CARE Act of 2003 (Continued)

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 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. 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. 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.