Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am aware that the Treasury and Labor Departments are always examining the so-called welfare benefit plans because of aggressive uses of some arrangements. Taxpayers need certainty and clarity from the enforcement agencies that they can rely upon, so they do not run afoul of the rules and operate plans in accordance with the requirements of the law. It would be unwise to exclude a particular type of arrangement from the rules governing tax shelters, however, based upon some the abuses we have seen. But we can urge the Treasury Department to provide clearer guidance on the many welfare benefit plan arrangements. I am willing to join you in writing the Treasury Department to ask them for clearer guidance as soon as practicable.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield such time as he might consume to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Nickles will offer his amendment in just a minute. He asked if I would do my speaking on that amendment at this point. I am very happy to do that. I appreciate my friend's continued efforts to reform and reduce long term capital gain tax on real estate. And Senator Nickles is correct-- by excluding 25 percent of the capital gain on the sale of property we reduce the effective capital gain rate on sales for conservation purposes. However, that is not the purpose of the provision. We intend to preserve precious, environmentally sensitive land from ever being developed. I need not remind my fellow Senators that they are not making any more land and if we do not preserve sensitive wetlands and open space from development it will be lost forever and all of our children and grandchildren will suffer from our lack of responsibility. Senator Nickles' amendment would literally make it easier to develop the very land we are attempting to preserve. That is certainly not the intent of this provision. I will be voting no and I strongly urge my fellow Senators to also vote no on Senator Nickles' amendment. I would like to take a few minutes to review the long history of this important provision. As you all know, the President's budget has included this proposal. In all of his budgets, in fact, the President actually continues to propose the exclusion of 50 percent of the capital gain for the sale of property for conservation purposes. So by comparison, this 25 percent proposal is modest, but still addresses the President's priorities. In addition, the Senate Finance Committee has a long history of building support. In both the 106th and 107th Congresses, we held hearings specifically discussing this proposal. We had witnesses from the forests of Maine to the wetlands of Louisiana and the ranches of Arizona. Besides, this effort brings about bipartisan support for the issue. Not only have we heard huge support for this provision from all the traditional conservation organizations, like the Nature Conservancy and the Land Trusts and Iowa's own Heritage Foundation, but I know both I and Senator Baucus continue to receive very vocal support from the farmers and ranchers who populate our States. Both the Farm Bureau and the Cattleman's Association have let us know that this gives our citizens choices to stay on the land and yet preserve the open space. The opportunity to give an easement, preserve our farm and ranch lifestyles and give up the right to ever develop the land is important public policy and I urge my fellow Senators to vote no on Senator Nickles' amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to take a brief moment to thank the many, many people that helped bring President Bush's words supporting charities and charitable giving into reality. First, I thank my colleague, Senator Baucus. I appreciate his bipartisanship on this matter. The people of Montana are well served by his leadership on the Senate Finance Committee. In addition, I thank the Democratic staff on the Finance Committee, Russ Sullivan, Pat Heck and Jon Selib, for their work. At this time, I should also commend the work of my staff on the Finance Committee, Dean Zerbe for the charitable provisions and Ed McClellan for the corporate shelter legislation. In addition, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr and Diann Howland were critical in putting this bill together. It is clear that without the drive and energy of Senators Santorum and Lieberman we would not have had this success. I thank them for their efforts and their staff: Randy Brandt and Chuck Ludlam. I also thank all those behind the scenes who have toiled on the CARE Act. Roger Colvineaux, Ron Schultz, Joe Naga from the Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as Mark Mathiesen from Legislative Counsel who did all the drafting. Finally, let me note just a few of the members of the administration who ably served the President in this effort: Jim Towey, David Kuo, and Susan Brown at Treasury. Thanks to all for their efforts.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield back all of my time except for 30 seconds that I want to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, because of his hard work on this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is my intention to yield back all of my time except for 30 seconds. Welfare Benefit Plans In Relation to title VII

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of a key provision in the CARE Act, the restoration of $1.375 billion for the Social Services Block Grant Program or SSBG. As my colleagues know, SSBG is an extremely flexible grant program that states use to pay for a wide variety of social services activities. States have broad discretion over the use of these funds. In recent years, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for child protective services, children's foster care and prevention and intervention services. Additionally, SSBG funds go to provide crucial services such as respite care for the elderly, adult protective services, as well as adoption programs. In 1996, during the debate over welfare reauthorization, the Congress and the States agreed to temporarily decrease SSBG from $2.8 billion a year to $2.38 billion a year, until welfare reform was firmly established. The agreement further stipulated that SSBG would be funded at $2.38 billion per year until fiscal year 2003 when it would be restored to $2.8 billion per year. We have not lived up to our promise. Funding for SSBG has been reduced considerably. Currently this vital program is funded at $1.7 billion a year. This program is very important in my State of Iowa. There were over 119,708 children and adults benefitting from SSBG- funded services in the state of Iowa in fiscal year 2000. Iowa spent almost half of their $29 million block grant--48 percent-- on services to persons with disabilities covering both physically disabled and developmentally disabled persons. Services include adult residential care, adult day care, community-supervised living, sheltered workshops and work activities. Iowa used $982,078 in SSBG for the prevention of abuse and neglect to elderly and disabled persons compared to receiving only $55,927 from the title VII Elder Abuse under the Older Americans Act. I worked very hard to ensure that SSBG was included in the CARE Act. The reason why I felt so strongly that it be included in the bill is because I see an SSBG increase as one of the ways we can direct fiscal relief to the states. States are currently suffering under the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. I am committed to finding ways to assist the states manage this fiscal crisis. I view the inclusion of the restoration of SSBG funds as a good first step towards assisting the States make it through this current crisis. I appreciate my colleagues' hard work on this bill and look forward to its enactment into law.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act.'' This bill would clarify that the bonuses and other excessive compensation of corporate directors and wrongdoers can be brought back into a bankruptcy estate when a company goes bankrupt. It is only fair that corporate officers and employees who have engaged in wrongdoing and violated the securities and accounting laws should not be able to make money off of a company which has gone bankrupt, while company employees, shareholders and creditors are left carrying the burden of the bankruptcy. Moreover, corporate officers and insiders should not be allowed to keep their bonuses and loans when a company has done so poorly to go bankrupt. Currently, the Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to recover assets which a debtor has previously distributed to creditors within a certain time period prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. This allows a trustee to increase a debtor's assets for the fair treatment and equitable distribution of assets among all creditors, as well as to help shore up a debtor's assets during a reorganization. Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code currently allows a trustee to recover assets from an insider made within a year of the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee to recover transfers of assets, made within one year, where there has been a fraudulent transaction or where a debtor has received less than what is reasonably equivalent in value. However, the Bankruptcy Code is not clear as to whether these sections would include the bonuses and other extraordinary or excessive compensation of officers, directors or other company employees. That needs to change. The Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act clarifies section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that a trustee may recover bonuses, loans, nonqualified deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary or excessive compensation as determined by the court, made to an insider, officer or director and made within one year before the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. In addition, the bill amends section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that a trustee may recover bonuses, loans, nonqualified deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary or excessive compensation, as determined by the court, paid to an officer, director or employee who has committed securities or accounting violations, within 4 years of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The reason that the bill extends the present one year reach-back period for fraudulent transfers to four years is because a majority of States have adopted a four year time period or the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, (which allows for 4 years). The plain fact is that corporate officers and employees who have violated the law, as well as corporate officials who have not done a good job in managing a company, should not be allowed to benefit where their actions have contributed to the downfall of the company. Corporate mismanagement and irresponsibility should not be rewarded, and the bad guys need to be held accountable. The changes to the Bankruptcy Code contained in this bill are tied to excessiveness and wrongdoing and are fair. We need to do something about bringing more accountability and fairness to the system, and the Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act does that.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a few remarks on the legislation. I am sure my good colleague, Senator Baucus, has remarks as the manager for the Democratic Members. We would also like to take quick action on a managers' amendment that is in order under a unanimous consent agreement. There are a few issues that have to be cleared on the amendment. I rise to speak on the CARE Act of 2003. I will first talk generally about the charitable provisions in the bill and then talk about those provisions designed to combat corporate tax shelters. The CARE Act seeks to support that great American tradition--helping a neighbor in need. Our Nation's tradition of caring and charitable support goes back to the founding. When faced with tragedy or hardship in our communities, we have always been a people who have rolled up our sleeves to pitch in, rather than leaning on a shovel waiting for the government to show up. The charitable tradition in America has certainly been for the common good. Unfortunately, there are not many K Street lobbyists for charities and for the common good. That is why this legislation is a direct testimony to the leadership of President Bush. There is no question that but for his efforts, this legislation for the common good would not have seen the light of the Senate floor. Let me note that commentators have rushed to state that the President's efforts to strengthen America's charitable tradition has been watered down. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation goes far in meeting the President's ambitious goals for a greater role for charities in assisting those most in need. And legislation is only part of the story. The President's speeches and visits have done even more to energize the charitable sector of this country. Hardly a week goes by when I am not stopped by someone who runs a charity, or is active in a charity, and they ask me how they can get involved in the President's proposal, how they can help. Clearly, President Bush's words have been heard by America's charities and they are eager to turn his words into deeds of compassion and aid. In addition to this legislation being a tribute to President Bush's leadership, let me also note the tremendous efforts of Senators Santorum and Lieberman to bring this bill to the Senate floor. I commend them for their energy in making the CARE Act a reality. Finally, I'm pleased to have worked with Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee. This legislation continues our bipartisan efforts as to tax legislation. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues let me now highlight some of the major tax provisions of the CARE Act that encourage charitable giving. First, is the creation of a charitable deduction for nonitemizers. Given that over half of Americans do not itemize their tax return, this provision will encourage taxpayers to give to charities, regardless of income. The legislation allows for charitable deduction of up to $500 for a married couple giving over $500 per year. For an individual filing single, it is a deduction of up to $250 for a person who gives over $250 per year. For example, an individual who doesn't itemize and gives $400 to charity, could deduct $150 from their taxes. This provision was designed to encourage new giving and also limit possible abuses. Next is a major provision that will provide for tax-free distribution from Individual Retirement Arrangements, IRAs, to charities. This is a provision that is important to many major charities, particularly universities. The Finance Committee heard testimony from the President of the University of Iowa about the importance of this provision in encouraging new giving. The legislation provides that direct distributions are excluded from income at the age of 70\1/2\ and distributions to a charitable trust can be excluded after the age of 59\1/2\. We then have language that encourages donations of food inventory, book inventory and computer technology. I would note that my colleagues, Senator Lugar, and Senator Lincoln, a member of the Finance Committee, were strong advocates for the legislation involving food donation. I'm particularly pleased that this legislation will give farmers and ranchers a fairer deal when it comes to donation of food. Conservation is also a part of this bill. Efforts to conserve our land and limit development benefit our Nation as well as farmers and ranchers who work on the land. The CARE Act contains language I have long supported that will encourage conservation of land through a 25- percent reduction in the capital gains tax of the sale of undeveloped land, or conservation easements. The sale must be to a charitable organization and the land must be dedicated for conservation purposes. I am pleased that President Bush also included this proposal in his budget. The bill also encourages gifts of land for conservation purposes. This is an issue long advocated by Senator Baucus, which I am pleased to support. These are the major tax provisions that encourage charitable giving contained in this bill. I would note that I am pleased that the legislation does contain provisions requiring greater sunshine and transparency in the work of charities. It is my belief that just as we are encouraging people to write more checks, we need to ensure that those checks are being cashed for a charitable purpose. In addition, the bill authorizes a serious increase in funding for the Exempt Organizations Office at the IRS to better police the few bad apples among the nonprofits. My colleagues should also be aware that this legislation addresses the abuse of charities by terrorist organizations, making it easier to shutdown or suspend such organizations. Let me note also that this bill contains $1.4 billion in new funding for Social Services block grants, SSBG. This is a very important provision that will greatly benefit the States and, more importantly, those in need. I would note that this was a matter of great priority for me, and I am glad to see we have been able to include this funding. The provision also gives States greater flexibility in how to use the SSBG funds. My colleagues will be pleased to know that this bill is fully paid for. I turn now to discuss those provisions regarding abusive corporate tax shelters that are of great importance. We have known for many years that abusive tax shelters, which are structured to exploit unintended consequences of our complicated Federal income tax system, erode the Federal tax base and the public's confidence in the tax system. Such transactions are patently unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers who do their best to comply with the letter and spirit of the tax law. As a result, the Finance Committee has worked exceedingly hard over the past several years to develop several legislative discussion drafts for public review and comment. Thoughtful and well-considered comments on these drafts have been greatly appreciated by the staff and members of the Finance Committee. The collaborative efforts of those involved in the discussion drafts combined with the recent request for legislative assistance from the Treasury Department and IRS formed the basis for our most recent approach to dealing with abusive tax avoidance transactions. The antitax shelter provisions contained in the CARE Act encourages taxpayer disclosure of potentially abusive tax avoidance transactions. It is surprising and unfortunate that taxpayers, though required to disclose tax shelter transactions under present law, have refused to comply. The Treasury Department and IRS report that the 2001 tax filing season produced a mere 272 tax shelter return disclosures from only 99 corporate taxpayers, a fraction of transactions requiring such disclosure. Today's bill will curb non-compliance by providing clearer and more objective rules for the reporting of potential tax shelters and by providing strong penalties for anyone who refuses to comply with the revised disclosure requirements. The legislation has been carefully structured to reward those who are forthcoming with disclosure. I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks offered by a recent Treasury Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, that ``if a taxpayer is comfortable entering into a transaction, a promoter is comfortable selling it, and an advisor is comfortable blessing it, they all should be comfortable disclosing it to the IRS.'' Transparency is essential to an evaluation by the IRS and ultimately by the Congress of the United States as to whether the tax benefits generated by complex business transactions are appropriate interpretations of existing tax law. To the extent such interpretations were unintended, the bill allows Congress to amend or clarify existing tax law. To the extent such interpretations are appropriate, all taxpayers--from the largest U.S. multinational conglomerate to the smallest local feedstore owner in Iowa--will benefit when transactions are publicly sanctioned in the form of an ``angel list'' of good transactions. This legislation accomplishes both of these objectives. This year's legislation contains a new provision that would clarify the economic substance doctrine. The economic substance doctrine was created by the courts as a flexible text to determine whether a transaction is a tax scam or valid business deal. Last year, there were several court rulings that, in my view, misapplied this doctrine. These rulings now stand as legal precedent that can be used to justify abusive schemes in the future. Today's clarification is intended to overturn those rulings. If a court finds that a shelter violates our clarification, the shelter participant would be subject to a strict 40 percent penalty on any tax due. This is a very tough anti-shelter provision. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues' patience as I have reviewed the key provisions of the CARE Act. I think it is legislation that provides needed encouragement for charities and charitable giving in this country. In addition, it takes real steps toward addressing corporate tax shelters. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Baucus for the compliments he gave me. More importantly, it emphasizes, as I have tried to indicate, the great cooperation I have had from him. Legislation such as this has some controversial provisions in it, and you don't get a piece of legislation such as this to the floor without the bipartisan cooperation that has been exhibited. I thank him for that. Amendment No. 526 (Purpose: To provide a Managers' amendment) Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. This is what is referred to as the managers' amendment.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have already complimented Senator Santorum and Senator Lieberman for their joint work on most of the provisions of this legislation. I am happy to have Senator Santorum, who is also a member of the Senate Finance Committee, manage a bill that he has been central to getting those provisions into law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session and proceed to the consideration of S. 476, the CARE Act, as provided under the previous order.

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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the McCain amendment. I assume that is in order.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support funding for the construction of the Ames, IA, animal health facilities laboratory. That is the National Animal Disease Laboratory--a national facility, not an Iowa facility--in Ames, IA. I heard my colleagues question the relevance of this provision. I am here now to explain to all my colleagues the importance of this facility to America's national security. In the event of an animal disease outbreak, this facility in Iowa will play a very crucial role. Whether the issue is bioterrorism or a new or emerging disease, this facility will be centrally involved. Modernization of this facility that was built three or four decades ago is a paramount priority to ensure America's agricultural biosecurity and the safeguard of our food supply. Both the Department of Agriculture in Washington, as well as this Congress, have recognized the importance of moving forward with this modernization project as quickly as possible. I quote from a May 2001 report which was issued by the Secretary of Agriculture: The Agricultural Research Service and Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service partnership in Ames represents an unmatched team of scientific and response personnel providing expertise and skill to address known and emerging domestic animal disease threats. Our current national threat level demonstrates that we need to be aware of our environment and prepared for realistic threats. Animal disease is a realistic threat to all Americans because it affects our food safety and supply. Even without bioterrorism, we know what mad cow disease, for instance, has done to agriculture and to the people of England, as one example; and that carried over to Europe a year later and it has recently scared the consumers of Japan. That is not even bioterrorism; that is just a natural course of animal disease and, in fact, how that in turn impacts upon whether humans live. The Ames lab is very important as we talk about the safety of our food. This lab is the best large research and diagnostic facility in the United States. Unfortunately, after all these decades, it is obsolete. It does not even meet international standards. Nearly every other livestock trading nation has superior facilities. They understand the importance of effective and expedient diagnostic competency. The Ames lab is a surveillance hub for animal disease in the United States. It is the closest thing we have for agriculture and livestock health to human health with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA. Doesn't it seem unbelievable that the Ames facility does not have the electrical capacity to handle new computers necessary to update the facility, let alone a complex array of essential electronic diagnostic equipment? This is more than an embarrassment for our Government. It is a national security risk. We have worked through many different scenarios to improve this facility. We have evaluated leaving the current facility in place and renovating the existing facility to bring it in to the 21st century. We found in the interest of the taxpayers that the most cost-effective method to bring this facility up to speed is to start over from the ground up. Let me be clear. This $98 million is not full funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture master plan. This amendment only affords us the opportunity to build the laboratory. The laboratory is clearly critical for research, diagnosis, and prevention of all animal disease threats. We cannot afford to delay construction. We need to be prepared, and this is the only way to reach an optimum level of security. Remember, we have already appropriated some money for other aspects of this renovation, and this still will not complete the renovation of the animal disease laboratory to what is planned by the Department of Agriculture. The fact is, the Ames laboratory is the cornerstone of the planned National Animal Health Laboratory Network. The Ames facility is a fundamental element required to protect American agriculture and to improve food safety. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment to delete but instead vote for continuing the process that is already in place, that has expended tens of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money in partial renovation. To move one step closer toward that renovation for the safety of our food supply means to vote against the McCain amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Dividend Allocation Rule, DAR, is the result of several old court cases and subsequent IRS interpretation that applies only to cooperatives which are corporations. When a non cooperative corporation pays a dividend to its shareholder the corporation pays tax on the dividend issued and the shareholder pays a tax on the dividend received, so they pay two levels of taxation. In fact, under the President's dividend exclusion proposal as presented to the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States makes a compelling argument that being taxed twice is inherently unfair and it would be good for the Nation's economy that only one level of tax should be paid by the corporation and that the shareholder would receive the dividend tax free. Well--if two levels of taxation on corporations and their shareholders is unfair and adverse to the creation of capital and the economy--how would you like to try to operate as a fiscally sound business entity if you had to figure out every day how you were going to generate enough cash flow to pay THREE levels of taxation. Current law requires corporate cooperatives to treat income from their member-owners, patrons, separate from income of their non-members money. Contributions and earnings used by the cooperative to operate is typically called retained patronage. The member, unlike a shareholder, has to pay income tax on that amount even if the Cooperative retains the money for operation expenses. Then, because of the IRS' rules, when the Cooperative returns money to its non-members it loses its corporate deduction which in turn reduces the return of earnings that the patron has already paid taxes on--the result is a triple layer of tax. This rule is inherently unfair to our corporate cooperatives. Now is the time to finally correct this injustice. The Congress passed this bill in 106th Congress, but it was subsequently vetoed by the President. It was a part of a bill I sponsored the ``Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen, TERFF, Act'' in the 107th, and now it is time for the Senate to pass it again in the 108th. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I am proud to join with my Ranking Member Max Baucus to introduce the bill to repeal the Dividend Allocation Rule. We have been joined by many of our farm States' Senators in a truly bipartisan effort to correct this financial injustice. The time to act is now and this bi-partisan legislation will eliminate the adverse tax problem and will help rejuvenate over 100 of our farmer cooperative networks in Iowa and nearly 3000 of our cooperatives across the America.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Dividend Allocation Rule, DAR, is the result of several old court cases and subsequent IRS interpretation that applies only to cooperatives which are corporations. When a non cooperative corporation pays a dividend to its shareholder the corporation pays tax on the dividend issued and the shareholder pays a tax on the dividend received, so they pay two levels of taxation. In fact, under the President's dividend exclusion proposal as presented to the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States makes a compelling argument that being taxed twice is inherently unfair and it would be good for the Nation's economy that only one level of tax should be paid by the corporation and that the shareholder would receive the dividend tax free. Well--if two levels of taxation on corporations and their shareholders is unfair and adverse to the creation of capital and the economy--how would you like to try to operate as a fiscally sound business entity if you had to figure out every day how you were going to generate enough cash flow to pay THREE levels of taxation. Current law requires corporate cooperatives to treat income from their member-owners, patrons, separate from income of their non-members money. Contributions and earnings used by the cooperative to operate is typically called retained patronage. The member, unlike a shareholder, has to pay income tax on that amount even if the Cooperative retains the money for operation expenses. Then, because of the IRS' rules, when the Cooperative returns money to its non-members it loses its corporate deduction which in turn reduces the return of earnings that the patron has already paid taxes on--the result is a triple layer of tax. This rule is inherently unfair to our corporate cooperatives. Now is the time to finally correct this injustice. The Congress passed this bill in 106th Congress, but it was subsequently vetoed by the President. It was a part of a bill I sponsored the ``Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen, TERFF, Act'' in the 107th, and now it is time for the Senate to pass it again in the 108th. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I am proud to join with my Ranking Member Max Baucus to introduce the bill to repeal the Dividend Allocation Rule. We have been joined by many of our farm States' Senators in a truly bipartisan effort to correct this financial injustice. The time to act is now and this bi-partisan legislation will eliminate the adverse tax problem and will help rejuvenate over 100 of our farmer cooperative networks in Iowa and nearly 3000 of our cooperatives across the America.