Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Then we are done. Let's move on to the next amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is another one of those amendments. It has just a little change from what we voted on last night. This delegates to the Secretary of the Treasury the setting of tax rates. I think this very much is an affront to the constitutional requirement that all revenue measures shall originate in the House. Senator Nelson's amendment strikes at the heart of the principal jurisdiction over taxation held by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Every year, for 10 years, he delegates the top marginal income tax rate to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine. This amendment sacrifices the American taxpayer for the convenience of the State treasuries. I urge defeat of the amendment. I have a point of order I want to raise. The amendment is not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation measure. That point of order is, as you have heard so many times: I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Nevada has said. I hope, too, that we will be able to expedite each of these many rollcalls that we will have this evening.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, an unlimited family business deduction sounds good, but what does it really mean? Really in the end, nothing. It totally guts the estate tax reform. It postpones rate decreases. It postpones meaningful unified credit increases until the year 2011. The RELIEF Act gives American taxpayers $3 million by the year 2006 and Senator Dorgan does not. The RELIEF Act is simple. Under our bill, there are no requirements, no long-term obligations to the IRS. I ask you to give real relief now and do that by defeating this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge the defeat of this amendment. We have hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers who deserve immediate tax relief and they are being cast aside if this amendment is adopted. For instance, the unified credit would only be $2 million in the year 2010, whereas our bipartisan RELIEF Act raises the unified credit to $4 million per person. Remember, that is $8 million per family, no strings attached. You don't need to have a family farm or a family business. The RELIEF Act makes it simple. There is no long-term lien. It is simple. The death tax stays at 60 percent under this amendment. There is no repeal, no help at all. I urge the defeat of this amendment. Also, the marginal rate tax cuts are scaled back. Finally, even though the Senator talks about infrastructure, this amendment spends not one penny on infrastructure.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for Mr. Jeffords, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 707 be withdrawn.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has very well described what his amendment does, and that description in itself gives the reasons why we should be against it. No. 1, it would deny the death tax relief this bill provides with a credit up to $4 million to help the estates from paying the estate tax. This will also be a massive tax increase compared to the bill before us because it eliminates all relief in marginal rates except for the 10-percent rate. And also it would eliminate the entire estate tax amendments we have. Also, I believe this amendment is not germane, and I raise the point of germaneness on a reconciliation measure because it does not comply with section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch's amendment No. 697 and Senator Kerry's amendment No. 701 be withdrawn. We are working on those in other ways, so that Members understand.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, May 21, 2001, at 5:45 p.m., in executive session to consider certain pending nominations.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last year's Loan Deficiency Payments, LDPs, were made available to producers for crops grown on farms not covered by Production Flexibility Contract, PFC, under the 1996 farm bill. In Iowa there are 6200 farms that do not participate in the farm program. Non-participating farms are classified as farms not enrolled in 1996 at the beginning of the program, or farms that changed hands during the farm bill that were not properly re-enrolled. The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, which we passed into law last year, furnished LDP's to farmers who produced a 2000 crop contract commodity on a farm not covered by a PFC. Senator Nelson and I are offering legislation to extend this one-year opportunity for producers. Our legislation provides an extension of this opportunity that will run for the remainder of the 1996 farm bill. Not all of the 6200 non-participating farms will choose to use and benefit from an LDP, but for the family farmers in Iowa who are not in the program, guaranteeing close to $1.78 on corn and $5.26 on soybeans is significant assistance. With the record low prices Iowa producers have experienced recently, I think that the Federal Government should do everything it can to keep producers on the farm. This by no means solves all their problems, but it helps and it's something we should have done for these individuals on a permanent basis when we provided a one-year opportunity for participation in the LDP program last year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last year's Loan Deficiency Payments, LDPs, were made available to producers for crops grown on farms not covered by Production Flexibility Contract, PFC, under the 1996 farm bill. In Iowa there are 6200 farms that do not participate in the farm program. Non-participating farms are classified as farms not enrolled in 1996 at the beginning of the program, or farms that changed hands during the farm bill that were not properly re-enrolled. The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, which we passed into law last year, furnished LDP's to farmers who produced a 2000 crop contract commodity on a farm not covered by a PFC. Senator Nelson and I are offering legislation to extend this one-year opportunity for producers. Our legislation provides an extension of this opportunity that will run for the remainder of the 1996 farm bill. Not all of the 6200 non-participating farms will choose to use and benefit from an LDP, but for the family farmers in Iowa who are not in the program, guaranteeing close to $1.78 on corn and $5.26 on soybeans is significant assistance. With the record low prices Iowa producers have experienced recently, I think that the Federal Government should do everything it can to keep producers on the farm. This by no means solves all their problems, but it helps and it's something we should have done for these individuals on a permanent basis when we provided a one-year opportunity for participation in the LDP program last year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a recently released study from Duke University found that older Americans are enjoying a more vigorous old age. Fewer people over the age of 65 require nursing home care and more are living on their own, with little or no outside help. The image of a ``senior citizen'' is dramatically different than it was just a generation ago. Since 1963, the month of May has helped the Nation focus on the contributions and achievements of America's older citizens. Older Americans Month honors the leadership of older persons in our families, workplaces and communities. One of these leaders is an 81-year-old woman from Reinbeck. Doris Casey is a champion for Iowa's older citizens. Through her initiative, concern, and commitment, she has touched the lives of seniors in Reinbeck and throughout northern Iowa. When the Casey's moved to Reinbeck in 1967, the family planned to stay for only six weeks. As a way to get to know neighbors and make friends, Mrs. Casey began volunteering at the local nursing home once a week and played cards with the residents. Thirty-four years later, Mrs. Casey still lives in Reinbeck. She worked at that nursing home for 17 years and has become a treasured resource in the community for her knowledge and action on senior-related issues. Mrs. Casey has been a member of the Grundy County Commission on Aging for 28 years. She played a key role in starting the county's congregate meal program sixteen years ago. Although the program has since changed to home- delivered meals, Mrs. Casey is still involved. She does the books, takes orders and solicits deliverers. In addition, Mrs. Casey helps coordinate a community meal for approximately 40 seniors in Reinbeck each month. For the last 27 years, Mrs. Casey has been an active volunteer with the Hawkeye Valley Area Agency on Aging and until recently was a member of their board of directors. The staff at Hawkeye Valley call her a godsend. She volunteers in the administrative office, helps with special projects and answers the hotline for those alleging Medicare fraud and abuse under Operation Restore Trust. Mrs. Casey works hard to ensure that seniors in her community have the latest information on issues affecting their lives. She is a monthly presenter at the county nutrition site and writes a weekly column for her local paper. She provides assistance to those applying for Medicaid and low-income heating assistance, and she serves on the State's consumer Medicare committee. People know that if Mrs. Casey doesn't have the answer on a particular senior issue, she will likely know the person who does. Last but certainly not least, Mrs. Casey is a caregiver. When her late husband, John, was suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, she served as his full-time caregiver. Mrs. Casey is currently a guardian for a senior with a disability. And, she still visits the local nursing home to share devotions with the residents a few times a year. Mrs. Casey carries out each of these activities with joy, determination and humility. Even a recent hip surgery won't keep her from carrying on with her duties. Her contributions to the community are many, yet she describes the rewards as all hers. In one month, Mrs. Casey will turn 82. Happy early birthday, Mrs. Casey. Thank you for your compassion for the people of Reinbeck and the people of Iowa. Your commitment and concern for others is an example to us all that we should contribute to the lives of those around us, no matter what our age.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in March I held a hearing on the growing threat of Ecstasy use in America. For a long time we've been hearing that the Ecstasy problem is coming. Well, it's arrived. We heard some disturbing news at this hearing. We heard first-hand testimony from two former users how this ``feel-good'' drug ruined their lives and almost killed them. It's clear to me that this drug is destroying families and lives. Ecstasy, like all drug use, is a serious challenge facing our country. Ecstasy is a synthetic stimulant. It is called a club drug because it is most commonly used at parties and all-night dance clubs called raves. Its use by youth to enhance the experience of the music and the dancing in clubs, has become very popular. Because it is marketed in clubs, most users are young, as well as most sellers. At the hearing in March, the White House released the latest Pulse Check report that outlined the recent trends in Ecstasy use. This report confirmed that most users are children and young adults. These drugs are clearly targeted at youths. Ecstasy is found primarily in pill form and manufacturers put cartoons and flashy corporate logos on the pills to make them more appealing. Ecstasy use is spreading around the country and is affecting all areas. The Pulse Check report shows that both rural and urban areas are experiencing an Ecstasy explosion. In fact, 18 of the 20 cities in the report labeled Ecstasy as an emerging drug. This isn't the drug of the big city anymore, it is now in hometown America. As the demand is increasing, the availability of Ecstasy is increasing too. The report shows that widespread usage and availability increased dramatically over the past year. Ninety percent of all drug treatment and law enforcement experts say that Ecstasy is readily accessible. If we continue to allow easy access to this drug at clubs and in schools, then this problem will just get worse. One of the greatest dangers of Ecstasy is how it is used. The report stated that Ecstasy is losing its purity and is now commonly adulterated with other, even more dangerous drugs, such as heroin and amphetamines. Users usually don't know the level of the drug they are taking and will overdose easily. And at parties and dances, Ecstasy is most often taken with several other drugs, most commonly alcohol, but also LSD, marijuana, and cocaine. This deadly cocktail of drugs is making ambulances at clubs an all too common sight. These ambulances, that are now shuttling more unconscious youth than ever before from nightclubs to hospital emergency rooms, are often private ambulances that are hired by the nightclubs themselves. They wait outside the clubs until someone overdoses from the use of Ecstasy, thus bypasing 911 and the attention of the police. My outrage with this practice is heightened by the low level of care and lack of advanced life support that these ambulance crews provide at such dangerous moments. Many youth are not safely making it to hospital emergency rooms. The situation is becoming an emergency. We need to make it clear to today's youth that this drug is very dangerous and that using it carries heavy consequences. This drug rips apart families and ruins lives at a very young age. Many youth start using this drug before they are old enough to fully grasp the results of their actions. We need to educate our youth and crack down on sellers to combat the increasing availability of this drug. We cannot let this attack on our Nation's youth go unchecked.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment delays the tax cuts until a certain level of funding for education is met. Everybody knows that education is a top priority of this Congress, as well as of President Bush. Hopefully, we will finish a major education reform bill this week in the Senate. This tax bill contains over $30 billion of education tax incentives. There is no reason to delay other tax relief to accomplish something outside the jurisdiction of this bill. I believe there is a germaneness issue here, so I ask the pending amendment be found not to be germane to the provisions of the reconciliation measure. I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 684

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, speaking for myself and Senator Baucus, we urge the entire Senate to vote for this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 723

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the provisions of a reconciliation measure. I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, first of all, we all appreciate the Senator's concern about defense because he is very much an authority in that area. I am confident, however, that the budget resolution we passed has provided adequate funding for defense. This amendment would undo all of our efforts to provide significant cuts at all marginal rates. Besides, we have $500 billion in the contingency fund that we will be able to use to draw on if additional money for defense is needed. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, most of those paying the top marginal rate are small business owners and farmers operating their businesses as sole proprietorships or S-corporations. A study recently released by the Treasury shows that under the President's proposal--this is the President's proposal but still germane--77 percent of the money going to cut the top 39.6-percent rate would go to small business owners. These small business owners make up 63 percent of the tax returns that would benefit from reducing the top rate. Small business owners are, of course, the engine of growth that runs our economy. These are the people who plow their tax money and their tax relief right back into their businesses, increasing wages, hiring more workers. The number of small businesses that could benefit from a cut in the top rate, for instance, in the State of Arizona, is around 267,000 small businesses. I seriously question how much we really gain by attacking these small businesses with high rates. Another twist is, for those of you who are interested in disabled children and kids with special needs, there are special needs trusts. These trusts for the disabled can be easily subject to taxation at the top rate of 39.6 percent. I urge Members to vote down the amendment.