Senate Proceeding on Sep 26th, 2008 :: 0:53:59 to 1:23:59
Total video length: 4 hours 44 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:782 Duration: 0:30:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:22:19 to 0:53:59( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Tom Harkin

0:53:52 to 0:53:59( Edit History Discussion )

Tom Harkin: all about isaving economic policy and tax policy being part of it, that will advance the opportunities for the next generation so that we continue down the american trend of each generation succeeding,

0:53:59 to 0:54:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: living better than the generation of mom and dad. so starting in the third week of july, i've come to the floor to compare the tax plans of senator mccain and senator obama. they are, as everybody

0:53:59 to 1:23:59( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley
Bill: S. 2544 Unemployment Extension Act

0:54:12 to 0:54:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: knows, our two presidential candidates. during this series of visits with my colleagues i've talked about the relationship between party control and the likelihood of tax hikes or tax cuts and i use this

0:54:24 to 0:54:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: -- cuts. and i used this famous thermometer chart. i don't know if it's famous, but i think it is a pretty good indicator of some things i just stated. that there is a big difference between tax

0:54:39 to 0:54:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: policy that comes out of a congress where the congress and the president are of the same political party, different tax policy comes out when the house and senate may be of one party and the president

0:54:49 to 0:54:59( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of another party. but you can see up there that when you have a -- a democrat president and a democrat congress at the top there, you can see that you have less tax cuts and in some instances tax

0:54:59 to 0:55:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: increases. when you have a republican president and a democratic congress, you still have tax increases, but somewhat less than when the democratic president and democratic congress are the same political

0:55:11 to 0:55:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: party. then you go down to the third from the top and you see a democrat president, a republican congress, you still have tax increases, but not -- or you have tax decreases, but not as much as if you

0:55:22 to 0:55:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: go down to the next line where you when a republican president, a democratic congress, moreax decreases, but not as much as if you look at the last line -- or the intersection line, unhave a republican

0:55:34 to 0:55:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: president, a democrat senate, and a republican congress, you get more tax cuts but you really get job creating tax cuts and economy growth tax cuts when you have a republican president and a republican

0:55:47 to 0:56:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: congress. so i would like to have you think in terms of the thermometer as you look at the -- at the debate going on in this campaign for presidency for the next term at president. then later on i talked

0:56:01 to 0:56:09( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: about the -- in another bit of remarks, in july, i talked about the 1992 campaign promise of a middle income -- middle tax -- a middle-class tax cut. and then the 1993 tax legislation that instead

0:56:09 to 0:56:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of having middle-class tax cuts, we had in the words of senator moynihan, the chairman of the finance committee then, a world tax increase. i used this chart that depicts 16 years of rip van winkle

0:56:17 to 0:56:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to remind people that if rip van winkle woke up between the 1992 campaign of a middle-class tax cut that was promised before that november 3rd, 1992 election, and then the tax legislation of 1993,

0:56:25 to 0:56:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in the words of senator moynihan, the chairman of the committee at that time, ended up going from the middle-class tax cut promise of 1992 campaign a few months later to the largest tax increase

0:56:33 to 0:56:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in the history of the country. just so that you have the history of rhetoric and campaigns what -- how they might turn out in the -- after a president is sworn in. in our first week back after the

0:56:46 to 0:56:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: summer break, i discussed the effects of the proposed 17% to 33% increases in the top two tax rates. and that's not my policy. that's not my making something up. that's basically what one of the candidates,

0:56:57 to 0:57:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: senator obama, had said that he's going to do if elected president. then i also spoke during that speech of those 17% to 33% increases in the top two rates being very negative to the growth of small

0:57:10 to 0:57:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: business activity and then in the end the -- the detriment that that does to job creation because small business creates most new jobs. and then you heard me last week discuss the impact of senator

0:57:23 to 0:57:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: mccain's and senator obama's tax plans on our senior citizens of america. today i would like to focus on the fiscal impact of both tax plans. it's particularly timely considering the treasury's recent

0:57:36 to 0:57:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: activity and proposals to resolve the problems in our nation's financial sector. needless to say, from the fiscal policy standpoint, we are sailing into unchartered waters. i'm sure everyone realizes that

0:57:49 to 0:58:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: there's always -- always a large gap between what a presidential candidate promises and what they candidate is able to deliver on if elected. and -- but we still need to carefully examine the plan

0:58:01 to 0:58:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that both of my colleagues are putting forth during this election season. while neither plan is likely to be enacted exactly as laid out in this campaign, we can evaluate how realistic those plans

0:58:14 to 0:58:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: are and also gain some insight into the candidates' vision of the tax code. for a long time now i've been saying that we should stop calling the tax relief enacted in the 2001 and 2003 bills as the

0:58:22 to 0:58:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: bush tax cuts. and call it the bipartisan tax relief that it has been because both bills, especially the 2001 bill, were passed with democratic support and congress's -- in congresses where the republican

0:58:37 to 0:58:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: majority was very narrow. but i think my colleagues of the other party enjoy referring to it as the bush tax cut because they would like to put all blame on the president, and that's quite easy to

0:58:47 to 0:59:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: do when a president's popularity isn't so great. but, in fact, that's intellectually dishonest, because the bush tax cuts, if they've been enacted the way he campaigned and the way he proposed them,

0:59:03 to 0:59:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: would have been another $350 billion to $400 billion more than what senator baucus and i in a bipartisan way worked out. because we thought it was more responsible and we could still do the economicood

0:59:15 to 0:59:34( Edit History Discussion )

at a lower level of tax breaks. so we -- it should be the bipartisan tax bill that it is and not denigrated by a bush -- the bush name on it because it was a lot different than what president bush proposed

0:59:34 to 0:59:43( Edit History Discussion )

to congress. now, in the case of the 2003 tax relief bill, republicans passed it due to vice president cheney's tie-breaking vote. so maybe you don't want to speak to that so much as a bipartisan bill. but

0:59:43 to 0:59:58( Edit History Discussion )

it was the first version of it going through senate as i recall was bipartisan. so the implication that president bush or republicans were able to impose this legislation by themselves is ridiculous.

0:59:58 to 1:00:10( Edit History Discussion )

the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax relief bills became law only with the support of members of both political parties. in the confirmation of what i have been saying in that 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills

1:00:10 to 1:00:25( Edit History Discussion )

that they were both bipartisan, we find that both major campaigns have adopted what is essentially the meat and potatoes of both bills. to illustrate how both campaigns have adopted significant parts

1:00:25 to 1:00:41( Edit History Discussion )

of the 2001 and 2000 tax relief package, i present this chart and it's taken not by a partisan group, by a -- but by a tax policy center. this shows the fiscal impact of how both plans would change

1:00:41 to 1:00:54( Edit History Discussion )

current law. as you can see, the tax policy center shows that senator mccain's plan to prevent widespread tax increases would lose revenue of .4 -- -- $2 trillion. you can see that as a red line there. senator

1:00:54 to 1:01:07( Edit History Discussion )

obama's plan which would include some widespread tax increases would contribute to the deficit. the tax policy says that that number for the obama plan would be 2.9 trillion. and -- $2.9 trillion.

1:01:07 to 1:01:18( Edit History Discussion )

and, remember, the congressional budget office looks ahead 10 years. we have 10-year figures. i have another chart. the chart assumes current law levels of tax relief in effect and then compares senator

1:01:18 to 1:01:27( Edit History Discussion )

mccain and senator obama's plan. the tax policy center also produced the data that i'm using in this charmt this chart shows -- champlet this chart shows that senator mccain's plan would raise $600 billion

1:01:27 to 1:01:37( Edit History Discussion )

less than current tax policy. and senator obama's tax plan would raise $600 billion more than current tax policy. now, i respect the veteran analysis that is done by the tax policy center personnel.

1:01:37 to 1:01:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: they have worked hard to develop a lot of data for policymakers, like those of us in this senate for our use. if, however, we were processing legislation, it would have to be scored by the nonpartisan

1:01:51 to 1:02:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: joint committee on taxation. not by the tax policy center. so the tax policy center data is helpful, but we must note that the joint tax will be the decisive score -- score keeper of any legislation

1:02:01 to 1:02:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that either candidate would propose in their budgets after they're sworn in. the tax policy center has acknowledged that both candidates' plans lack detail. necessarily then the amals -- analysis by the

1:02:13 to 1:02:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: tax policy center are qualified and need to be. there is a key caveat in these totals, both plans assume revenue-raising offsets that lack specificity to be scored. senator obama has specified about

1:02:25 to 1:02:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: $100 billion in defined revenue-raising proposals. that is close to the most aggressive accounting of revenue raisers in the congressional inventory. i'm going to refer to a snapshot of the revenue raisers

1:02:36 to 1:02:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of the house, ways, and means committee that that committee has developed. it is in what i've referred to as a revenue-rsing well chart. and this is a chart that is modified from time to time, but

1:02:46 to 1:03:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i've been using it on the floor of the senate for well over a year. as this chart shows, roughly $90 billion in revenue-raising offsets have been defined, scored, and approved by the house, ways, and

1:03:04 to 1:03:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: means committee. that figure is considerably higher than revenue raisers approved by the senate finance committee. some of these offsets will be used in legislation that we hope to pass shortly.

1:03:19 to 1:03:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: this well chart gives us a rough snapshot of what is available. in other words, it is to bring some realism to what is politically accomplishable within the house, within the senate, or between the

1:03:32 to 1:03:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: two. this chart gives us that rough snapshot. let's then give the candidates the benefit of the doubt. and round that up to that that $90 billion -- from $90 billion to $100 billion. let's look at the

1:03:43 to 1:03:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: record of the tax writing committees over the last few years. if you look at that history, you will find that the committee generates about $1 billion per month. that's about, you know, you can add

1:03:58 to 1:04:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it up, $12 billion per year. so let's gross up the defined revenue raisers then to $220 billn. now, if you take that conservative number of of $220 billion, how d o the plans of the two candidates for

1:04:12 to 1:04:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: president stack up? senator obama's tax plan contains $920 billion in unspecified, unverified tax increases. if we net that number against the $220 billion, that looks a little more realistic, we

1:04:25 to 1:04:38( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: find that senator obama's plan is short on specified revenue raisers by $700 billion. to be even handed, senator mccain is carrying $360 billion in unspecified revenue raisers. and if we net that

1:04:38 to 1:04:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: number against the known revenue raise number of $220 billion, we find that senator mccain's plan is short of revenue raisers by $145 billion. so let's take a step back just for a moment. it means that

1:04:53 to 1:05:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the deficit impact of senator mccain's plan is understated by about $145 billion. it means that the deficit impact of senator obama's plan is understated by $700 billion. as against the current tax

1:05:02 to 1:05:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: policy baseline, it means the plans aren't as far apart as they might appear. so let's go back to the current policy baseline. this is the tax policy center's chart that i referred to two times already.

1:05:14 to 1:05:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it means that we need to raise senator mccain's deficit impact number from 5.3 trillion to $5.45 trillion. likewise, we need to raise senator obama's deficit impact numbers from $3.9 trillion up tow

1:05:24 to 1:05:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: $4.6 trillion. keep in mind that the current policy baseline shows a revenue loss of $4.7 trillion. that's what the ranking republican on the ways and means committee, call the reality baseline. in recent

1:05:40 to 1:05:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: weeks senator obama has indicated he might revisit the marginal rate increases and increases in tax rates on dividends and capital gains after the election, and i hope he will because his tax plan

1:05:53 to 1:06:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: will stop growth in our economy. and it's very bad when you have a recession. he said he might reconsider them in light of an economy that might be in recession. so the deficit impact of senator obama's

1:06:03 to 1:06:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: plan might be further understated. now, if the candidates were just proposing tax changes, the deficit impact of their numbers would end with these figures that i presented on tse various charts. that

1:06:16 to 1:06:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: would assume neither candidate would be doing anything on the spending side. there is no congressional budget office estimate of the two candidates' spending plans. a nonpartisan think tank, the national

1:06:31 to 1:06:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: taxpayers union foundation has performed analyses and estimates of the two candidates plans. and i would use this chart that i don't think i've shown this chart to the senators before. you find a comparative

1:06:43 to 1:06:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: analysis -- you can also find a comparative analysis at the national taxpayers union web site. let's take a look at senator mccain's plan first. the national taxpayers union, a nonpartisan public policy

1:06:55 to 1:07:06( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: research organization, n.t.u. says that senator mccain's plan would include new spending of $68.5 billion per year. you can find the document, again, on n.t.u.'s web site. senator mccain has made it

1:07:06 to 1:07:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: clear that he wants to cut spending. that's consistent with his career in the senate. he's been a spending cutter. sometimes he's found to be a very lonely fight. and senator mccain, despite fighting

1:07:17 to 1:07:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: wasteful spending, has too often lost. sometimes i disagreed with his definition of wasteful spending, and obviously other times agreed with him. but one thing is clear, senator mccain pushes spending

1:07:32 to 1:07:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: cuts. and any honest nonpartisan observer could not quarrel with that point. senator mccain's overall economic plan continues his principle of cutting spending and keeping taxes low. senator obama's

1:07:41 to 1:07:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: plan on spending is completely different. the national taxpayers union counted up 158 new federal spending programs, a conservative estimate of those programs came to $344.6 billion per year. we're

1:07:53 to 1:08:08( Edit History Discussion )

talking then, for emphasis, that obama would spend $344.6 billion per year. and you can look that up also on the n.t.u. web site. if my friends on the other side, what they feel is a better estimate

1:08:08 to 1:08:21( Edit History Discussion )

of senator mccain on the one hand, and senator obama, on the other hand, of their new spending plans, i'd be glad to take a look at it. but when you look at the n.t.u. analysis, you can see that senator

1:08:21 to 1:08:31( Edit History Discussion )

obama's spending plans would amount to $276 billion more per year, conservatively speaking, it means that if elected a president obama's tax and spending plans, if enacted, would exceed president mccain's

1:08:31 to 1:08:48( Edit History Discussion )

plan and deficit impact before the end of the first term. something has to give. senator mccain has been willing to put spending cuts on the table. it's been a hallmark of his congressional career.

1:08:48 to 1:09:00( Edit History Discussion )

he'd have to find a way to get the congress to follow, because that's not congress's inclination to do a lot of spending. it would probably be his greatest challenge. but we know that he's in the fight to

1:09:00 to 1:09:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: restrain spending. as a country we cannot endure a deficit impact as large as what we projected as senator obama's tax plan on the one hand and add to it a spending plan on the other hand. where

1:09:10 to 1:09:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: will senator obama adjust his plan if elected? will he abandon the tax cuts that he's promised? will he enlurch the tkpwraoufp americans he's targeted for tax -- the group of americans he's targeted for

1:09:20 to 1:09:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: tax increases? will he abandon his ambitious spending plans? will he cut spending? i think you need to think of the history of past campaigns of what can happen to spending or tax policy enunciated

1:09:30 to 1:09:48( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in a campaign but not carried out after that president is elected, as evidenced by president clinton in 1993 passing the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. and those are senator moynihan's

1:09:48 to 1:09:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: words. contrary to the middle-class tax cuts that he promised during the campaign. i hope senator obama's not up to that same game, but voters ought to be alerted to. ought to be alerted to make sure

1:09:58 to 1:10:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that senator mccain is saying things that if he's president, you've got that to measure about. we need to keep candidates intellectually honest, not to promise too much on the campaign trail. when they

1:10:14 to 1:10:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: get sworn in, they don't have so many promises to keep. but we should expect presidents to keep promises. more importantly, a president mccain or a president obama is likely to be dealing with expanded

1:10:26 to 1:10:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: democratic majorities on capitol hill, and that gets me back to my tax increase thermometer and what it has told us over the past 20 years, that with a unified democratic government, taxes are likely

1:10:39 to 1:10:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to go up, as evidenced by the top of the thermometer, at the highest level of tax increases you get that when you have a party and a president that's both under democratic control, as evidenced by

1:10:50 to 1:11:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the 20-year history. spending is not likely to go down, because whether republicans are in control of congress or democrats, the inclination of congress is not to cut spending. that's not right,

1:11:04 to 1:11:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: but that's a fact of life. and a president who wants to veto bills is a damper on that. in closing, i'd like to review the issues that i've raised today very quickly. many folks are asking about the

1:11:20 to 1:11:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: fiscal impact of the tax plans proposed by senator mccain and senator obama. the tax policy center has produced data looking at proposals against current law. both candidates implicitly acknowledge current

1:11:34 to 1:11:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: law is not a realistic measure. with that noted, the tax policy center has examined the proposals against more realistic baseline current tax policy. if unspecified revenue raisers are deducted

1:11:47 to 1:11:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: from both plans, the deficit impact of both plans grow. likewise, we find the gap in deficit impact between the two of each candidate's plan. senator obama's plan outspent senator mccain's plan by over

1:11:58 to 1:12:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: 500% when senators mccain and obama's plan combined, senator obama's plan adds more to the deficit. in this troubled time the federal government has stepped into the breach of the financial sector meltdown.

1:12:13 to 1:12:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: all the more reason we need to closely scrutinize the tax and spending policies of our colleagues, senator mccain and obama. i -- mr. president, out of respect for my colleagues, i had more to say, but it was

1:12:24 to 1:12:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in a little different version, so i'm going to give up the floor. but is anybody on the record to speak after she's done? could i -- the presiding officer: there is no unanimous csent request. the

1:12:37 to 1:12:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: senator from iowa has one minute remaining. also i would notify the you -- notify you. you have one minute remaining. mr. grassley: how much time i did have left? the presiding officer: you have one

1:12:46 to 1:12:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: minute remaining. mr. grassley: i would ask to have the floor for five minutes after senator -- the senator from michigan. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. ms. stabenow: mr. president?

1:12:55 to 1:13:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak both in support today of what i consider to be the people's benefit, the

1:13:04 to 1:13:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: people's bailout that we have in front of us, the job stimulus that we're going to be voting on shortly to invest in jobs in michigan and all across the country and why we need to be doing that. why

1:13:14 to 1:13:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: we need the president to finally support us in doing that and why we need to have bipartisan support to do that. but, first, i want to share with you, mr. president, some of what the people in michigan

1:13:26 to 1:13:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: are feeling right now about what is going on. i mean we in michigan have known for a long time that things were not going well. that the fundamentals of the economy were not strong. we have known for

1:13:37 to 1:13:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a long time. i have been sounding the bell. other colleagues of mine here in the majority have been sounding the bell. we have been forward solutions in the last 18 months holding investigative hearings,

1:13:47 to 1:14:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: proposing strategies to address the housing market and what needs to be done for jobs in the future. and all we have heard from the other side of the aisle from this president has been the fundamentals

1:14:02 to 1:14:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of the economy are strong. and now all of a sudden they come to us and say we are at the edge of a cliff. well, unfortunately, mr. president, i believe we are. contrary to all of the information

1:14:12 to 1:14:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: or misinformation that was given to us in leading up to the war in iraq where after listening very carefully and intently, i did not believe what was being said about the crisis or sense of urgency

1:14:27 to 1:14:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and voted no. in this case where we are hearing from people around the country, i'm hearing from people around michigan in terms of what is happening, the inability to get credit, to be able to start

1:14:42 to 1:14:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a business, what's happening in terms of potentially more job loss, i think this is, in fact, a crisis. but what is outrageous to me is that this is not an accident. this is as crisis that haseen brought

1:14:57 to 1:15:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: forward because of a failed philosophy and a failed set of policies that have got us to this point. and people in michigan are mad about it and i'm mad about it. i'm mad that the position that -- i'm mad

1:15:07 to 1:15:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: at the position that we now find ourselves. in because, in fact, if people can't get a car loan, my auto dealers aren't going to be able to stay in business. my autoworkers aren't going to be able

1:15:19 to 1:15:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to build those great automobiles. i know this is serious if, in fact, folks can't get a college loan, that impacts the families that i represent. if they can't get a line of credit, if somebody

1:15:32 to 1:15:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: takes an early out at one of our auto companies and decide to set up their own small business and they can't get credit, they can't get a line of credit to get that business, they're in trouble. my

1:15:46 to 1:15:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: communities are in trouble. what is an outrage is what has gotten us to this point and the fact that when families in michigan have not only been on the edge of the cliff, but falling off the cliff,

1:15:57 to 1:16:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: thousands of them a month, losing jobs, losing homes, can't get the health care they need for their family, squeezed on all sides. we haven't been able to get the support from this administration

1:16:08 to 1:16:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: or the bipartisan support that we have needed to be able to help the families that fall off the cliff every day. so the people in michigan are mad. and i don't blame them. because i'm mad too. we

1:16:17 to 1:16:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: have had a failed set of fill ross physical that have got -- philosophies that have gotten us to this point. and while we know now or i believe that, unfortunately, we do have to do something because the people

1:16:29 to 1:16:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in this my state -- in my state are ultimately going to see their jobs gone if we don't. i also believe it is incredibly important that we investigate and that demonstrate that we know what happened,

1:16:39 to 1:16:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the policies that failed, and that we'ren the going to let it happen again. and i believe, frankly, there is only one way to do that, and that is by changing the philosophy, changing the white house

1:16:52 to 1:17:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in this country. but let's look at where we are. massive deregulation, mr. president. and i know from the great state of ohio, you faced the very same concerns that i do. massive deregulation. let's not

1:17:04 to 1:17:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: watch what's going on. no accountability. tax breaks for the wealthiest americans while middle-class people -- middle class people lose their job and then step back and let greed role. let greed reign

1:17:14 to 1:17:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: with no accountability. that's what has gotten us to this point. people can try to mask it over in a thousand different ways. but the facts are the facts. this philosophy, the republican philosophy

1:17:25 to 1:17:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of deregulation, coupled with more concern about tax cuts for the wealthy than what's happening to our country in terms of debt or investment has gotten us to where we are. and the reality is that

1:17:33 to 1:17:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the american people, one more time, are in a situation where they're going to pay for it if we act and they're going to pay for it if we don't act. and so we have to sort through what is the most responsible

1:17:42 to 1:17:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: way to proceed when we know that american families are counting on us to get it right. you know, i received an e-mail from my brother last night, a small business man in michigan, working hard every

1:17:53 to 1:18:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: day. he raised two great daughters. one's in college, one's out. understands what it's like to try to pay the bills. he sent me an e-mail from a friend of his that's been going around. and this will

1:18:03 to 1:18:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: give you an idea of what people in michigan feel about all of this stuff. just with a.i.g alone, what was done in terms of the bailout for a.i.g, $85 billion. my brother, hen's friend -- len's friend,

1:18:13 to 1:18:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: sent an e-mail that said if you figured out if you looked at every american 18 years of age or older and divided that money up, and then you took minus taxes, because everybody in america is playing

1:18:24 to 1:18:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: by the rules, is stepping up and paying their taxes, and what would you end up for every american 18 years of age or older just for that one company, company, $297,500. $293,500 for just that one

1:18:58 to 1:19:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: company or for a husband an wife, $595,000. what could a family do with with $595,000? could they buy a house? could they start a business? could they make sure that their kids can go to school

1:19:02 to 1:19:06( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and come out without a bunch of debt? maybe it's just as simple as making sure you can make the gas payment and the heating payment and put food on the table and know you don't have to go to sleep

1:19:06 to 1:19:09( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: at night and say, please, god, don't let the kids get sick. now, we know that financial markets are complicated and it's not that easy. mr. president, i wish it was that easy, because i would be

1:19:09 to 1:19:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: happy to do that. i wish it was that ease equipment we know that it's not -- easy. we know that it's no. we know what has been built because of deregulation, lack of oversight. people don't know who

1:19:14 to 1:19:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: hodes the mortgage and chances are lots of different folks have it somewhere and you can't figure out how to negotiate to be able to keep your home. but we know it's complicated. and we also know

1:19:17 to 1:19:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that reality is and the -- in the american marketplace that if credit is not available, then businesses can't keep the perils going, -- pairrolls going which is where the rubber meets the road, which

1:19:21 to 1:19:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: is what i care about and you care about, mr. president. so this is serious. this is serious, and we do need to fix in a responsible way. but you know what? we also need to express the outrage that

1:19:26 to 1:19:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: people feel about getting us to this point. we have seen 605,000 people and counting since january alone lose their jobs. a lot of them in my state of michigan where we've got 8-point 9% unemployment

1:19:30 to 1:19:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and -- 8.9% unemployment an counting. 605,000 people since january, and i have been on the floor, i can't even count how many times, talking about the fact that we need to focus on good-paying jobs

1:19:33 to 1:19:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in this country. and for those who lost their jobs, we need to extend unemployment competence so they can -- compensation, so they can pay the mortgage while finding another job. the economic stimulus

1:19:37 to 1:19:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: plan put forward by senator harry reid and senator byrd and the democrats extends than you employment compensation, and it is absolutely critical. but, you know what, it is even worse than that. because

1:19:42 to 1:19:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: we have had eight years -- eight years of not paying attention to middle-class families. and in manufacturing alone in the great state of michigan, in the great state of ohio, people who not only make

1:19:46 to 1:19:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: automobiles, but appliances, and furniture, and all of the things that keep the economy running have been overlooked. we've lost 3.5 million jobs. in fact, that number is going up, i think, even as

1:19:50 to 1:19:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: we had this chart, i think i saw a new number that said 3.8 million. this number keeps going up and up since this failed strategy started in 2001. so, mr. president, you know, we all understand we're at

1:19:53 to 1:19:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the edge of a cliff. but we've got a lot of people who have fallen off already and are saying, what about me? what about my family? what are you going to do about my family? don't i count anymore

1:19:57 to 1:20:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in this country? is it only the wealthy people who count? is it only the people on wall street who count? what about me? and what about my family? and that leads me, mr. president, to the economic

1:20:01 to 1:20:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: stimulus plan that has been put before us. because this is our downpayment as the democratic majority and i am so hopeful it is going to be bipartisan. i'm so hopeful. because this is a downpayment on the

1:20:05 to 1:20:09( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: fiscal relief, the help that the american people need. now, it's about 8% of the bailout of the fiscal crisis situation that we're being asked to deal with. about 8% of the $700 billion is what we're

1:20:09 to 1:20:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: asking for in this amount. and, if i might receive unanimous consent, for an additional two minutes. i realize that you have the gavel -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow:

1:20:13 to 1:20:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: thank you very much. mr. president, what we have in front ofs is the ability to come together. i have see people of goodwill, i see our leader on finance, our ranking member, and we work together

1:20:17 to 1:20:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: on things all the time. i'm hopeful that we're going to come together on this one. but we have in front of us the ability to create jobs with this package. overall the cost of it is only 8% of what we're

1:20:22 to 1:20:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: being asked to do to deal with the overall financial crisis. it's not clear whether or not it's going to work, what we're being asked to do in a broader sense. but i'll tell you what, this will work.

1:20:28 to 1:20:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: this will extend unemployment compensation. it will invest and i want to thank our leadership for taking my recommendation on advanced battery technology research, which is part of how we get to the

1:20:31 to 1:20:35( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: advanced vehicles to invest $300 llion so that we can claim that technology so it's not being made overseas. jobs and rebuilding america are in this plan. it's only 8% of what we're being asked

1:20:35 to 1:20:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to do to be able to deal with the crisis in the financial markets. i know that that's real. i know it is. i know that we have to deal with a responsible plan. but, frankly, mr. president, this -- this

1:20:40 to 1:20:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: is about making sure we deal with the crisis and the lives of families every day and it's the least we can do. we need a responsible plan for the broader crisis. no golden parachutes for c.e.o.'s. we need

1:20:44 to 1:20:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to help homeowners. we need to have accountability. and, frankly, we need to investigate and find out exactly what happened and who's responsible and hold them accountable. but the american people are

1:20:49 to 1:20:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: watching to see if we're going to also pay attention to what is happening, the crisis in their lives. and this stimulus package that we have in front of us right now is a first step to doing that

1:20:54 to 1:20:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to say we hear you. we get it. it matters what happens in people's lives. and i hope we're going to support. it thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired.

1:20:58 to 1:21:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. the senator from -- the senior senator from oklahoma is recognized. a senator: thank you, mr. president. it's

1:21:02 to 1:21:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: my understanding that the senator from iowa deferred for the -- in order to finish up his speech in a very short periodf time. i ask unanimous consent that he finish and i be employinged for not

1:21:07 to 1:21:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: more -- and i be recognized for not more than 10 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa has 10 minutes, the senator from oklahoma 10 and theenator from washington. is there objection? without

1:21:11 to 1:21:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: objection, the senior senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: there's a provision in the bill that we passed tuesday on taxes with only two dissenting votes that hasn't been discussed much.

1:21:15 to 1:21:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and i would like to refer to that provision. it is a modification of the alternative minimum tax credit allowance against incentive stock options, so the important words are incentive stock options.

1:21:20 to 1:21:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: because of how stock options are treated by the a.m.t., the economic downturn in 2000 created a situation where many individuals owed tack on in-- tax on income that they never realized. because they

1:21:23 to 1:21:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: owed tax on the value of their stock options when they were exercised and not what the value of the stock when the shares were sold. many people owed tax that were several times their actual income. congress

1:21:27 to 1:21:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: acted to remedy this situation through past legislation, but -- passed legislation, but that did not completely solve the problem. many families are facing liabilities owed now despite the fact that

1:21:32 to 1:21:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: those liabilities would be offset by credits in the future. this means that i.r.s. was and could in the future be working to seize assets like family homes to satisfy present tax liabilities that

1:21:36 to 1:21:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: would be eliminated in the next few years under current law. one iowa family caught in this a.m.t. tra is the ste -- spelpz family. they found themselves in the crosshairs of the i.r.s. after ron

1:21:40 to 1:21:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: purchased several shares of stock from his employer. unanimous consent that an editorial printed in "the des moines register," december 24, 2006, that describes their family ordeal be printed in the record.

1:21:43 to 1:21:48( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: despite the previous stock option alternative of the minute tax enacted earlier, the i.r.s. is still after the speltz family. this

1:21:48 to 1:21:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: past june, ron and june traveled -- received a notice from the i.r.s. announcing their intent to levy certain assets. after stating that the i.r.s. intends to levy any state an tax refunds, it continues.

1:21:51 to 1:21:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: -- quote -- "we be searching other assets that we may levy." end of quote. i think that anybody would be terrified to receive something like this in the mail when the outstanding liability derived from

1:21:55 to 1:21:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the income never actually realized and congress has already decided that it shouldn't happen. and on july 1, i sent a letter -- in july, i should say, i sent a letter with 27 of my colleagues in the senate

1:21:58 to 1:22:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and the house to the i.r.s. commissioner asking that he use the discretion provided to him by effective tax administration to suspend collection efforts to collect incentive stock options, alternative

1:22:03 to 1:22:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: minimum tax liabilities in order to give us a chance to fix this problem once and for all. the commissioner gave us that chance by agreeing that the i.r.s. would not undertake any collection enforcement

1:22:07 to 1:22:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: action through the end of the fiscal year. well, that end of fiscal year is next tuesday. if the house does not stop playing politics with the taxpayers and instead passes a senate extenders package

1:22:11 to 1:22:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that we passed here with only two dissenting votes, the commissioner promises in his letter that -- quote -- "the i.r.s. will then continue to administer programs in accordance with current law." that means

1:22:15 to 1:22:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that probably a lot of other people spread around iowa and california and other places where high tech was the big thing in the 1990's, their assets needlessly will be seized from them if we do not fix

1:22:19 to 1:22:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: this. this is not a political issue either. the original legislation to fix this problem was introduced in the senate by senator kerry and in the house by congressman chris van holland. both bills were

1:22:22 to 1:22:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: cosponsored by members of both parties. even the national taxpayers advocate in her fiscal year 2009 objectives report agreed that this problem demanded immediate action. commissioner shulman has given

1:22:26 to 1:23:06( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: us the window that we need to prevent additional taxpayers from being crushed in the grip of the incentive stock option a.m.t. liability. any delay in enacting the senate-passed legislation is to aid and

1:23:07 to 1:23:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: abet the seizures of the speltz family assets and those of many other families. according to the latest small business administration reports issued in december 2007, all net new private-sector jobs

1:23:10 to 1:23:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in 2006 were created by small business. according to the national federation of nonpartisan business, almost half of those -- federation of independent business, almost half of those businesses are owned

1:23:14 to 1:23:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: by taxpayers that are targeted with a marginal rate increase of 17% to 33%. since these small businesses are likely to create or retain new jobs, maybe we could get a bipartisan agreement not to

1:23:18 to 1:23:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: raise their taxes on small business. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senior senator from oklahoma is recognized for ten phupl. mr. inhofe: thank you -- for

1:23:22 to 1:23:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: ten minutes. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. first of all, discussion here is on the serious problem this country is facing. while i took a position against the administration's program, i

1:23:26 to 1:23:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: know they're behind closed doors with the leadership on both sides, both houses trying to come up with something that is workable. i would suggest that what we're going to vote on scheduled for 11:30,

1:23:30 to 1:23:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: which i think will be a little later than that, does not have the solution. one of the things i want to make sure everyone knows that's in this vote is the lifting of the -- or extending the moratorium

1:23:34 to 1:23:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: on oil shales. the consolidated appropriations act of 2007 established a one-year moratorium on the necessary funding to complete the final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shales on public land.

1:23:39 to 1:23:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: now, without congressional action, the moratorium would expire. the stimulus bill that we'll be voting on shortly after 11:30 would continue this moratorium for another year. now, this is serious.

1:23:42 to 1:23:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the senate has debated energy legislation for weeks, and the extension of this moratorium does nothingo address increasing domestic energy supply. the potential energy development from the rocky mountain

1:23:46 to 1:23:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: oil shales is truly massive. the green river formation located within colorado, wyoming, and utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. of this 6 trillion, rand corporation estimates 1.1

1:23:50 to 1:23:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: trillion of recoverable barrels. that equals more than 2,000 years worth of imports from saudi arabia or 145 years of domestic supply at current rates of oil consumption. these numbers would nearly

1:23:55 to 1:23:59( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: double assuming to the department of energy's estimate of nearly 2 trillion potentially recoverable barrels. so it's a huge that i think we're talking about now. the rand corporation projects that

1:23:59 to 1:24:03( Edit History Discussion )

Debbie Stabenow: within the first 12 years of commercial production, these barrels would be recoverable at prices as low as $35 to $48 per barrel. you see, there are problems out there. we've been arguing on the

1:23:59 to 1:39:04( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Debbie Stabenow