helps to move people from welfare to work because we have tax credits that do that. Why would any Democrat vote against the extension of the welfare-to- work tax credits, moving people out of welfare, where they are assured a life of poverty, into the mainstream of America, the world of work where you have a chance to move up the economic ladder? Over here, in welfare, you never have a chance to move up. We have tax credits to help. Will the Democrats say no to these tax credits to help low-income people get into the world of work, to move above, to improve themselves, to get out of poverty? There is a provision also in this bill on net operating losses that will accelerate tax relief to companies that need it to continue operations and recover from recent difficulties. The reason for doing that is they have some tax credits. They do not have income to write it off against. This gives them some benefit helping them to enhance their recovery. We have enhanced depreciation provisions to help the ailing airline industry, the manufacture of airplanes--Boeing, in my State where avionics are made for airplanes, Rockwell Collins--because you cannot, under existing depreciation laws, get something into completion by this deadline because it takes so long to build an airplane. This will extend provisions that were meant to help industry a year ago if they got long timelines to get something finished. There are new homestead provisions. This provides special assistance for businesses in counties that are losing population. This is rural economic development, providing incentives for newly constructed rural investment buildings, for starting or expanding a rural business in a rural high-outmigration county. Will the Democrats say no to that rural economic development? This bill includes brownfields revitalization. The bill waives taxes for tax-exempt investors who invest in the cleanup and remediation of qualified brownfields sites. Will the Democrats say no to helping clean up the environment? Would that vote comport with the rhetoric you hear on the environment from the other side of the aisle? Mortgage revenue bonds: This proposal would repeal the current rule that mortgage revenue bond payments received after the bond has been outstanding for 10 years must be used to pay off the bond, rather than issue new mortgages. There are 70 Senate cosponsors to this bill. Would the Democrats justify voting no on cloture to kill a provision that 70 of their colleagues support? We allow deductions for private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a home. Anyone planning to vote no on this one? Would they vote no on allowing the cost of mortgage insurance to be written off as one writes off interest on a mortgage? That is helping a lot of young people to get a home that they would not otherwise be able to afford. I know home ownership is the highest it has been in the history of our country. Maybe they are saying: We have enough Americans owning homes. Why help some other people this way? It is in this bill. If they vote no tomorrow, they are voting against helping those homeowners with their mortgage insurance costs. This bill includes a tax credit to employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called to active duty. Would Democrats say no to the guardsmen and reservists who are defending our country, helping us win this war, by voting no tomorrow? We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone bonds for rebuilding New York City. The two Senators from New York have talked to me about them. Are they going to vote no tomorrow and say no to the Liberty Zone bonds helping New York City at a time when Ground Zero begs for help? Will they tie up funding for the Liberty Zone in order to prove a political point for a Labor Department overtime regulation that has not yet been finalized? If it had been finalized, there is an opportunity for an expedited procedure for congressional veto of those very same regulations they don't want. This is not the last train out of the station. There are other opportunities to fight these battles and probably in a more appropriate way than a nongermane amendment on legislation that ought to pass, that is going to preserve and create jobs in manufacturing. Where are the priorities of the other side of the aisle? We also have in this bill increased industrial development bond levels to spur economic development. We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure. We have included tribal bonds which apply the same rules to Native American tribes issuing tax exempt bonds to finance facilities on a Native American reservation that apply to tax exempt bonds that we allow State and local governments to use. Are Senators of the other party going to vote against the Native American Indian provisions of this bill? We have a tribal new markets tax credit. This amendment would add $50 million annually in the new markets tax credit dedicated to community development entities serving Native American reservations, if there is a poverty rate of over 40 percent. Are they going to say no to helping those needy Americans? We have included a Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act so when people have been harmed in violation of their civil rights, they can go to court and get justice. Do you know what happens when they get justice? We have some people paying income tax on what they pay their lawyers so when it is all said and done, a big settlement, sometimes the people who have been harmed get nothing because of the unfair taxation of that award. Are the Democrats going to say no to those people who have had their civil rights violated? They can't get justice in court. That doesn't sound like the other party, does it? Is it worth killing off these important priorities over a regulatory issue that has already been voted on by the Senate? How many times do we have to express our view on something? We also have in this bill a special dividends allocation rule that benefits agricultural cooperatives. We have other farm provisions that help cattlemen receive tax free treatment if they replace livestock with other farm property where there has been drought, flood, or other weather-related conditions within 2 years from the date the livestock has been sold. Last year we heard a lot from the other side of the aisle about not helping the farmers who have been hurt by drought. Here is an opportunity to help some people through tax problems they have as a result of something beyond the control of the family farmer. Are they not going to give those farmers an opportunity to have help? We have a provision that allows payment under the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program to be exempt from tax. Every Senator here has rural America in their State. We are always saying there is not adequate health delivery services in some parts of our country in rural America. We set up the National Health Service Corps to provide services there. They still have a hard time getting adequate service, but we have provisions in here for additional incentives for people to serve rural America. I hear from my colleagues that we have to do something about health care in rural America. We have an opportunity tomorrow in this legislation to do something about it. Will the Democrats vote no tomorrow? We have a proposal to allow the itemized deduction for unreimbursed vehicle use for rural letter carriers. Why does that come before us? Because every time you drive a quarter of a mile and you stop at a rural mailbox to leave mail, and then go on to the next farmer's box to leave mail, that vehicle has higher costs than if it was going down the road 60 miles an hour and never stopping. The Tax Code ought to reflect a little bit different business deduction for that automobile as opposed to a business vehicle that doesn't stop at every mailbox. We have provisions in this bill to enhance broadband expensing provisions. We always hear from the other side that the quality of life in rural America can never be equal to that of cities if they don't have the same IT access. This gives that IT access. I hear Members of the other side of the aisle talk to me about broadband tax credits. We have an opportunity to do that now. Are they going to say no to what they have been asking me to do for the last 2 or 3 years? We provide real infrastructure tax credits, the so-called short-line credits. This bill provides $500 million over 3 years in Federal tax credits to States for intercity passenger rail capital projects. Eligible intercity passenger rail projects include planning, track rehabilitation, upgrade, development and relocation, security and safety projects, passenger equipment acquisition, station improvement, intermodal facilities development, and environmental review and impact mitigation. States may transfer credits directly to short-line and regional railroads. They are going to say no to that? Finally--here is something for the New York Senators--the proposal makes $100 million in tax credits available to New York to be used on rail infrastructure projects in the New York Liberty Zone. Will the Democrats say no? Will they vote against cloture tomorrow and thereby kill these measures? Will they do this over a proposed regulation which, as Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions just explained, is being misrepresented and used as a political scare tactic? All of these benefits are being held hostage because the other side is pushing a politically motivated vote on an issue that is not even in this bill. The leadership on the other side doesn't really want to debate the substance of this bill. Sometimes I get that feeling. They would prefer to turn this bipartisan bill into a political football. This is inexcusable because we have worked very hard throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns, both Republican and Democrat, were incorporated into this bill. I related all of those. There is no reason this bill should not get almost unanimous support. In fact, it was voted out of committee 19 to 2. Now we have opposition from the other side. I don't understand. Anyone who votes against cloture tomorrow is effectively voting against all of the items I just listed. This should not happen on a bill that is meant to create jobs in America, with an emphasis upon manufacturing jobs. Several weeks ago, there was an article in the Washington Post quoting a Democratic tax aide--unidentified--saying, ``There's not a lot of incentives for us to figure out this problem.'' The Democratic aide went on to say that allowing the extraterritorial income controversy to fester would yield increased sanctions--increased tariffs--on American products going to Europe, which would benefit the Democrats in November. That is a very appalling statement. I don't think that staff of either party are paid to think in terms of politics. They ought to be paid to think in terms of policy and, in the end, if they think about policy, they have good politics. Efforts to delay this bipartisan bill with unrelated measures is a poor excuse. So let's get on with the business at hand and finish this bill. Vote on cloture tomorrow, approve cloture, have finality on the bill, and when we do all that, we are going to put a jobs creation bill ahead of partisan politics, put these important benefits I just listed ahead of some concern that we have about an administrative regulation that hasn't even been issued yet. Let's stop playing politics and put the Senate back to work and move the JOBS bill forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Is our situation such that we are on the JOBS bill?

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Monday, March 22, 2004, from 2 p.m.-5 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I will deal with the issue of the energy bill in the context of where we left off last November, two votes short of stopping a filibuster against the legislation so it could be passed. That means we had 58 votes. We needed two more. We cannot get two more votes. Therefore, the bill still languishes. It was the first major energy policy for probably 15 years as far as the Federal Government passing one is concerned, and things are a lot scarier now than they were last November. Now we have what are the highest gasoline prices in the history of our country, just slightly above where they were a year ago, and previous to that a couple times in the late 1990s or the early part of this century. In other words, over the last 4 or 5 years they have probably been almost as high three or four times. We also have, different than at most times, very high natural gas prices. The impact in the economy is very negative, as we know. The impact upon low-income families is very bad, as we know. It is a shame we could not get that bill passed last November. I hope we can get one passed very shortly. In fact, I had hoped the high natural gas prices and gasoline prices we faced would be an impetus to any Member in this body. Of the 42 who did not vote to stop debate, hopefully these Members will see the need for passing this energy legislation to help the economy, to help the consumers of America, to move this economy along. I recall over the last 4 or 5 years there have been high gasoline prices in the past and maybe not so high natural gas prices in the past, that there has been an outrage expressed on the floor of this Senate about those high gasoline prices--Members speaking about collusion within the industry, Members asking the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether there was any anticompetitive activity, and tremendous outrage over the high prices. Now that gasoline prices are higher, I would guess I would hear that same outrage. But we are not hearing it. I wonder if we are not hearing it because so many Members on the other side of the aisle were part of the filibuster against the energy bill last year, and they are ashamed when they had an opportunity to do something to bring an energy policy to America they did not do it. That energy policy was one that was well balanced between tax incentives for the production of fossil fuel, tax incentives for the conservation of energy, and tax incentives for alternative and renewable fuels--a very well-balanced piece of legislation, legislation I would say was well balanced to meet the immediate needs of our country, which are best met by the fossil fuels we have been using for more than 100 years to take care of the near term but also well balanced for the outyears. Obviously, since God only made so much fossil fuel, and it is finite, the dependence on renewable and alternative fuels, as well as incentives for conservation, is the pattern for the future if we are going to have a sound energy policy. This package, put together by Senator Domenici, is well balanced and had the good fortune of having so many of these tax incentives involved that came out of my Senate Finance Committee in a bipartisan way. So why not the outrage now? We keep hearing so much debate during the bill that is before us, and during morning business by Members, particularly of the other party, about the problems we are having creating jobs, the problems we are having with the Nation's economy. There might be a difference of opinion whether the economy is doing well, but there are a lot of statistics that show it is doing well with the 8.2 percent growth for the third quarter of 2003, and the 4.1 percent growth for the fourth quarter of 2003, and unemployment holding steady at 5.6 percent. But we are still hearing the outrage that jobs are not being created. And who can argue that if you are unemployed and want a job you ought not have a job? You would expect to have a job with an economy growing where it is now and with the fabulously low rate of unemployment of 5.6 percent, because seldom have we had that low a rate of unemployment in the last 40 years. A national energy policy would surely help us with the creation of jobs. So you can ask, where are the jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs? One factor affecting the manufacturing industry and, in turn, the economy in general I have not heard mentioned during the debate is the rising cost of energy. The fact is, the rising energy costs continue to be a drag on our economy. In January, consumer prices jumped one-half of 1 percent, and that was only because, as small as that is, of higher energy costs. In fact, energy costs rose 4.7 percent, accounting for more than three-quarters of the overall increase in consumer prices. Crude oil for April delivery is over $36 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas prices at the pump around the Nation are at record highs. Nationally, a gallon of regular gasoline averages $1.74. That is 2 cents higher than at this time last year. Why are energy prices so high? Well, global demand for crude oil is increasing because of greater demand not only in the United States but because of a higher percentage of demand in Japan and China. OPEC, which supplies 40 percent of the world's oil, recently announced they intend to cut production by 1 million barrels a day starting April 1. That is obviously going to push prices yet higher. This is from OPEC, an organization that has repeatedly stated their goal is to keep prices somewhere between $22 and $28 a barrel, not now satisfied with $36 a barrel. Because we are so dependent upon foreign countries for over 60 percent of our crude oil, I think they have gotten us--meaning OPEC has gotten the United States--over a barrel. We have also seen a sustained increase in the demand and cost of natural gas. Because natural gas is now the fuel of choice for new electricity generation, the demand for natural gas is no longer seasonal. While our existing policies in Washington have created the increased demand for natural gas, we have done very little to ensure a domestic supply to meet that demand. In fact, the increased exploration is not bringing in enough new natural gas online to keep up with the increased needs we have in this country. Hence, as you understand economics 101, when supply is down, price is up; hence, higher natural gas prices. The fact is, high fuel prices remain a concern for transportation firms. High energy prices hurt steel mills, manufacturers, farmers, and eventually end up hurting all consumers. High energy prices cost American jobs. Unless we increase supply, we are going to see record high prices again this year, and we are going to see a continued drag on the American economy. We need to help the manufacturing and agricultural industries save existing jobs and go beyond that to create new jobs. We need to lower our Nation's energy costs. What are the alternatives? We could and should apply pressure to members of OPEC to increase supplies. Some have suggested releasing crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase supply and drive down prices. I believe we can and must take action in the Senate to address rising energy costs. As my colleagues know, we have been considering a comprehensive energy bill in this Chamber for over a period of 3 years now, with the most progress made last year when we had a bill pass the House, a bill pass the Senate, a bill come successfully out of conference committee, and overwhelmingly pass the House of Representatives, but being defeated or at least stalled here on the floor of the Senate last November when we came up two votes short of stopping debate, to stop the filibuster, to get to finality. So it is quite obvious we have the votes to pass an energy bill in the Senate. It is a shame we cannot get over that hurdle of 60 votes to get this bill there, to get us on the road to greater self-sufficiency with energy as we try to do it through a combination of incentives for fossil fuel production, incentives for energy conservation, and for alternative and renewable fuels. That conference committee agreement was voted on last November. Unfortunately, we had a minority of Senators successful in filibustering the bill. I strongly support the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, in his efforts, then as well as now, to move this bill forward or, short of moving it forward, a bill of a similar nature to start over as hopefully one way of getting around a Democratic filibuster. I am pleased Senator Domenici has introduced a slimmed-down bill that addresses the major concerns that prevented the Senate from adopting the conference report. This bill goes a long way toward increasing domestic energy production of conventional energy such as oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. The bill includes provisions to improve the tax treatment of natural gas gathering and distribution lines. It includes incentives for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to markets in the lower 48. The bill seeks to improve our Nation's electricity transmission capacity and reliability by creating enforceable and mandatory reliability standards and providing incentives for transmission grid improvements. It also includes a number of provisions that would increase domestic production of renewable energy and create jobs at home. Through the renewable fuels standard, it would double the use of domestic homegrown ethanol, a first-time tax incentive for biodiesel to be made from soybeans. It would also bring new sources of energy on line. It would extend the wind energy production tax credit that I first got through the Senate in 1992. It would have an expansion of the production tax credit for biomass and a tax incentive for purchases of residential solar and wind energy equipment. Each of these provisions will increase our production of domestic renewable energy resources. They will also create thousands--some people have estimated 800,000--of jobs all across our country. The bill also includes incentives for energy-efficient improvements to existing homes and for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles. These initiatives will lead to an increased domestic supply of energy, a more stable economy, and thousands of jobs for America's workers. Make no mistake about it, this energy bill is a jobs bill. As I indicated, these provisions are in a new bill that Senator Domenici is trying to move along. But the ideal way to handle this would be to get two more votes to bring to an end the filibuster of the bill that was before the Senate last November because all of these provisions are included in that bill. There is no reason to start all over again, particularly when now, compared to last November, we have the highest price for gasoline in the history of our country, and we still have outrageously high prices for natural gas. It is time this country has a national energy policy. There is no reason two Senators who are in the minority should stand in the way of moving this legislation along, legislation that passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly last year, came out of conference after about 2 months of work on putting together a compromise that could get an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives and get a vast majority vote in the Senate, but two votes short of the 60, the extraordinary supermajority it takes to stop a filibuster. I don't understand why we have Democrats from corn States, with everything this bill does for the production of ethanol that would help the farmers of their States, and also help the energy needs of our Nation, how any Senator who is from a big corn-producing State could dare vote not to end this filibuster. There are votes out there from members of the other party, from corn- producing States, who ought to explain to their constituents why they won't join in this effort with other farm State Senators to bring massively on line the production of ethanol that can help us be more energy independent from OPEC nations, particularly in a time when Americans are shedding blood in Iraq because we need some stability in the Middle East to guarantee oil coming to our country. Obviously, the blood I am talking about is shed because of the war we are in, the war to defeat terrorism against Americans, against western culture, but also the sort of democracy we can have in the Middle East brings stability that we don't have there now. And it is important to have that stability for the economic needs of our country. I don't know why we can't get some votes from some farm State Democrats. We only need two of about half a dozen, whom we could easily identify, who should be voting with us to bring finality to this issue. I believe these bills on energy, because we have this pending bill before the Senate and we have the conference report that is through the House and two votes short of getting to finality in the Senate last November--whichever one you are talking about--I believe these bills represent a comprehensive energy policy consisting of conservation efforts, the development of renewable and alternative energy sources, and domestic production of traditional sources of energy. This bill goes a long way to develop an energy policy that will drive down the cost of energy and create jobs at home so that we don't have to have the outrage that we have on the Senate floor, primarily from members of the other party, over 3 out of the last 5 years when energy prices have been so high. Why don't we do something about it? We have an opportunity. We don't seem to grasp it now when it is here. This bill is too important to our economy to let it die. Therefore, I strongly encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to help our leadership bring either the conference committee up for a vote on the issue of stopping debate or the new bill that Senator Domenici has placed before the Senate, to bring it to the floor and consider it in a timely manner, and timely is already probably 3 months late as we have seen the energy prices go up to the highest level, hurting our economy. We can and should come to an agreement so we can consider and pass this JOBS bill as soon as possible. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business and I will yield the floor for anyone who wants to speak on the legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Grassley amendment No. 2687 be agreed to; provided further that I then be immediately recognized to offer a further second degree related to net operating loss. I further ask consent that the amendment then be agreed to, and the underlying amendment No. 2686 be agreed to, as amended, with the motions to reconsider laid upon the table. I further ask consent that Senator Harkin then be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating to overtime; further, that no second degrees be in order to that amendment prior to a vote in relation to that amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to reiterate the words of my distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Montana, on the importance of getting this bill passed. This bill is about jobs because it is about keeping American manufacturing competitive, particularly manufacturing that is exported. Export-related jobs in America are very good jobs because they pay 15 percent above the national average. This bill, that we call by the acronym FSC/ETI, foreign sales corporation extraterritorial income, reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the United States and sold overseas. Whether it is done by American manufacturers or foreign companies that have come to America to establish a manufacturing plant and hire Americans, it applies to both. It does not apply to American companies that manufacture overseas. The World Trade Organization is the reason we are debating this bill, because the World Trade Organization has ruled that our FSC/ETI legislation, that has been on the books for more than a couple of decades, is an illegal export subsidy and has authorized up to $4 billion a year of sanctions against U.S. exports. This is something the World Trade Organization said to the European Community that they could do on U.S. exports, because until we change this law, they see us not living up to our international trade obligations. Why would the United States respond to the World Trade Organization this way? In the very same way we expect Europe or any other country to respond when the United States wins cases before the World Trade Organization. Let me say, we win many more than we lose. In fact, anybody reading commerce newspapers over the last week would find out that the United States has recently won two decisions before the World Trade Organization on other issues. In regard to Europe, as one specific example, we expect Europe to abide by the decision that the U.S. cattle producers won in the World Trade Organization because Europe was not taking in our red meat, our beef products, because they were treated with a growth stimulant. Europe has decided not to abide by the World Trade Organization decision, so the United States, over the last 2 years, has imposed sanctions against Europe. Would it be surprising to you if the U.S. Government does not respond positively to the World Trade Organization ruling and then Europe would, in fact, put sanctions against American products? They have already done that. Starting March 1, there has been a 5-percent increase in sanctions. We are going to have a 1-percent increase each month that we do not repeal this legislation. By November that would be in effect a 12-percent sales tax on American products going overseas to Europe. It is very difficult for the United States to compete when we have a level playing field, but when we have a 12-percent add-on you can see that eventually some companies are going to become uncompetitive and, as a result, workers will be laid off. What we want this legislation to do is not only avoid these sanctions, but we want to put American manufacturing in more of a competitive environment than it is in presently by reducing the corporate tax rate on companies that export if the manufacturing is done within the United States of America. We have, potentially, by November, sanctions of 12 percent on American products. This is a very serious threat to all Members because sanctions are going to hit agricultural products, timber products, and even manufacturing products. We need to get this issue behind us before Memorial Day or sooner or we will never be able to get this bill to the President for signature. I wanted to act on this bill last year because I was fearful politics would get in the way of the Senate's ability to do the job. Obviously, the closer you get to the election, the more there is an opportunity for politics to interfere. The opening debate and shenanigans we had 2 weeks ago when we first took up this bill confirmed my worst fears. Some on the other side want to play politics with this bipartisan bill. Senator Baucus and I had an agreed order of amendments that would have improved the bill and brought up important, relevant issues. That agreement was undermined by the other side, particularly the leadership on the other side. The leadership does not really want to debate the substance of this bill. Yet they would say it is very important to get this bill passed. We hear a lot about not creating enough jobs in the economy in this recovery. This is our opportunity to create jobs. I would think everybody would want to get this bill passed. Instead, it seems this bipartisan bill is being turned into a political football. I am hopeful everybody on the other side of the aisle will see the best policy is also very good politics. That is what we have with this bill. We help domestic manufacturers; we help U.S. companies compete overseas. Putting politics ahead of good policy is exactly the wrong approach. In effect, this political game does not help those who face sanctions. In other words, jobs in the industries and the products that have already been identified by Europe for sanctions are going to be in jeopardy. Particularly where we have so much problem competing with the global competition we have, it doesn't help our domestic manufacturers and workers, in manufacturing as well as other segments of the economy. As I said before, I hope the Democratic leadership will focus on the task at hand and not play politics with this very important bipartisan piece of legislation. With that procedural point I wanted to make behind us, I wish to speak specifically as a reminder to my colleagues of some of the important features of this legislation. Repealing FSC/ETI, as the World Trade Organization has ruled against the United States and implied that we need to get our laws in tune with our international obligations, the repeal raises around $55 billion over 10 years, and 89 percent of that $55 billion comes from manufacturing industries. If that money is not sent back to the manufacturing sector, it will be a $50 billion tax increase on manufacturing. You know one of the simple rules of economics 101--you tax something more, you get less of it. The Congressional Budget Office then says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since the manufacturing decline started in the last year of the Clinton administration--in other words, since the middle of July. A $50 billion tax increase now on that manufacturing obviously is not going to stimulate manufacturing jobs. The bill before us uses all the money that is raised from the FSC/ETI repeal to put back into manufacturing, giving manufacturing corporations and self-proprietorships and other business entities a 3- percentage point tax rate reduction on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States. This is not meant to help--and will not help--because our bill is not written this way to help manufacturing done offshore. We start phasing in these tax cuts this year. The cuts apply to different business entities, sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, or foreign corporations that set up manufacturing plants in the United States but only if they set up their manufacturing plants in the United States. We are not doing anything in this bill to export jobs overseas; just the opposite. What we are doing is meant to create jobs and preserve jobs in manufacturing in the United States, and to give the benefit to American-based companies or foreign corporations based in America that are creating jobs here. Our bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad support in the House and Senate. The finance bill is also revenue neutral. That is very important because it seems to be an unwritten rule in the Senate--maybe not one that I entirely agree with, but if we are going to get anything done in a bipartisan way when it deals with tax reform, it has to be revenue neutral. This bill, as amended, provides over $130 billion in business tax relief, but it is paid for by extending customs user fees and, most importantly, by shutting down corporate tax shelters and abusive loopholes. It is an unwritten rule in the Senate, as I said, for revenue neutrality. So we have gone beyond the $50 billion to $130 billion of tax changes but offsetting it totally with money raised from FSC/ETI, from customs user fees, and, most importantly, doing something that ought to be done with or without this bill--shutting down these tax shelters and abusive loopholes. As all bills, there is never complete agreement on an approach. Our bill contains a temporary haircut on rate reduction that some of us would like to remove and others of us would like to retain. Some Members prefer a reduction in the top corporate rate in place of international reforms and a rate reduction applying just to manufacturing. These Members would say you ought to treat all corporations the same. If all corporations were being impacted with a WTO ruling in the same way, whether manufacturing or not, I would agree. We are talking about basically manufacturing and at least 89 percent of the revenues coming in. We say we want to keep our manufacturing competitive. We are going to pour most of the benefits of this legislation back into the manufacturing sector. Those on the other side say it ought to be across the board, affecting all corporations. There is a desire on the other side for a simpler approach by just cutting taxes across the board, but a top level rate cut would only go to the biggest corporations of America. Local family held S corporations or partnerships which presently get some ETI benefits would get nothing from that approach. If we redirect the FSC/ETI money to an across-the-board corporate cut, then the manufacturing sector will be the revenue offset for the services sector tax cut. The international tax reforms largely fix problems our domestic companies face with the complexities of the foreign tax credit. These reforms are necessary if we are to level the playing field for U.S. companies that compete with our trading partners. The Finance Committee's bipartisan bill has been improved with an amendment to extend the research and development tax credit through the end of year 2005. That is a domestic tax benefit which is an incentive to research and development. This translates also into good, high- paying jobs for workers in the United States and not overseas. Plus, it is an incentive for research and development which is going to keep our industries competitive with the highly educated workforces of Russia, China, and India where we are finding increasing competition. We need to keep up with these others. America has no reason to be timid about the competitiveness of our workforce--the competitiveness of our workers from the standpoint of our educational commitment and our educational attainment. We have nothing to worry about when it involves our research leading us to new industries not of this decade but for the next decade. America has a very flexible economy. We can compete. Anyone who says we can't compete is a defeatist. I am not a defeatist when it comes to America's ability to be ahead of the rest of the world as we have been for the last 100 years in almost every aspect of our economy. The research and development part of this bill is surely something that is going to help us continue to do that. In addition to the previously agreed upon research and development amendment, there are several additional amendments pending which will substantially improve this bill. First is an amendment offered by Senators Bunning and Stabenow to accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This amendment assures that the tax relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI. Second, I have offered an amendment with Senator Baucus to extend the 2-year tax provisions which expired in the years 2003-2004. This includes items such as the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare- to-work tax credit which have been merged and simplified into a single credit as proposed by Senator Santorum and others in the bill, S. 1180. A third pending amendment on net operating losses should also be included. This amendment allows companies that operated at losses during the difficult economic conditions of last year to offset those losses against their income for the previous 5 years. This provision would accelerate tax relief to companies that need to continue operations and recover from recent difficulties. I ask my colleagues: Let us get on with the business at hand. Have this institution be what it traditionally has been. Yes. An institution where everything is thoroughly discussed as it ought to be because this is the only institution where that can be done in our American political system. But it is also an institution that moves along and doesn't stymie legislation. We know our responsibilities are to the taxpayers of this country to produce a good product and produce it quickly. If we think of the best policy, we will in fact have the best politics. Let's put good economic policy ahead of shortsighted politics. 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 would like to comment on the remarks of the Senator from Nevada. He mentioned the possibility of a cloture motion. My colleague from Iowa also mentioned that possibility, and it could be a possibility. But I hope that will not poison the waters as we still try to reach agreement on this amendment and try to reach agreement on getting to finality on this bill. I, along with Senator Baucus, have urged that we not have a cloture motion. That, of course, is a leadership decision. I would urge my colleagues to think in terms of the fact that it takes 48 hours for that motion to mature so it can be voted upon. That will be time for us to see if we can work out agreements not only on the pending amendment but also on any other amendments that may be adopted, and then, if so, the cloture motion could be vitiated. I hope Members will look down the road at the goal of this legislation. That goal is to create jobs that are going to be very difficult to create if we are stuck with sanctions put on our manufacturing by the European Union. We already have 5-percent sanctions. It is going to go up 1 percent a month until it gets to 17 percent. Between now and the election, that is going to add up to at least 12-percent sanctions. I hope both sides of the aisle will agree that it is already very difficult for U.S. manufacturing to compete in the global economy. A 17-percent penalty after 1 year is just like a 17-percent sales tax. That is going to make our manufacturing exports much more uncompetitive. Since everybody is concerned about creating and preserving jobs, keeping American manufacturing strong, competitive, passage of this legislation is very important. We all have amendments we want to get adopted. We want the Senate to consider amendments, whether germane or nongermane. There is plenty of opportunity between now and adjournment of this Congress to consider these amendments. In the meantime, if we don't pass this legislation this week, we are going to have a 6-percent penalty in April, a 7- percent penalty in May. I hope we can get this legislation passed very soon so we can get rid of all those sanctions against our products. In the meantime we have reduced the corporate tax for manufacturing in America by 3 percentage points, and that is going to make it possible for the cost of capital in America to be less expensive and make American manufacturing much more competitive and, in the process, preserve jobs and create jobs. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.