Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 556

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment takes urgently needed steps to end Medicare's discrimination against rural States. Doctors and hospitals in rural America provide some of the lowest cost, highest quality care in the country. Academics, researchers, and policy people know this, but Medicare does not know it. This amendment changes that by fixing unfair payment formulas once and for all. Doctors, hospitals, home health agencies, and ambulances in rural communities can count on payment fairness from this day forward by adopting this amendment. My fairness amendment is paid for by changes in other parts of the Medicare Program, and it is not offset by other parts of the tax provisions of this bill. My amendment is a dose of commonsense medicine for Medicare in rural America. One final word to cancer patients in Iowa and across the country regarding the AWP offset. I am going to work in conference and directly with the Secretary of HHS to ensure that seniors and their caregivers have adequate payment for, and continued access to, important cancer therapies.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now I can speak for 1 minute on my amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 595 Withdrawn

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add the following people as cosponsors: Ms. Collins, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Campbell.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to set aside the Burns amendment so we can go to the Harkin amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Collins is ready to speak on her amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, albeit good intentions on the part of people offering these amendments, what they are doing in the process of offering their very favorable new program--one on which I have legislation, in fact--they are destroying the growth in our growth package by taking money from the growth portions and the investment portions of our bill to do other good things. Right now, we are concerned about the economy. We have a balanced bill and want to keep it balanced. We don't want to destroy portions of our bill to create a new program. However, the Senator knows I am very interested in long-term care, and I hope she will work with me and the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, in the hopes that she can join us in advancing long-term care insurance for senior citizens but doing it in a context that doesn't destroy other very important pieces of legislation. This language is not germane to the measure before us. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, we have a substitute that would basically eliminate all the growth we have in our growth package. We have a well-balanced package before us between short-term investment, long-term investment, between consumer spending and investment. This amendment is not about investment; it is all about spending. I hope we will defeat the amendment. This language happens to not be germane to the measure now before us. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 1 minute does not give justice to saying what is wrong with this amendment, so I will just give two or three points. First, in regard to the marriage penalty relief, it provides for acceleration of the standard deduction of married couples but doesn't do anything regarding the expansion of the 15-percent individual income tax bracket. And that is a major part of marriage penalty relief. It doesn't help hard-working, middle-class families the way it should. Second, in regard to the child tax credit, this proposal only increases the child tax credit to $700 in 2003 and $800 in 2004. The mark accelerates it to the full $1,000 in 2003. Again, for real relief for working families, the wage credit is a key component of this proposal. This would send $300 checks to anyone, regardless of whether they paid any income tax, and even if they didn't file an income tax return. There is a point of order on this amendment. I raise that point of order: That it increases mandatory spending and, if agreed to, it would cause the underlying bill to exceed the committee's section 302(a) allocation. Therefore, a point of order lies against the amendment pursuant to 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for our leader, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order be the following in the order mentioned: Senator Daschle, substitute; Senator Nickles, on the subject of dividends; Senator Reid; then Senator Breaux, and Senator Breaux's deals with section 911; Senator Santorum, dealing with annuities; Senator Bingaman, small business pensions; Senator Mikulski, caregivers; Senator Sessions, sunset tax increase provisions; and Senator Dayton, a substitute. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relationship to the amendments, that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the vote, and, finally, that this sequence of votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the ``Role and Funding of the Federal National Indian Gaming Commission, NIGC.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we do not want this vote now. We want to have this vote later. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the arguments we hear for various amendments are very interesting. It is kind of like the other side is going in a circle. In regard to the amendment of the distinguished Senate minority whip, the Senator argues against the jobs bill because Social Security funds are used. Well, let's compare that argument to the arguments Senator Dorgan was using. How does the Senator from Nevada think the Dorgan amendment he supports is paid for? As the Senator from Montana pointed out, general revenues will be used to cover the costs of the Dorgan amendment. We are in a deficit situation. Everybody acknowledges that. So where does the Senator think these revenues will come from? They will raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for the Dorgan amendment. Once again, it seems to me the other side is trying to be on three sides of a two-sided coin. Maybe if we keep this up long enough with their circular arguments they will be supporting the jobs bill when we finally get to final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I very much support this amendment. I do not think we have a hard time convincing the people of this country about the complicated aspects of the Tax Code and the need for something more simple to replace it. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus on the part of the American people about that point. What we need a national dialog about--and I think this amendment encourages that dialog--as well as a study is what is going to take its place. Seventy percent of the people think the present Tax Code ought to be thrown out, partly because of how complicated it is and because it may be viewed as unfair. There does not seem to be that sort of consensus as to what takes its place. For instance, I have had opportunities to see surveys where approximately 20 percent of the people want a national sales tax and 30 percent of the people want a flat rate income tax. Maybe Congress ought to show leadership and follow up on that 20 percent or 30 percent, but I do not think that is going to happen until we get some consensus among the American people that is in the 40-percent range of what ought to take the place of the present income tax mess. The amendment before us is very useful from the standpoint of encouraging congressional committees to do the proper work, but I believe in the final analysis, to get the consensus that it is going to take to bring about a simplified tax system, replacing the present complicated system, is when it becomes part of the national debate between two candidates for President. For instance, ideally, we have President Bush seeking reelection next year, and he would make an issue out of how complicated the Tax Code is and offer an alternative. Ideally, a flat rate income tax along the lines of what Mr. Forbes did a few years ago when he was running for the Republican nomination and made this type of reform a major plank of his campaign. Ideally, we would have a Democratic candidate who says the current progressive system, even though it is a mess, is what is best for the country. Then we will have a winner out of this that shows a clear division of keeping what we have, which I hope does not happen, or coming up with something new. That mandate from an election will move the people and the people then will move the Congress. Being chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I should not have to wait for that to happen, but it seems that we have so much work before us dealing with short-term issues that we do not spend time on the long-term policies, which this amendment encourages. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his amendment. I am going to obviously vote for it. I hope it is adopted overwhelmingly, but I hope it has an impact beyond what we in the Congress will be called upon to study. I hope it has an impact on the next Presidential election.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, an amendment will be offered tomorrow which Senator Breaux has already spoken in favor of. I wanted to speak in support of the language that is in the bill. I am speaking against the amendment which will be offered by Senator Breaux tomorrow. The policy issue presented by repeal of section 911 is whether taxpayer dollars should be used to underwrite an employer's cost of sending employees overseas. Section 911 excludes from tax the first $80,000 of foreign wages and additional foreign housing costs that are paid for by the employer. Under normal tax rules, these amounts would be taxable. According to the latest IRS data, 358,000 taxpayers claim this exclusion, yet repeal of the exemption raises $35 billion. The reason repeal raises so much is because many U.S. citizens living overseas don't pay tax to either the United States or even to the foreign country. The section 911 is skewed heavily towards upper-income taxpayers. The more a person owns, the more they can exclude free foreign housing. Section 911 then is a subsidy to an employer for the costs of sending employees overseas. Section 911 only applies to private sector employees who move overseas of their own free will. It is not available to government or military employees stationed overseas who are obviously there through somebody's command and not by their own choice. Most employers offer their overseas employees ``tax equalization'' packages which guarantee the employee will not pay more taxes working overseas than they would pay if they were working within the United States. Section 911 reduces the amount of tax an employer has to reimburse under those agreements, making it then a help to the employer as much as to the employee. Why does this make any sense? Obviously, I feel it makes sense or it wouldn't be in this bill that I present to the Senate. If an employer sends an employee from Florida, which has no income taxes, to Massachusetts, which has very high income taxes, we do not provide such a subsidy. Why do we subsidize moving employees overseas? I think sending employees overseas should be a business decision, not a tax decision. Repeal will not cause U.S. citizens to be double taxed. A U.S. citizen who earns income that is taxed by a foreign country is allowed to reduce their U.S. taxes for any foreign income taxes paid. A foreign tax credit is not allowed, however, for foreign property and gas taxes and levies for social programs sponsored by the governments of foreign countries. We do not subsidize those taxes or those policies. Many claim U.S. exports are enhanced by sending U.S. personnel overseas. However, there is no basis for such a claim. Whether a U.S. company uses U.S. products in its foreign operations is a business decision of the U.S. employer. It is not determined by the nationality of the foreign manager. It has come to our attention that certain nonprofits, charities, and religious organizations use section 911 to further their overseas activities. We plan to work with these organizations to exempt these activities. Section 911 is a tax loophole that forces you and me, as well as every other taxpayer out there throughout the United States, to subsidize high-paid corporate employees and their companies. It is unfair, and the Congress needs to fix it, and the legislation before us fixes it. The Breaux amendment, if agreed to, would take that fix out of this legislation. Everyone voting for the Breaux amendment will be voting for these tax benefits the rest of us are paying for. So obviously, tomorrow, I urge the defeat of the Breaux amendment. I yield the floor. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Pennsylvania such time as he may consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 91, S. 709.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield for a short statement and then I want to continue.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in regard to the statement just made by the Senator from Nevada, I voted for the amendment that he speaks about in committee. It lost by a 1-vote margin. I don't know whether Members have had a chance to give it the thorough thought it ought to have when it is brought up on the floor. I hope Members will take a good look at it. If there is evidence to back up what has been said about the amendment bringing money home, it is something that would give a shot in the arm to the economy. It ought to be something we look at. I think there has been some talk about it, but not enough at this point. I am not suggesting the amendment should not be voted for tomorrow. I am just suggesting it is something I am taking a very good look at.