Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act - Continued

JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT-CONTINUED

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALEXANDER). The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Is our situation such that we are on the JOBS bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We have a very important vote tomorrow. That vote is cloture to stop an effort to bring nongermane issues into and stall this bill.
I spoke this morning, spending a great deal of time explaining how the JOBS bill is a fully bipartisan bill built from the ground up in a bipartisan manner. We cannot get anything through the Senate that is not bipartisan. We can get a lot of things through the House of Representatives that are partisan but not through the Senate.
Now we are facing an attempt to defeat this bipartisan measure by injecting politically charged amendments into the JOBS bill regarding an issue that is not even dealt with in this bill. Somebody wants to write a law.
Why does the other side insist on amending this important bill for a matter that is not even the subject of this legislation? We need to focus on what is in this bill and what will be killed if we do not get cloture approval tomorrow.
We know the only way this bill can pass is by a "yes" vote tomorrow on stopping debate and moving to finality. But will the Democrats say no to cloture? Will they go on record opposing the provisions that are in this bill-very important provisions for creating jobs in America, preserving jobs in manufacturing, answers to concerns that the people of this body have expressed about outsourcing, about not enough manufacturing jobs being created?
If you look at this bill, you will find, then, that there is very important provisions for creating jobs that the other side is preparing to kill, so, in a sense, their vote tomorrow will be a vote contrary to what they have been complaining about for a long period of time about this recovery not providing enough jobs, and particularly about jobs going overseas.
This bill will prevent that. I do not understand why people would not vote to move a bill along that is going to solve a lot of the problems about our not creating enough jobs in manufacturing. If this bill does not move along, actually the situation is going to get worse, and we are going to lose jobs that we presently have in manufacturing.
So why would they be prepared to kill this bill? This bill will end $4 billion a year of tariffs put on U.S. exports by Europe. Those tariffs are already being imposed against U.S. exports of grain, timber, paper, and manufactured goods. We can end those tariffs now at 5 percent, growing 1 percent a month into the future. We can end them with this bill. But will the Democrats say no?
A vote against the JOBS bill is a vote in favor of that 5-percent tariff going up 1 percent a month into the future. And that goes up very fast, making our business, our American manufacturing uncompetitive.
The Congressional Budget Office says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since the manufacturing downturn started 6 months before President Bush became President. This bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our manufacturing sector to promote rehiring in U.S.-based manufacturing. But will the Democrats say no?
The Democrats claim they are worried about the scope of the proposed overtime regulations. The regulations are not even final yet. But how can you worry about overtime if you do not have a job in the first place? Shouldn't we first worry about creating manufacturing jobs and take care of overtime on another bill instead of slowing this one up? Or will the Democrats say no?
[Page S2983]
The money from the FSC/ETI repeal gives a 3-percentage point tax rate cut on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States. It is not for manufacturing done offshore. We start this tax relief immediately.
This manufacturing rate cut relief applies to sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, even foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in the United States to manufacture here with American workers. This should keep the Government out of their pockets while they try to recover from the economic downturn. That is what this bill is all about: helping these manufacturing companies recover from the economic downturn. Now, will the Democrats say no to the opportunity to help American manufacturing?
This bill includes international tax reforms, most of which benefit American manufacturing, to keep it competitive in the global marketplace.
This bill also includes the Homeland Reinvestment Act, which has broad support in both the House and the Senate. It has both Republican and Democrat sponsors. But will the Democrats say no?
This bill extends the research and development tax credit through the end of 2005, something very necessary to keep our industry ahead of the curve, building for the next product, building for the next service, particularly in the technical areas. This is a domestic tax benefit that incentivizes research and development, translating into good, high-paying jobs for workers here in America, not across the ocean. But will the Democrats say no tomorrow on the cloture vote?
In addition, there are several additional provisions that are important to this bill. Senators BUNNING and STABENOW sought to accelerate the manufacturing deduction. This ensures that the tax relief and related economic benefits of the bill are provided more quickly to those hurt by the repeal of FSC/ETI.
The bill extends, for 2 years, tax provisions that expired in 2003, last year. Some of them already expired. Some of them are expiring this year. They need to be included because those incentives are very important to the prosperity of companies that rely upon these tax incentives. This would include items such as the work opportunity tax credit, helping young people, helping low-income people to get jobs, to get job training. It helps to move people from welfare to work because we have tax credits that do that.
Why would any Democrat vote against the extension of the welfare-to-work tax credits, moving people out of welfare, where they are assured a life of poverty, into the mainstream of America, the world of work where you have a chance to move up the economic ladder? Over here, in welfare, you never have a chance to move up. We have tax credits to help. Will the Democrats say no to these tax credits to help low-income people get into the world of work, to move above, to improve themselves, to get out of poverty?
There is a provision also in this bill on net operating losses that will accelerate tax relief to companies that need it to continue operations and recover from recent difficulties. The reason for doing that is they have some tax credits. They do not have income to write it off against. This gives them some benefit helping them to enhance their recovery.
We have enhanced depreciation provisions to help the ailing airline industry, the manufacture of airplanes-Boeing, in my State where avionics are made for airplanes, Rockwell Collins-because you cannot, under existing depreciation laws, get something into completion by this deadline because it takes so long to build an airplane. This will extend provisions that were meant to help industry a year ago if they got long timelines to get something finished.
There are new homestead provisions. This provides special assistance for businesses in counties that are losing population. This is rural economic development, providing incentives for newly constructed rural investment buildings, for starting or expanding a rural business in a rural high-outmigration county. Will the Democrats say no to that rural economic development?
This bill includes brownfields revitalization. The bill waives taxes for tax-exempt investors who invest in the cleanup and remediation of qualified brownfields sites. Will the Democrats say no to helping clean up the environment? Would that vote comport with the rhetoric you hear on the environment from the other side of the aisle?
Mortgage revenue bonds: This proposal would repeal the current rule that mortgage revenue bond payments received after the bond has been outstanding for 10 years must be used to pay off the bond, rather than issue new mortgages.
There are 70 Senate cosponsors to this bill. Would the Democrats justify voting no on cloture to kill a provision that 70 of their colleagues support?
We allow deductions for private mortgage insurance for people struggling to afford a home. Anyone planning to vote no on this one? Would they vote no on allowing the cost of mortgage insurance to be written off as one writes off interest on a mortgage? That is helping a lot of young people to get a home that they would not otherwise be able to afford. I know home ownership is the highest it has been in the history of our country. Maybe they are saying: We have enough Americans owning homes. Why help some other people this way? It is in this bill. If they vote no tomorrow, they are voting against helping those homeowners with their mortgage insurance costs.
This bill includes a tax credit to employers for wages paid to reservists who have been called to active duty. Would Democrats say no to the guardsmen and reservists who are defending our country, helping us win this war, by voting no tomorrow?
We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone bonds for rebuilding New York City. The two Senators from New York have talked to me about them. Are they going to vote no tomorrow and say no to the Liberty Zone bonds helping New York City at a time when Ground Zero begs for help? Will they tie up funding for the Liberty Zone in order to prove a political point for a Labor Department overtime regulation that has not yet been finalized? If it had been finalized, there is an opportunity for an expedited procedure for congressional veto of those very same regulations they don't want. This is not the last train out of the station. There are other opportunities to fight these battles and probably in a more appropriate way than a nongermane amendment on legislation that ought to pass, that is going to preserve and create jobs in manufacturing. Where are the priorities of the other side of the aisle?
We also have in this bill increased industrial development bond levels to spur economic development. We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure. We have included tribal bonds which apply the same rules to Native American tribes issuing tax exempt bonds to finance facilities on a Native American reservation that apply to tax exempt bonds that we allow State and local governments to use. Are Senators of the other party going to vote against the Native American Indian provisions of this bill?
We have a tribal new markets tax credit. This amendment would add $50 million annually in the new markets tax credit dedicated to community development entities serving Native American reservations, if there is a poverty rate of over 40 percent. Are they going to say no to helping those needy Americans?
We have included a Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act so when people have been harmed in violation of their civil rights, they can go to court and get justice. Do you know what happens when they get justice? We have some people paying income tax on what they pay their lawyers so when it is all said and done, a big settlement, sometimes the people who have been harmed get nothing because of the unfair taxation of that award. Are the Democrats going to say no to those people who have had their civil rights violated? They can't get justice in court. That doesn't sound like the other party, does it?
Is it worth killing off these important priorities over a regulatory issue that has already been voted on by the Senate? How many times do we have to express our view on something?
[Page S2984]
We also have in this bill a special dividends allocation rule that benefits agricultural cooperatives. We have other farm provisions that help cattlemen receive tax free treatment if they replace livestock with other farm property where there has been drought, flood, or other weather-related conditions within 2 years from the date the livestock has been sold. Last year we heard a lot from the other side of the aisle about not helping the farmers who have been hurt by drought. Here is an opportunity to help some people through tax problems they have as a result of something beyond the control of the family farmer. Are they not going to give those farmers an opportunity to have help?
We have a provision that allows payment under the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program to be exempt from tax. Every Senator here has rural America in their State. We are always saying there is not adequate health delivery services in some parts of our country in rural America. We set up the National Health Service Corps to provide services there. They still have a hard time getting adequate service, but we have provisions in here for additional incentives for people to serve rural America. I hear from my colleagues that we have to do something about health care in rural America. We have an opportunity tomorrow in this legislation to do something about it. Will the Democrats vote no tomorrow?
We have a proposal to allow the itemized deduction for unreimbursed vehicle use for rural letter carriers. Why does that come before us? Because every time you drive a quarter of a mile and you stop at a rural mailbox to leave mail, and then go on to the next farmer's box to leave mail, that vehicle has higher costs than if it was going down the road 60 miles an hour and never stopping. The Tax Code ought to reflect a little bit different business deduction for that automobile as opposed to a business vehicle that doesn't stop at every mailbox.
We have provisions in this bill to enhance broadband expensing provisions. We always hear from the other side that the quality of life in rural America can never be equal to that of cities if they don't have the same IT access. This gives that IT access. I hear Members of the other side of the aisle talk to me about broadband tax credits. We have an opportunity to do that now. Are they going to say no to what they have been asking me to do for the last 2 or 3 years?
We provide real infrastructure tax credits, the so-called short-line credits. This bill provides $500 million over 3 years in Federal tax credits to States for intercity passenger rail capital projects. Eligible intercity passenger rail projects include planning, track rehabilitation, upgrade, development and relocation, security and safety projects, passenger equipment acquisition, station improvement, intermodal facilities development, and environmental review and impact mitigation.
States may transfer credits directly to short-line and regional railroads. They are going to say no to that?
Finally-here is something for the New York Senators-the proposal makes $100 million in tax credits available to New York to be used on rail infrastructure projects in the New York Liberty Zone.
Will the Democrats say no? Will they vote against cloture tomorrow and thereby kill these measures? Will they do this over a proposed regulation which, as Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions just explained, is being misrepresented and used as a political scare tactic?
All of these benefits are being held hostage because the other side is pushing a politically motivated vote on an issue that is not even in this bill.
The leadership on the other side doesn't really want to debate the substance of this bill. Sometimes I get that feeling. They would prefer to turn this bipartisan bill into a political football.
This is inexcusable because we have worked very hard throughout this process to make sure everyone's concerns, both Republican and Democrat, were incorporated into this bill. I related all of those. There is no reason this bill should not get almost unanimous support. In fact, it was voted out of committee 19 to 2. Now we have opposition from the other side. I don't understand.
Anyone who votes against cloture tomorrow is effectively voting against all of the items I just listed. This should not happen on a bill that is meant to create jobs in America, with an emphasis upon manufacturing jobs.
Several weeks ago, there was an article in the Washington Post quoting a Democratic tax aide-unidentified-saying, "There's not a lot of incentives for us to figure out this problem."
The Democratic aide went on to say that allowing the extraterritorial income controversy to fester would yield increased sanctions-increased tariffs-on American products going to Europe, which would benefit the Democrats in November.
That is a very appalling statement. I don't think that staff of either party are paid to think in terms of politics. They ought to be paid to think in terms of policy and, in the end, if they think about policy, they have good politics.
Efforts to delay this bipartisan bill with unrelated measures is a poor excuse. So let's get on with the business at hand and finish this bill. Vote on cloture tomorrow, approve cloture, have finality on the bill, and when we do all that, we are going to put a jobs creation bill ahead of partisan politics, put these important benefits I just listed ahead of some concern that we have about an administrative regulation that hasn't even been issued yet. Let's stop playing politics and put the Senate back to work and move the JOBS bill forward.
I yield the floor.