Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2986, a bill to increase the Federal debt limit. I support this increase because it is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Without an increase in the debt limit, our Government will face a choice between breaking the law by exceeding the statutory debt limit, or breaking faith with the public by defaulting on our debt. Neither choice is acceptable. To understand why we are here today seeking to increase the debt limit, it is necessary to explain a few things about the Federal debt. Under current law, there is a statutory limit on the amount of debt that can be issued by the Federal Government. This limit which now stands at $7.384 trillion applies to virtually all of the debt issued by the U.S. Government. There is only one debt limit, but there are two types of debt--debt held by the public and debt held by the various Government trust funds. The amount of Federal debt held by the public is determined by the Government's annual cash-flow. When total spending exceeds total taxes, the Government has a budget deficit. To finance this deficit, the Government borrows from the public by selling debt, such as Treasury bills, notes, and bonds. We will hear a lot of criticism that President Bush's tax cuts are responsible for our rising public debt. But the facts show otherwise. When President Bush took office in 2001, the Federal debt limit was $5.95 trillion. The debt limit was increased to $6.4 trillion in 2002 and to $7.384 trillion in 2003. Assuming we increase the debt limit again today, it will be $8.184 trillion. Thus, the Federal debt limit will have increased $2.234 trillion since President Bush took office in 2001. However, the tax cuts that have been enacted since 2001 total less than $700 billion through the end of the most recent fiscal year, and that includes the interest cost as well. Thus, the President's tax cuts account for less than 30 percent of the increase in the Federal debt limit. The rest of the increase in public debt is due to the recession, the war in Iraq, and homeland security. In addition to the debt held by the public, the Federal debt limit also applies to the debt held by various Government trust funds--such as Social Security and Medicare. Whenever a trust fund program collects more than it spends, the surplus is invested in special issue Treasury securities. These special securities count toward the debt limit. However, it is important to understand the amount of debt held by the trust funds does not reflect the Government's unfunded obligations. For example, the Treasury Department reports that the total amount of Federal debt held by all of the trust fund programs is just over $3 trillion. However, the Social Security and Medicare trustees report that the unfunded obligation of Social Security and Medicare is more than $72 trillion. Given these facts, it should be obvious to everyone that the Federal debt limit provides a misleading and inaccurate picture of the Government's future liabilities. Efforts to use the statutory debt limit to control Government debt and deficits cannot succeed because it ignores the long-term budget problem. Indeed, even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has suggested the debt limit has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced with a more accurate and useful alternative. I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to develop such an alternative. However, pending the outcome of such an effort, I would strongly urge every Senator to support this bill. Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan in the Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, February 11, 2003: In the Congress's review of the mechanisms governing the budget process, you may want to reconsider whether the statutory limit on the public debt is a useful device. As a matter of arithmetic, the debt ceiling is either redundant or inconsistent with the paths of revenues and outlays you specify when you legislate a budget.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a tribute to Vee Burke, specialist in income maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, a dedicated and gifted employee at the Congressional Research Service, who will be retiring from CRS at the end of this month. Mrs. Burke is a graduate of the University of Chicago. She has four grown children and is the widow of Vincent Burke with whom she wrote Nixon's Good Deed, a book about Nixon's welfare reform proposals. When Mrs. Burke joined CRS more than 30 years ago, she was already a recognized expert in the field of public welfare. During her tenure at CRS, she became a leading expert on the history, evolution and interaction of welfare and public assistance programs for low-income individuals and families. Because of her stature as one of the leading authorities in the country in this policy area, Mrs. Burke's advice and assistance has often been required by the Congress. Over three decades, Mrs. Burke has contributed to major congressional deliberations affecting AFDC and related public assistance programs, including the sweeping welfare reforms enacted in 1996 that replaced AFDC with TANF. During the consideration of the reauthorization of the 1996 welfare reform legislation in both the 107th and the 108th Congress, Mrs. Burke provided invaluable assistance to the Senate Finance Committee. In the 108th Congress, Mrs. Burke was especially helpful to myself, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and to my staff. She assisted in the drafting of the committee mark and legislation, providing technical assistance as well as continuously analyzing state data. Because of her vast knowledge, Mrs. Burke also functioned as an impromptu tutor to Senate Finance Committee staff on this history of welfare. The work of the Congress is detailed and complex--in order to do our work members and our staffs need to be well versed in policy in order for us to make the best decisions. For this expertise, we often rely on the analysis of the Congressional Research Service. CRS provides a unique service to the Congress in that they are truly nonpartisan. The specialists from CRS provide non-biased, research based analysis that helps guide us, as policymakers, to make the best decisions. Mrs. Burke, throughout her long and admirable career, has embodied the very best of what CRS provides for the Congress. Those of us who care deeply about programs affecting the poor thank her for her efforts, will miss her and wish her well.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Emerson, IA native Spc. James C. Kearney, III, who lost his life when the military vehicle he was traveling in was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire near Sharan, Afghanistan. Spc. Kearney was assigned to the Iowa Army National Guard Company B, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry, Air Assault, based in Shenandoah, IA. Spc. Kearney enlisted as an infantryman in 1999 and was mobilized for Operation Enduring Freedom in March 2004. My prayers go out to James's mother and father, Theresa and James Kearney, Jr., as well as his brothers and sister. In paying tribute to Spc. Kearney, we recognize the efforts of an extraordinary young man who worked to make the world a safer place. The Rev. Ken Gross, a friend of James, describes him as ``. . . a person of character with great determination. He was adventurous, fearless and enjoyed taking risks.'' Spc. Kearney will always be remembered for the good work that he did for his community and for his country. As a soldier and patriot, Spc. James C. Kearney, III has given us a model of true dedication and virtue. Specialist Raymond L. White

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Kentucky, our whip, 5 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is a historic day in the world of tax policy. We are about to pass the most significant reform of American business taxation since 1986. I am not talking about large corporate reforms. This bill contains some of the most important small business reforms in years. This bill represents the most comprehensive agricultural, small business, rural community tax incentive package ever written by Congress. The bill contains far-reaching measures to revive the manufacturing base in America by cutting taxes and creating incentives to invest and create jobs in the United States. This manufacturing tax goes to large and small corporations, family-held S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, farmers, and co-ops. This is the football season. With apologies to the Senate's chart expert, my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, I am going to use one last chart for this bill. This chart behind me is about the football. It is a chart that I used about 7 months ago. During that time, spring drills were about the only football activity. The chart shows several sets of goalposts. As this important bill has wound its way through the legislative process, at each stage the goalposts were moved and moved and moved. Sometimes we had to call timeout. But at each stage we held on to the ball. We had an overtime regulation goalpost. We had a trade adjustment assistance goalpost. We had an unemployment insurance goalpost. Those were Senate floor goalposts. We passed each goalpost. Then we got to conference. In conference we ran into the Food and Drug Administration tobacco buyout goalpost. We have passed the final goalpost now. In this bill we had to go straight over the tackle, and we did, just like good old-fashioned Big Ten football. I will see the Senator from Minnesota the last Saturday of November. We are finally now in the end zone. Now I would like to thank the team that got us over the goal line. The first is Senator Baucus. I am certain that we would not be here without his good work and cooperation. In addition, I thank all other members of the Senate Finance Committee for their time and energy in making this bill a reality. I would like to point out a special thanks to a couple senior members of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Nickles and Senator John Breaux. Senator Nickles has been a Finance Committee member since 1995. He has left a big impact on trade, tax, health care issues that have come before the committee. He and I have not always seen eye to eye on all issues, but he is a hard-working, tenacious Member of the Senate. He takes the work of the committee seriously. Senator Breaux has been on the Senate Finance Committee since 1990. He succeeded Senator Long in the Senate. Senator Long was a legendary member of the Finance Committee, the longest serving chairman it has ever had, a major architect of much tax legislation. Senator Long left a legacy on the Finance Committee. Senator Breaux followed up on the legacy of Senator Long, taking the practical, constructive, and creative approach of Senator Long. Senator Breaux has blazed his own trail on the Senate Finance Committee. In many cases, the Senate is paralyzed by partisan politics. I am proud that the Finance Committee is still a workshop of bipartisan problem-solving. Senator Breaux has been a key element at that continuing bipartisan tradition. Hopefully, the Democratic caucus, which has been steadily moving to the left over the years, will replace him with a like-kind pragmatist. The country will be better off for it. Over the last couple of years, the States of Oklahoma and Louisiana have been well represented on the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, there will be a bit of a vacuum with the departure of Senators Nickles and Breaux. I am pleased that this bill contains many priorities of these two Senators. For Senator Nickles, there was the depreciation change that he has fought for over the years. For Senator Breaux, important priorities for his State of Louisiana included significant changes in the tax treatment of key Louisiana interests such as agriculture, aquaculture, energy production, shipbuilding, forestry, and shipping. It is a fitting tribute to these two members of the Finance Committee. We are also saying goodbye to Senator Bob Graham of Florida. Senator Graham has been on the Finance Committee since 1995. In the 1990s, Senator Graham was also a bipartisan bridge builder on tax and trade issues. Senator Graham faithfully attended to Florida's interests during his service on the committee. I thank also Senator Frist for backing me all the way on this bill. He took months to get it to the Senate floor. At times many of our Republican caucus questioned whether it was worth the price of unrelated controversial amendments that were thrown our way. Our leader stayed the course. I appreciate that very much. I would like to thank my staff on the Senate Finance Committee as well: Kolan Davis, our staff director; Mark Prater, chief tax counsel, and the other tax counsels--Ed McClellan, Elizabeth Paris, Dean Zerbe, Christy Mistr, and John O'Neill, as well as John's predecessor, Diann Howland. These individuals, along with Adam Freed, the staff assistant for the tax team, have been the workhorses for the committee--keeping the lights burning long into the night to make this bill possible. Finally, thanks go to the hard-working interns and law clerks. I refer to Casey August, Grant Menke, and Peter Jordan. Grant took the summer off to call balls and strikes as an umpire in the New York-Penn league. Grant helped us with this bill in the spring and returned in time for the conference. Let me extend my thanks also to George Yin and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for providing guidance in this effort. I want to particularly point out the good work of Ray Beeman, David Noren, and Gray Fontenot. The Finance Committee tax staff refers to this trio of specialists as the ``three amigos.'' The three amigos helped us find a lot of gold out there in corporate loophole land. Brian Meighan recently left the three amigos for the private sector. I would like to thank the leadership staff for all their assistance. From Senator Frist's staff, I thank Lee Rawls, Eric Ueland, Ronit Kumar, and Libby Jarvis. I also thank our Senate leadership team and their staffs, especially our able whip, Senator McConnell. Finally my thanks to go Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunable and their capable staff at legislative counsel for taking on our ideas and drafting them into statutory language. These talented lawyers are the true wizards of the legislative process. They handle enormous pressure with professionalism and amazing dexterity. I invite everybody to relax a bit today. After the vote tonight, everyone should go home and get a good night's sleep. As for me, now we are getting ready to wrap up. I am looking forward to going home to Iowa. It is harvesttime in the fields. I have some work to do on the farm. We also have a bit of an election coming up. God willing, the good folks of Iowa will send me back here to continue to do the people's business. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad that Senator Frist and other Senators were able to work out the parliamentary maneuvering that it takes to get us to finality on this JOBS bill. We obviously want to encourage the creation of jobs and manufacturing in America. We want to reduce reasons for outsourcing. This bill deals with all of those and some others as well. Throughout this debate, I feel as though I was whipsawed in arguments trotted out by opponents of this bill. They complain about accommodations we have made to Members. Some of these accomplishments and accommodations have even helped folks in States of the critics. Then they complain about what is not in this bill that should have been included in this bill. First of all, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I think it needs to be continually said. This bill is revenue neutral. Yes, we decrease taxes for partnerships, family-owned businesses, and corporations that are involved in manufacturing, reducing that from 35 to 32 percent. Obviously, that brings in less revenue, but that does not mean the deficit of the United States is going to be increased. We pay for it by raising revenue from businesses, by closing corporate tax loopholes, and we collect that new revenue coming in to small businesses, especially to any size business that manufactures--large or small. This bill is basically about manufacturing jobs. That is where the revenue in this bill goes. There are those who talk about this bill as somewhat of a giveaway to business. You have some businesses not paying taxes because they are abusing the Tax Code through corporate loophole abuse, and they pay more money. Then you have the socially good provisions such as encouraging manufacturing in the United States to create jobs in the United States. I don't think people are correct in saying this is a giveaway to business because it balances out within the business sector of our country--some paying more and some not paying more. Because we are taxing them more, they are paying more because they can't cheat anymore. We are giving some benefits from that same revenue to create jobs in the United States. Those who call this a giveaway for business need to put on their reading glasses and take a look at revenue tables produced by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. These people aren't Republican or Democrat. They are professionals who decide how many changes are in the Tax Code, where revenue comes from. These tables show that this bill is revenue neutral; that financial reductions are paid for in new revenue coming in from the closing of corporate loophole abuse. For those who are talking about this bill being a giveaway for business, I want them to stop using that argument. One statement was made last night that was egregiously in error. One of the hard-line opponents of this bill claimed that the tobacco buyout was paid for by the taxpayers. I don't support the tobacco buyout but realize it was necessary to get this bill through the other body. I insisted on one of the Senate's positions in the tobacco buyout, and that position is that tobacco companies pay for this buyout. Opponents need to read this bill and the revenue tables. If they bother to do so they will see the buyout is paid for not by the taxpayers of America but by the companies that produce tobacco. Now, let's put in context the mischaracterization of this bill as somewhat of a special interest bill. In part, the bill receives such widespread support because many Member items were accommodated. Literally dozens of tax benefits were adopted in committee and on the floor. Let me define ``Member items.'' Constituents of one State came to their Senator and said: This part of the Tax Code is wrong, it is hurtful; or they said: We think the Tax Code ought to be changed this way. Maybe they do not come to me. Maybe they do not go to the other 99 Senators; they go to 1 Senator. That Senator is a representative of his people. It is his responsibility to bring that issue to the Senate. He does not have to. He can say: I don't agree with you, I will not do that. If he feels his constituents are justified in what they are requesting, then the matter is brought to the committee that has jurisdiction. That is the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair. Somehow there is something negative or derogatory about a Member bringing forth an item for all to consider. If we think that Member is crazy, we do not have to do it. If we think there is some justification to what that Member brings before the Senate, we ought to consider that. That is how our representative system of government works. Literally dozens of tax changes were adopted in committee or in the Chamber. Before the conference, Senator Baucus and I received letters from virtually every Member of the Senate. In some cases those letters asked for items from the Senate to be retained. In other cases those letters asked for the Senate to accept items from the House bill, and in still other cases Members wrote asking for items that were not in either bill. Finally, some Members asked us to not accept certain provisions not in either bill. I have a stack of letters with me. These letters are not all the letters, of course. There is no sense carrying a pile of letters out here. But Members representing the interests of their State bring these issues for our consideration. I will go to the first category and follow up items from the Senate bill. National care scholarships for nurses--Senator Murray and Cantwell asked for that. It is in the bill. Sickle cell disease and Medicaid, consideration of sickle cell disease, which is not covered by Medicaid--Senators Talent, Schumer, Campbell, Dayton, Cochran, Bond, Specter, Mikulski, Cantwell, Landrieu, Stabenow, Kennedy, Sarbanes, Voinovich, Lautenberg, Murkowski. It is in the bill. Some are going to say that Members' provision brought to us under the leadership of Senator Talent should not be considered by this body, and I will explain why this is all in one bill. People watching might think if you have a sickle cell disease issue come before the Senate, maybe it ought to come up as a separate issue. On the next item up is a life insurance taxation issue; maybe it ought to come as a separate bill. Why doesn't it? Because under the rules of the Senate every little bill that comes out here could be amended by anything that is in the Tax Code. Eventually you have a little life insurance bill that becomes a vehicle for every member to bring up any bill they want to bring up. So we saved the Senate from going through that exercise. That is what committees are about. We consider these issues--not always in committee; sometimes they are discussed when the bill comes to the Senate floor. Most of the time we give them a thorough study in the Senate Finance Committee. Sometimes we reject them and sometimes we include them. If we do not include them, maybe when they come to the Senate Chamber, that Senator is irritated with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and they add it on the Senate floor. They always end up in one bill. Somehow that makes all of our journalists concerned, those who seem to not have an understanding of how the Senate works, pointing out that this bill is full of a lot of little things in it that are unrelated to the underlying bill. That is true, but that is how the Senate works. The House of Representatives does not work that way. They put a bill together, they adopt a rule, and there is never an amendment. I shouldn't say never, but very seldom is a Member allowed to offer an amendment to a Ways and Means bill on the floor of the House. That is why the House of Representatives is like the House of Lords. That is why the Senate is like a House of Representatives. We allow the people of this country to bring anything they want to the floor of the Senate. Another item is suspension of section 815, a life insurance company taxation issue. That was brought to us by Senator Specter. It is in the bill. New York City revitalization tax benefits directly related to the attack of September 11, 2001, and the rebuilding of New York was brought to us by Senators Schumer and Clinton--most of that, but not all of it, is in the bill. Brownfields, unrelated business income tax relief--Senators Lautenberg, Reed, Jeffords, Stabenow, Specter, Sarbanes Dole, Akaka, Chafee, Inhofe--is in the bill. The use of green bonds for economic development in certain areas is something I was not for, but it is in the bill to satisfy Senators Allard, Schumer, Miller, Clinton, and Chambliss. We have IRS private debt collection. Senator Allen was pushing this. That is something I very definitely favor because this is one way of getting the private sector bringing in money from people who are tax cheats and are not paying their taxes. Tribal government bonds--Senator Campbell, very active in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs--was also a matter of importance to Senator Baucus and others, but it is not in the bill despite being raised in conference. Comprehensive energy tax relief package--Senator Hutchison--is not in the bill despite being raised in conference because the House of Representatives took the position that there shouldn't be anything on energy in this bill because they think energy items need to be put together in a bill that ought to be dealt with separately, next session. Quite frankly, the House of Representatives passed a comprehensive energy bill last fall, and we were two votes short in the Senate because of a Democrat filibuster against the bill. They say that instead of doing the energy provisions in this bill before us now, the Senate ought to take up the bill that we obviously have a majority for--but because of a Democrat filibuster we are two votes short--and do the energy stuff there, not in bill before the Senate. So I cannot blame the House of Representatives because they worked hard to get an energy bill passed, and it comes over here and you get a Democrat filibuster. By the way, those two votes could be supplied by Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards because now they think we ought to have a national energy policy, and they did not vote last November. If they come in here before we go home and cast the 59th and 60th vote, we would have the comprehensive energy policy, not just little slivers of it that we get in a bill here and a bill there, but we would have a very comprehensive energy policy. They would be fulfilling what they are saying out there on the campaign trail we need to get done: have a national energy policy. We have 58 votes for it. We need a 59th and 60th vote, and they could be that. But at least I am telling you why we do not have the energy provisions in here that a Republican Senator, Senator Hutchison, wanted. We have a request from Senators Crapo, Bingaman, Voinovich, Biden, Pryor, Talent, Enzi, Chafee, Carper, Clinton, Allard, Bond, Coleman, Sununu, Bennett, Chambliss, Hutchison, Hagel, Nelson of Florida, Dayton, Dole, Reed of Rhode Island, Dodd, Kennedy, and Levin for mortgage revenue bonds liberalization. It is not in the bill, but it was raised in conference. We have heard a lot about Senator Landrieu's Guard and Ready Reserve amendment. That was raised by Senators Landrieu, Bond, Pryor, Murray, Dodd, Akaka, Cantwell, Dorgan, Schumer, Mikulski, Nelson of Florida, Lautenberg, Johnson, Feingold, Leahy, Dayton, Levin, Sarbanes, Wyden, and Durbin. We discussed that provision a lot, and like the three items above, this item was raised at conference and rejected by the other body. Mr. President, the letters I have cited reflect items Members raised. On some items we were able to reach agreement with the House, other items the House of Representatives rejected. Let me point out that I offered three amendments that I filed. I won one and lost two. The House accepted an amendment I put in for rural letter carriers. The House rejected an amendment I had dealing with energy-efficient home appliances. The House rejected another amendment dealing with elderly housing connected to the Warrior Hotel in Sioux City, IA. As the list above shows, a lot of Members of this body are satisfied because their items are in here; other Members are not satisfied. But that is not an unusual situation when you reach compromise. It also shows that for all of the unfair carping about this bill being a special interest bill, nearly every Member raised narrow-interest provisions. So if there is some fault about different provisions coming up, we all share that. We all do it. There is an old saying. It is: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. We have a group of Members throwing stones at this JOBS bill. A lot of them are living in glass houses. I will continue the discussion of Member items. We had the State sales tax deduction. Senators Cantwell and Hutchison wrote Senator Baucus and me asking us to include the House sales tax deduction provision in the conference agreement. We also received letters from delegations of other States where the State tax base is a sales tax base. The House sales tax deduction is in this bill because we decided for our Senators from several States that it ought to be included. We had timber tax relief provisions: Senators Chambliss, Pryor, Cantwell, Sessions, Shelby, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, Craig, Coleman, Graham of South Carolina, Wyden, Cornyn, Lugar, and Murray. As many of these Senators know, the timber industry has been hard hit by the tax on our exports going to Europe. By the way, when this bill passes, those taxes go away. The industry is finally recovering from a long recession. Timber mills are reopening. Mill workers are returning to the mills. The House timber provisions are in this bill. Charitable whaling activities. Senator Murkowski wrote, asking us to accept the House provision that allows a deduction for charitable whaling activities. Now, some will criticize this provision, but it is important to the Natives of Alaska. Senator Murkowski is looking out for the Natives of Alaska. She ought to be applauded for bringing that to our attention. This is in the bill. But it has also passed the Senate several times. Senator Baucus and I received letters from Members asking us to take Senate provisions out of the conference agreement. One example is Senator Stabenow's letter regarding a revenue raiser involving donations of cars. As you heard yesterday, Senator Hatch shares Senator Stabenow's concerns. The conferees retained the Senate revenue raiser. There is another category of letters that we received. An example is a letter from Senator McCain and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. In that letter they asked me to keep out a provision dealing with the church tax exemption and political activities. The provision was not in either bill. Chairman Thomas and I kept provisions that were outside the scope of the bill out of the conference entirely. No matter what the merits of that proposal were, we played fair by Senator McCain and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. The final category of requests dealt with the opposite of the McCain and Reed of Rhode Island request; that is, we had requests for items to be included that were not in either bill. I will give you a couple of sympathetic examples: a liberalization of tax-exempt rules as applied to charitable hospitals. Senator Akaka raised this issue. Unfortunately, this provision was outside of scope. Another example is penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs for hurricane victims. Right now, if you are hit by four hurricanes in Florida, who is going to argue with Senator Nelson of Florida bringing that to our conference? He asked us to raise this item. It was not in either the House or Senate bill. It would have been an entirely new item that we could have put in in conference. However, there was no way to address the proposal without then opening the door for a lot of other items that were not in either bill that somebody would want included at the last minute. So at this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have spent a little time going through a sample of the many items that Members weighed in with at the conference. This is a small sample of those items raised. Many others were brought to the attention of Senator Baucus and this Senator through letters or oral communications. It is safe to say, Senator Baucus and I can relate to what Senator Byrd and Chairman Stevens go through on the appropriations bills. My point is, those who want to distort this bill by describing it as a special interest bill are ignoring a couple things. One, they are ignoring--perhaps conveniently, perhaps deliberately--their own efforts to advance their interests. Secondly, as I have said before, this bill is paid for by raising revenue, largely by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes. Let the record be clear that this bill is fair, this bill is balanced. It is a balanced effort at resolving four objectives. One objective is ending the European tax on our exports going to Europe that are legal and legitimate, even though I disagree that it should have been done. I disagree with that decision. The United States lost a World Trade Organization decision that our previous tax laws were violating the agreements that Congress had made with Europe, Congress made, because we passed these trade agreements as law. If anybody thinks, well, it is wrong for Europe to levy a tax against us, we won a case against Europe on beef because they don't let our beef into Europe because we use hormones in the development of our beef, in the feed the cattle eat or that they are injected with, and Europe does not like that. But they are violating our right to send beef to Europe because they don't have a scientific basis for doing it. That is what the World Trade Organization said. But they still don't take our beef. So we put a tax on products coming from Europe to the United States to retaliate the same way they are retaliating for the reasons behind this bill. This bill ends that European tax because we are conforming our tax laws to the international trading agreements Congress passed 10 years ago. We are also going beyond doing away with an impediment to our exports so that we lose jobs here in America because of that tax. We are putting a replacement benefit to manufacturers in the United States so jobs will be created here by lowering the corporate rate from 35 to 32. No. 3, we are providing international tax reforms that will aid domestic manufacturers so we can compete in the global marketplace. And lastly, we achieve these policy ends in a revenue-neutral way through the curtailment of abusive corporate tax shelters and abusive corporate loopholes by closing them. I hope everybody agrees this bill is a well-balanced bill, accomplishing a goal we should have accomplished a year and a half ago, at least no later than March when these European taxes started on our products. I apologize to any Americans who have been laid off because our products are not competitive in Europe because of that tax and why it takes Congress so long to wake up, particularly when there are Members of Congress always complaining about outsourcing. We started on this bill in March. It took us 15 days, over a period of 3 months, to get this bill through the Senate. And then we were a long period of time before the minority party agreed we could go to conference. But once we got to conference, thanks to the good cooperative working relationship between Senator Baucus and me for the Senate and between Mr. Baucus and me and Congressman Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, we have this bill. But for those laid-off workers, I am embarrassed this bill couldn't have been passed a long time ago and that we ran up against all of the impediments. Why? Because certain Members of this body don't want a Republican President signing a jobs bill a few days before the election. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would be glad to take a question from the ranking member of the Finance Committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is correct. No negative inference was intended.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there are several antifraud provisions in this conference report. Most of the focus in the media has been on the tax benefits of this legislation, but an extremely important aspect of the bill is how it closes giant corporate tax loopholes. This legislation, by closing them, obviously is going to bring revenue into the Federal Treasury that is otherwise just going into the treasuries of corporations. This legislation includes Enron reforms that Members have been pushing for since Enron was exposed 3 years ago. Don't forget, for about 5 or 6 years before that, before the year 2001, Enron was doing their dirty work. But we finally got it exposed in 2001, and we have been taking some corrective action through corporate governance policies already passed by the Congress, and now we are taking action to close the abuse of the Tax Code by Enron-type executives. It is a little ironic that many of those same Senators who have demagogged the Enron scandal are now opposing this bill. They seem to be more interested in something that is not in this bill than the very good public policy of cracking down on fraud that is actually in this bill. I am proud of the fact that many of these antifraud measures in this report stemmed from cases that were investigated and exposed by the very capable staff of the Senate Finance Committee. With that staff working for me and staff working for Senator Baucus, along with various whistleblowers and informants, and now with the House of Representatives passing this bill, we are about ready to shut down these Enron-type corporate tax abuses. This has not been an easy process, but it is a real example of how our perseverance pays off. Back in July of 2001, the Finance Committee staff first discovered what has become known as a huge fraud upon the taxpayers, and that is the fuel tax evasion. This fraud is costing the taxpayers at least $10 billion. So, No. 1, Enron-type fraud, abusive tax shelters; now we are talking about fraud that comes from people not paying the fuel tax on gasoline and diesel fuel that would be then spent on the highways. The Finance Committee had a very important hearing exposing this type of fuel fraud tax scam. The problem has come to light in more recent prosecutions. One involved an alleged terrorist cell that was skimming off fuel and selling it, using the money for God only knows what. It could have found its way into terrorist activity against the United States. In another case, in July, prosecutors charged 19 workers at the Miami International Airport with falsely classifying jet fuel as contaminated to avoid paying the fuel tax. They would then sell it on the sly, stealing 2.7 million gallons of fuel. Another tax scam that my staff uncovered involves what is known as service-in/lease-out, or SILO. These schemes were discovered by a Finance Committee major hearing, showing these fraudulent arrangements are put together by high-priced lawyers and accountants. In these scams, companies actually lease public works systems such as subways and sewers from cities, and then turn right around and lease them back to the same cities. The cities get upfront money, presumably under the argument that their municipal treasuries can use it, particularly in times when the economy is down. But here is what happens: The cities get a little bit of upfront money, but the companies get millions of dollars of tax writeoffs. So the taxpayer is left holding an empty bag under this scheme. That sounds unbelievable, doesn't it? But it is true. The bill we are about to vote on puts a stop to this and saves the taxpayers over $27 billion. Let me also note that we have provisions in this bill that address other abuses, significant abuses in the donation of intellectual property, as well as the donations of cars. Corporations have been reducing their tax bills by hundreds of millions of dollars each year by taking intellectual property of little to no value and donating it to charity. This legislation ends this abuse by corporations while still encouraging the donation of legitimate intellectual property that has real value for actual development. We also ended the shady tax practice of people providing some junker cars to a charity and claiming thousands for it off their individual income tax. The reforms in this legislation will place no additional burden on the donor, will not reduce the amount going to charities from the donated car by a single dime, and will benefit all taxpayers by ending this abusive scheme. There has been noise coming from a few that this reform shouldn't have been done on this bill. A lot of that noise is not coming from charities but from middlemen who are the ones who really make the profit off of this abuse. To say we should have delayed this is nonsense. As my comments highlight, it is very difficult and also uncommon for us to have a legislative opportunity to address tax shelters and tax abuse. This bill provides the most sweeping attack on abusive corporate tax shelters in an entire generation of this Congress. So we cannot pass up an opportunity to address an abusive corporate tax situation. It can very well be years before another opportunity presents itself to the Congress to deal with the problem of people not paying their fair share of taxes. Forget about the word ``fair share''--just say paying taxes that are due. These efforts to address abuses in charitable donations are part of an ongoing bipartisan Senate Finance Committee review of nonprofits, something the Democratic ranking member, Senator Baucus, and I are working on together. I anticipate we will be addressing other areas in the future such as land donations and facade donations based on our investigations of the Nature Conservancy and other land donation organizations. But I do want to say, since I named some of these organizations, that I think some of these organizations have gotten the message and are making attempts to correct some of the deficiencies in their own operations that abuse the Tax Code. I am very pleased that in this bill we deal with a situation where executives take corporate aircraft for personal travel. Legislation in this bill will put significant limitations on corporations being able to write off such high living. Again, based on the work of the Finance Committee, we were able to ground a good number of these high-flying corporate executives. The Finance Committee initially placed limitations to deal with abuses that were seen in the Virgin Islands and other U.S. territories. There were many people going down there to the Virgin Islands to not only get a tan but also to avoid the taxman. I am pleased that, working with Treasury and working with the Ways and Means Committee of the other body, we were able to further tighten these limitations to address the tax problems we are seeing down there in the sunny islands of the Caribbean. Finally, I am glad that in the conference committee we were able to adopt the Finance Committee's proposal championed by Senator Nickles to end the SUV deduction for businesses. Senator Nickles also was right when he said it would be an embarrassment if we couldn't deal with this abuse, and we did. That is around $50 billion of fraud which the Finance Committee uncovered, pursued, and that is in this bill. That doesn't count the billions of dollars which I considered abuse but which the House of Representatives must not have considered abuse because they wouldn't agree to putting it in this bill. But I am going to continue to deal with corporate abuse. I made this statement to the leaders of the Ways and Means Committee in our conference committee. I offered amendments to go further than this conference report goes. The House conferees refused, but I made clear that where these corporate abuses aren't adequately handled and dealt with in this conference report, that come January I intend, if I am chairman of the committee, to pursue more closing of corporate tax abuses. If I am not chairman, Senator Baucus will be chairman, and I think, although I shouldn't speak for him, he is as committed to this as I am because we have had 2 good years of working together on this issue. The taxpayers are getting their money's worth out of this Senate Finance Committee. They are entitled to get more of their money's worth out of Senate Finance Committee when we continue to clamp down on these corporate tax abuses. The Constitution may say that revenue measures have to start in the House, but the fact is, they are being created in the Senate by closing loopholes and cracking down on fraud and abuse. I thank the House of Representatives, and particularly the cooperative working arrangement we had on this conference report with Chairman Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee in getting as far as we have in closing down these corporate tax abuses. The Senate Finance Committee has been so successful in rooting out tax fraud. We have more and more information coming to us over the transom about newer, more crooked and creative scams being cooked up out there in the underworld of tax shelters. All I can say to this underworld is, watch out, because we are coming after you. I yield the floor. The Senator from Ohio is yielded 10 minutes off the time which I have remaining.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Does that mean all the time we had remaining on this side?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, this bill passes an ultimate test that any bill has to pass that is of consequence. This bill passes one of the strictest tests that something must pass in the Senate in order to get something done, and that is, it is bipartisan. It is bipartisan because of the leadership of Senator Baucus, and I thank him. We have been hearing quite a bit about this legislation. Most of the complaints have been about what is not in the bill. I would like to have those who are complaining to focus on what is in the bill. Everyone needs to know that a vote against cloture is a vote against the items in this bill. This is a recorded vote, for which we will all be held accountable. The conference is closed. The House has voted overwhelmingly for this bill. If this bill does not get cloture, it is a dead bill. Vote to end the Euro sanctions against U.S. exporters. They are now 12 percent. They will be 17 percent by March. Those sanctions hit farm products, timber, paper, citrus, and manufacturing. There are people being laid off because of these sanctions against our exports. A vote against cloture is a vote to continue the sanctions. Farms and businesses shoulder this burden because Congress has failed so far to act. The manufacturing tax cut to create jobs in America that is in this bill goes to large and small corporations, family-held S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, farmers, and co-ops. This $76 billion portion of this bill is only for manufacturing in the United States. It is not creating jobs offshore because it does not benefit manufacturing offshore. Are you going to vote against giving individuals a deduction for the State sales tax against their Federal income tax that is in this bill? This bill is the most comprehensive agricultural, small business, and rural community incentive tax package ever. A vote against cloture is a vote against benefits in this bill that will help value-added agriculture. The bill contains VEETC; 37 of our 50 States will receive more highway money because of the provisions in this bill. VEETC and this bill's provisions that shut down fuel tax fraud will put over $24 billion into the highway trust fund alone. This provision alone will create 674,000 new jobs across the country. A vote against cloture is a vote against highway money for your State. A vote against cloture is a vote against highway jobs for construction of highways in your State. The energy package in the bill includes new incentives for biodiesel. This provision means jobs in our heartland, over 150,000 new jobs. The bill accelerates production of natural gas from Alaska and the construction of a pipeline to carry it to the lower 48 States. This will create nearly 400,000 jobs in construction, trucking, manufacturing, and other sectors. This bill devotes over $2 billion to section 45, renewable electricity production credit. This was a high priority for Senators Bingaman, Smith, Daschle, Hatch, Baucus, Snowe, Breaux, Lincoln, Conrad, Bunning, and Gregg. The small business package in this bill extends small business expensing for another 2 years, and contains significant S corporation reforms. S corporation reform has always been a high priority in the Senate because it helps family-owned businesses. A provision in this bill expands the new markets tax credit to help economic development in rural counties. We have included also the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act. We included a National Health Service Corps loan program to enhance the delivery of medical services to rural areas. The bill provides all these benefits, nearly $140 billion worth, and this is a revenue-neutral bill, which means this bill does not add one dime to the Federal deficit. It is all paid for by shutting down corporate expatriation to Bermuda, tax shelter leasing abuses by corporations, and ends all the Enron-type tax shelter deals. This is the most tough antitax shelter measure since 1986. This bill contains some of the most important international tax reforms in decades, bringing foreign earnings home for investment in the United States instead of investing overseas, hence creating jobs in the United States. We have heard complaints from Senator Landrieu because the bill does not contain her reservist amendment. I would like to make it clear that Senator Baucus and I offered that amendment on her behalf. We came up with a way to pay for that. All Senate conferees, Republican and Democrat, voted for it. The conference was open to the public. There were no backroom deals. The House, the other body, rejected it. Voting down this bill will not bring back the reservist amendment. The conference is closed. There is a great deal of good in this bill. We can rescue the manufacturing sector; we can end European Union sanctions on our farmers; we can respond to the recent rise of gas prices by supporting renewable fuels, and we can shut down every known tax abuse. Vote to finish the job. Vote for cloture. It is time to pass this very important bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct. The conferees are acting to make it clear that attorneys' fees and costs in these cases are not taxable income, especially where the plaintiff, or in the case of a Qui Tam proceeding, the relator, never actually receives the portion of the award paid to the attorneys. Despite differing opinions by certain jurisdictions and the IRS, it is my opinion that this is the correct interpretation of the law prior to enactment of Section 703 as it will be going forward. In adopting this provision, Congress is codifying the fair and equitable policy that the tax treatment of settlements or awards made after or prior to the effective date of this provision should be the same. The courts and IRS should not treat attorneys' fees and other costs as taxable income. As I stated in my May 12, 2004 press release summarizing this and other provisions passed by the Senate as part of S. 1637. Tax relief gets the headlines, but part of tax relief is tax fairness. It's clearly a fairness issue to make sure people don't have to pay income taxes on income that was never theirs in the first place. That's common sense. Section 703 will help in well known cases, such as that of Cynthia Spina, an Illinois police officer that secured a settlement in a sexual discrimination case that left her owing $10,000 or more. There are literally dozens of others like her in similar situations and it is my strong belief that the courts and the IRS should apply the guidelines of Section 703 not only after the date of enactment but also to settlements put in place prior to that time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Oklahoma 5 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would be glad to entertain a question from the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for this entire year I have come to the floor many times to tell my colleagues all the reasons this conference report is a must-pass piece of legislation. I have talked about trade and I have talked about tariffs. I have talked about the necessity of stopping outsourcing, lowering the cost of capital to our corporations so they can be more competitive in international competition, keeping jobs in America, reducing that cost of capital, as this bill does, by reducing the corporate tax rate for manufacturing in America--a direct incentive to produce here rather than producing overseas. Now, that is what the main part of this bill is all about, but it has some other aspects to it. I want to talk about $24 billion--$24 billion--that may be gone forever if we do not pass this bill; $24 billion to go into the highway trust fund. I do not serve on the committee that expends the money from the highway trust fund. I do serve on the committee, the Finance Committee, that provides how much gas tax we should have and other moneys that go into the highway trust fund. But for those who do deal daily with the highway trust fund, this $24 billion is the biggest single increase in highway trust fund income in over 6 years. Now, where does the $24 billion come from? It does not come from new taxes. Instead, we overhaul an outdated excise tax system to address our Nation's increased use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol. In addition to overhauling the excise tax system that is outdated, we crack down on big-time fuel fraud to make sure that bad guys are not robbing our States of their much-needed highway money. But the only way we can get all of that money is if we pass this bill, and do it right now, because that will bring $24 billion into the trust fund--the only way. You have to put the money into the trust fund today to build roads tomorrow. And you cannot start collecting any new money until we change these outdated rules that keep this $24 billion from going into the road fund. All of the Senators who are filibustering this bill are costing every State new highway dollars. To put this in perspective, my home State of Iowa, as an example, under this bill could get an additional $900 million over 6 years, but only if we pass this bill this year. So anybody from the State of Iowa voting in the Congress of the United States ought to know if they vote no on this bill that they are costing the State of Iowa $900 million. Even if we postponed the rule changes until we pass a highway bill now, which is not going to be passed until next year, Iowa will still lose $140 million forever--never get that back. How many roads can Iowa build with $900 million? How many bridges can we repair with $900 million? I do not know why any Senator would jeopardize the safety of every citizen in his State by failing to pass the highway trust fund. There are other Senators who do not want to put money in the bank today so we can build the roads for tomorrow. Every Senator, of course, has their right to vote as they please, but every State also has the right to know what that vote will cost the highway bill and what it will cost their State. Let's look at California. They are going to be big winners in this VEETC and fuel fraud reform that is in this legislation. The estimated increase in California's highway revenue is over $2 billion--$2 billion of new highway money. But the only way to get the full benefit of the estimate is to pass this bill now. So I would ask the California Senators to look at this legislation, put the money in the bank today, and then build roads tomorrow. Illinois would be a big loser if Members of that delegation would vote no on cloture and no on this bill. The Illinois Department of Transportation knows exactly what they would lose if this bill does not pass. It is close to $3 billion. That $3 billion can be put in the trust fund today to build roads tomorrow. I would hope no one comes whining to me as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee next year that we do not have enough money to fund the highway bill, especially when you have an opportunity--right here today--handed to you on a silver platter to put $24 billion into the highway trust fund, more money for your States. And you ought to consider that not a silver platter, you ought to see that as some sort of a golden platter, a golden opportunity. But we have Senators who are bound and determined to deny every State department of transportation $24 billion. We never get an opportunity like this to put a package of highway funding together. We may not get this opportunity again. Vote no today, and every road, bridge, highway construction project is cheated. Vote no today and every highway job not only next year but until the year 2010 will be in jeopardy, running short of money. I do not know if we can ever get this kind of funding package put together again. Let me suggest to you how tenuous it was on aspects of this. Disagreements between me and the House of Representatives a year ago last summer--not differences involving Democrats and Republicans, differences involving Republicans, between me and the House of Representatives--to get this put together so this money would come into the highway trust fund, so we would take care of this issue of fuel fraud. The Vice President of the United States intervened to bring a compromise together a year ago last June because, quite frankly, I thought a year ago now we were going to have the highway bill passed, and this was going to be part of the highway bill, to bring this $24 billion into this road fund. You do not get opportunities like that very often. You do not get strokes of luck like that very often to get to where we are today. Now, the other thing about being where we are today is this bill before us is not a highway bill. The highway bill should have passed, but I guess now it is going to go over until next year. That is not in my area of responsibility, so I am anticipating what other Senators would tell you. But we have the good fortune of people looking very broadly at what is good for America or not good for America, and feeling that this provision of $24 billion into the highway trust fund so we do not lose this revenue--and we have already lost some--we have this opportunity now. We can do it in this JOBS bill as opposed to the highway bill so we don't lose that revenue. One other thing that is in dispute is why we don't have the regulation of tobacco in this bill. I don't know how the Senate Finance Committee that deals with taxes and trade and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and welfare and pensions and Customs and the IRS, all of those things, how we get saddled dealing with an issue that belongs in the Committee on Health or the Committee on Agriculture. But we got it dumped on us. I don't know why the Health, Education, Labor Committee that has this in their jurisdiction, particularly when Democrats are complaining about it not being in this bill, couldn't have passed that in the year 2001 and 2002 when they controlled that committee. But, no, they dumped this on us. Anyway, we have to deal with it, and it is not in there. It makes some people mad, both Republican and Democrat. I want everybody to know, even though it should not have been in this bill, I voted for it on the floor of the Senate to hasten this bill along, to put it in here, and I offered it to the House of Representatives that it be included. I didn't offer it; one of my colleagues offered it. But I supported my colleague because I thought regulation of nicotine was legitimate. Now it is not here, and we had a lot of speeches last night and today about it. So I want to speak about that. I voted for this despite the growing problems that are coming to light about the FDA falling down on its current responsibilities. And my investigative staff has been in the middle of that, of buyouts, as an example, trying to get the FDA to recognize that their scientists are trying to tell us there is some danger out there. And they won't listen to them; in fact, they tried to suppress it. Or antidepressants, as in the case of the FDA scientists raising questions about that and being stomped on for a year until finally the study committee studied it and voted 15 to 8 that there ought to be a warning put on antidepressants for children because they are committing suicide. Yet people want to put more on the back of FDA when they have problems there. Anyway, that is a whole other issue. The FDA has come under investigation, including my own that I have just talked about, involving Vioxx, as we have been reading about within the last week. It was revealed by my Finance Committee staff that it looked as though the FDA pressured employees to suppress negative findings regarding Vioxx. In today's paper, we read about what looks like the FDA falling down on the job in regard to the flu vaccine crisis. So, I hope some around here aren't trying to mislead the American people into thinking that FDA regulation is some kind of panacea for smoking. I heard one Senator from the other side say that we sided with the tobacco companies when the FDA provision failed. Well that is interesting. That is surely what opponents would like you to think. But, there is a dirty little secret involved here. Or, at least it is a secret vis-a-vis the public. The fact is, the tobacco companies are divided on whether there should be FDA regulation. In fact, the largest tobacco company actually supports FDA regulation, and has been lobbying heavily and pouring money into the effort to get it. Why? Well, for one thing, a great deal of its business is overseas, and it will therefore be immune from FDA regulation. This will give it a competitive edge against its competitors. So, the tobacco companies, or at least the biggest one, is much more in favor of FDA regulation than against it. Therefore, anybody trying to frame this as tobacco versus kids, or tobacco versus health groups, is just flatly misleading the public. But, even for those of us who pushed for FDA oversight, our legs were cut right out from under us during the negotiations. And guess who cut the legs right of from under us? The leadership of the Democratic Party cut the legs right out from under us. That's who. The leader of the Democratic party, Senator Kerry, went down to North Carolina to talk to tobacco farmers. Guess what he said. He said he'd support a tobacco buyout with or without FDA regulation. So, it looks to me like the senior Senator from Massachusetts didn't communicate very well with the junior Senator from Massachusetts--or vice-versa. Moreover, we had the Democratic Senate Campaign Chairman saying the same thing last week. He said he didn't need FDA regulation with a tobacco buyout. And, he even had his candidate for the North Carolina Senate seat up here lobbying right over in the conference committee room to get this buyout through, with or without FDA. Can you believe that? And, to add insult to injury to the Democratic Senators from Massachusetts, and Iowa, the Senate Democratic Leader even signed the conference report. So, obviously, when the House leadership knew the votes were there in the Senate for a buyout without FDA, they weren't about to agree to it in conference, and there's no way we could have successfully pushed it. Now, what more does it take from their own leaders to undermine what the Democratic Senators from Iowa and Massachusetts wanted to do? Seems to me they need to get their own house in order before criticizing others.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That seems to be an accurate interpretation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. As I read the statute, a 35 percent rate is assumed to apply only when a financial statement fails to show earnings permanently invested outside the U.S. but also includes an amount of tax liability attributable to such earnings. I believe that the formula is intended to produce an amount comparable to what would have been shown if the amount of earnings permanently invested offshore had been set forth on the financial statements. One shortcoming of the formula, which you have identified, is that the financial statements only take into account the incremental U.S. tax liability that would be incurred if the company repatriates its earnings, which would be the 35 percent rate reduced by any foreign tax credits. I think you raise a very good point that Congress should revisit in the future. In the meantime, I encourage the Department of Treasury to consider issuing guidance that permits taxpayers to more accurately reflect the actual amount of earnings permanently invested offshore.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct. The new provision is not intended to apply to aircraft placed in service before January 1, 2005 and does not limit or deny bonus depreciation for aircraft or any other asset that would qualify under the general rules. I would refer the senator to page 30 of the Conference Report. On that page, the conferees clearly state that this provision ``will modify the treatment only of property placed in service during calendar year 2005,''