Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Jan 31st, 2008 :: 3:45:14 to 4:16:44
Total video length: 4 hours 35 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:130 Duration: 0:31:30 Discussion

Previous speech:

Patty Murray

3:29:36 to 3:45:14( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Patty Murray

Patty Murray

3:45:01 to 3:45:14( Edit History Discussion )

Patty Murray: badly need. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.~ the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i would like to speak on a stimulus package but

Chuck Grassley

3:45:14 to 3:45:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: before i give a gentle overview of the stimulus package, i'd like to say something about one of the several mistakes or oversights that's in the house bill. and i'm not meaning to imply that these

Chuck Grassley

3:45:14 to 4:16:44( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

3:45:32 to 3:45:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: were known as over oversights at the time, but one of them stands out so strong that you wonder whether or not the house is consistent in its a approach to the issue of illegal aliens. and i'll speak

Chuck Grassley

3:45:47 to 3:46:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: from the standpoint of my experience with the children's health insurance bill. you may be familiar with the phrase "where you stand depends upon where you sit." nothing better illustrates that point

Chuck Grassley

3:46:02 to 3:46:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: than this debate and the issue of rebates for illegal immigrants. we're told that we must pass the house bill and that changes are unnecessary. in other words, somehow you a assume that the house

Chuck Grassley

3:46:17 to 3:46:35( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of representatives passed a perfect bill and all we ought to do is rubber stamp it. i disagree. i think the house bill makes it too easy in several areas but too easy in the area of illegal immigrants

Chuck Grassley

3:46:35 to 3:46:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to get rebate checks. according to numbers u.s.a., the house bill could allow as many as 3 million illegal immigrants to earn rebate checks. the house minority leader's spokesman was quoted in the

Chuck Grassley

3:46:53 to 3:47:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: press as saying -- quote -- " "there is no language in the measure that would enable illegal immigrants to receive a tax rebate." -- end of quote. mr. president, there is no language whatsoever in

Chuck Grassley

3:47:11 to 3:47:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the house bill that would prevent an illegal immigrant from receiving one of these tax rebate checks. my colleagues on the other side of the rotunda should be quite familiar with this line of reasoning

Chuck Grassley

3:47:28 to 3:47:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: because they devote ed countless times on the house floor last fall trying to convince people that, because the schip bill didn't split italy prevent states from covering children up to 400% of poverty,

Chuck Grassley

3:47:46 to 3:48:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it must mean that states can cover kids up to 400% of poverty. the same folks who want us to believe that the house bill is just fine said that we hadn't done enough to prevent illegal immigrants from

Chuck Grassley

3:48:00 to 3:48:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: receiving benefits in schip even though the schip bill had this very language, and i want to quote that very language. "nothing in this act allows federal payment for individuals who are not legal

Chuck Grassley

3:48:19 to 3:48:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: residents. titles 11, 19, 21 of the social security act provide for the dis disallowance of federal financial participation for erroneous expenditures under medicaid and under schip, respectively."

Chuck Grassley

3:48:36 to 3:48:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: end of quote. that was in our bill nasd that passed the senate last year. it's amaze ing how the standard has change ed. the same people who said the language i just read wouldn't good enough when

Chuck Grassley

3:48:46 to 3:49:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: -- wasn't good enough wteletext hen we took up the children's health insurance program are now saying no long whatsoever is fine. the simple fact

Chuck Grassley

3:49:04 to 3:49:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of the matter is that the house bill allows illegal immigrants to get rebate checks, plain and simple. it is important for us to fix that, and i believe we will before the bill leaves the senate. we

Chuck Grassley

3:49:21 to 3:49:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: should not give rebate checks to people in this country who have come to this country illegally. and we should not give the house an opportunity -- and we should give the house of representatives

Chuck Grassley

3:49:37 to 3:49:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: an opportunity to fix this huge mistake that's in this bill they sent to us. and i can't imagine why anyone on the house side would complain about our doing that after all the uprising we had last

Chuck Grassley

3:49:54 to 3:50:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: fall about the senate even considering the language i read, didn do enough to prevent people here illegally, meaning illegal immigrants, from getting children's health insurance program. my recent experience

Chuck Grassley

3:50:10 to 3:50:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: negotiating with the house on the issue of illegal immigrants and public benefits taught me that certain folks seem to care quite a lot about that issue except somehow it was an oversight in this

Chuck Grassley

3:50:25 to 3:50:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: tax bill, this rebate bill. i'll quote from the debate on the schip bill in the house of representatives october 25 last year. and i won't actually quote the members by name. you can find it in the

Chuck Grassley

3:50:40 to 3:50:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: "congressional record" if you really want to know who says it. doesn't matter who says it. it was an overwhelming opinion of people in that other body, particularly republicans in that other body. one

Chuck Grassley

3:50:54 to 3:51:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: member alleged that the schip bill tried -- quote -- "to give benefits to illegal immigrants while we stale have still have americans unserved." he went on to say, quote, "this is not right, this is

Chuck Grassley

3:51:19 to 3:51:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: not fair, this is not democratic." suppose i put in there in place of "benefits" paraphrase it this way -- the same quote: "to give tax rebates to illegal immigrants while we still don't have enough

Chuck Grassley

3:51:41 to 3:51:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: money to serve all americans is wrong. it's not democratic." well, let's go on. if it wasn't right there in the schip bill, it surely isn't right here in this tax bill. it's also not fair. we should

Chuck Grassley

3:51:55 to 3:52:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: not leave some americans unserved when it comes to rebates, like seniors and disabled veterans, as they did in the house of representatives, while we're going to let illegal immigrants get checks -- rebate

Chuck Grassley

3:52:15 to 3:52:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: checks. well, i want another quote for you. this one is also from the day -- same day, october 25. quote -- "i n't think our constituents want us to vote for a bill that makes it ease yr for illegal immigrants

Chuck Grassley

3:52:32 to 3:52:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to get tax- tax-free health care" -- and that tax-paid health care was the schip bill. so if that was the case, then i would think that member of the house would not want to make it easier for illegal

Chuck Grassley

3:52:50 to 3:53:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: immigrants to get rebate tax-paid checks. finally, here's a quote from september 25, dunn month before one month before, in the other body. a member to use ed to chair one of the committees of jurisdiction

Chuck Grassley

3:53:04 to 3:53:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: over there. quote -- "what that means is that they want illegal residents of the united states of america to get these benefits. this is what the objection means means. so for the reason -- for

Chuck Grassley

3:53:21 to 3:53:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that reason alone, i would ask that we vote against this bill." end of quote. for that reason alone, he said, regardless of what else is good about the bill, including the language the senate put

Chuck Grassley

3:53:41 to 3:54:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in, which was meant not to give children's health insurance program money to illegal aliens, it still wasn't enough. and yet now let that tax rebate bill come over from that very same body and let

Chuck Grassley

3:54:04 to 3:54:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: illegal immigrants get rebate checks. so i say, for that reason alone is a reason for this body to defy people in this body that say we shouldn't have change ed the senate bill one iota. to my

Chuck Grassley

3:54:15 to 3:54:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: colleagues on the house side, the shoe is now on the other foot. the same principle that applied then should apply now. if you felt strongly enough to stop the children's health insurance bill over

Chuck Grassley

3:54:29 to 3:54:48( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: your concerns about illegal immigrant immigrants receiving public benefits, then you certainly should not object to the senate repairing a bill you sent us that would allow illegal immigrants to get a

Chuck Grassley

3:54:48 to 3:55:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: rebate check check. you cared about it then. you should care about it now. you said it wasn't right then. well, it's not right now. you said it wasn't fair then well, it's not fair now. the senate

Chuck Grassley

3:55:02 to 3:55:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: will fix it. it was a mistake the senate will fix. but let's get back to some history about the purpose of the united states senate. for anybody who thinks that a bill ought to come over here from

Chuck Grassley

3:55:15 to 3:55:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the other body without fair consideration by this body -- and i've used this example before, and i don't know whether george washington actually said this or not, but its a been in the history books for

Chuck Grassley

3:55:30 to 3:55:48( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: soights a fact as far as i'm concerned. but he was trying to demonstrate to people then about the new constitution and the purpose of the house and the purpose of the senate, and he had a cup of coffee

Chuck Grassley

3:55:48 to 3:56:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: on a sauce . and the cup with the coffee in it or the cup was the house and the sauce er was the senate. and the coffee in the cup -- the hot coffee in the cup was a piece of legislation, i assume.

Chuck Grassley

3:56:01 to 3:56:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and so what he did to explain the difference between the house and senate. this is the house of representatives writing a bill. then he poured out the hot coffee in the sauce er, as -- i don't know

Chuck Grassley

3:56:12 to 3:56:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: whether you'dkn do this anymore or not. i don't do it, but i've seen it demonsate ed, that you can pour it out to cool to drink it because it's so hot, so you don't burn your tongue. and he explained

Chuck Grassley

3:56:34 to 3:56:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that the senate senate's role was to give real deep consideration, to let the pressure that comes upon a body that's elected for a two-year peri of time, a body that might be more responsible to

Chuck Grassley

3:56:51 to 3:57:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the transient will of the majority, that that transigent transient will of the majority needed to have a body, kind of rethink things, maybe verify that what the house did was absolutely right, maybe

Chuck Grassley

3:57:10 to 3:57:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: verify that everything they did was absolutely wrong, or that a few changes might be made. and then, after that, the senate passes the bill and it goes on its merry way to the president of t united

Chuck Grassley

3:57:27 to 3:57:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: states. but i believe that people that i've heard from lately, including, i guess, even our own president of the united states, say that somehow the senate ought to just automatically take what the house of representatives

Chuck Grassley

3:57:43 to 3:58:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: did and forget all about the historical purposes of the united states senate. and be on our way. with these mistakes in it that a person who is illegally in this country could get a rebate check when i

Chuck Grassley

3:58:03 to 3:58:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: doubt if we're taking care of the needs of all the people that can help us revital revitalize this economy through rebate checks and through en enhanced investment. madam president, i also came to

Chuck Grassley

3:58:13 to 3:58:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the floor of the snaft to discuss this bill -- of the senate to discuss this bill generally. i want to start out by thanking chairman baucus for his courtesy courtesy, hard work and patience in this

Chuck Grassley

3:58:25 to 3:58:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: legislative effort. as we have in the past, we want to process -- weemented to process the economi -- we wanted to process the economic stimulus issue through the committee. that prostate ed -- started

Chuck Grassley

3:58:42 to 3:58:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: short shortly after this session of congress opened. we talked substance and process. we had discussions with the administration, especially secretary paulson. we had discussions with our leaders. we had two

Chuck Grassley

3:58:57 to 3:59:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: private meetings and took input from our committee members. we had two hearings on economic stimulus. our goal in the finance committee was a bipartisan economic stimulus package. we both wanted a bipartisan

Chuck Grassley

3:59:12 to 3:59:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: economic stimulus package that responded to the needs of americans and business and would provide a much-needed boost for the economy. during this same period, the president sent a strong message that

Chuck Grassley

3:59:27 to 3:59:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: congress must act and congress ought to act quickly. to design a fiscal stimulus package aimed at boosting the economy. the president said that such a plan would provide -- quote -- " "a shot in the

Chuck Grassley

3:59:40 to 3:59:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: arm" -- unquote -- to keep the economy healthy. last week the bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership with the president. that the meeting, the senate leaders yielded to the legislative process and

Chuck Grassley

3:59:55 to 4:00:06( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the substance of this important question to the house and the senate.~ in other words, senate leaders agreed whatever package the house leadership and the white house agreed on would be considered as

Chuck Grassley

4:00:06 to 4:00:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a fait accompli in the senate. the senate leaders' sudden shift in direction caught chairman baucus and me by surprise. and as i noted above, we had already engaged in the committee process for

Chuck Grassley

4:00:20 to 4:00:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: several weeks. we were fully engaged on a member and staff level. many of our members, staff brought to the table the experience from three stimulus bills earlier this very decade. now i respect the

Chuck Grassley

4:00:32 to 4:00:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: role of leaders here. my guess is chairman baucus and the two-thirds of the committee members that supported the bill yesterday also respect the role of our leaders. many in the leadership on my side

Chuck Grassley

4:00:43 to 4:01:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of the aisle worried about the problem that might arise if the senate had no role other than to rubber stamp the house bill. they are rightly concerned about the senate processing bill, dragging it

Chuck Grassley

4:01:04 to 4:01:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: out and loading the bill up. certainly that is a reasonable concern. certainly that's something we find happening often here in the senate. but is that concern in itself so great that the senate should abdicate

Chuck Grassley

4:01:21 to 4:01:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: all of its legislative responsibility? is that concern so great that the finance committee members should have no say over legislation falling within its jurisdiction? in my almost quarter-century of

Chuck Grassley

4:01:34 to 4:01:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: service on the finance committee, i'm not aware of any precedent like this. i'm also not aware of any precedent on the house side. at the end of last session, some of the house side might have complained

Chuck Grassley

4:01:49 to 4:02:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: about the outcome of senate legislation -- the outcome of legislation favoring the senate position. i'm not, however, aware of a situation where house leaders on either side virtually ceded their role in

Chuck Grassley

4:02:02 to 4:02:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: legislating on a tax bill this important. as i said, i respect the concerns of leaders about timing. it comes down to this, madam president. the leaders' concerns with timing might weigh against the question

Chuck Grassley

4:02:17 to 4:02:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of the quality of the house bill. in other words, is there a take-it-or-leave-it house bill better than the senate bill that allows the senate to work its will? i've laid out the leader's concern about timing.

Chuck Grassley

4:02:27 to 4:02:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: now we kw-t adequacy of the house -- now we question the adequacy of the house bill. that's the other side of the balance that we needed to strike. i know other members on both sides have asked

Chuck Grassley

4:02:41 to 4:02:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: themselves the same questions, including chairman baucus. chairman baucus makes the ultimate call. even if i had decid the importance of quick action outweighed the benefits of going through the committee

Chuck Grassley

4:02:57 to 4:03:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: process, the chairman would have made the ultimate call to go ahead. that was the call the chairman made back in 2002. that was the call he made this time. in 2002 i disagreed on the substance and we had

Chuck Grassley

4:03:11 to 4:03:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a party-line markup. but the kph did process -- the committee did process the stimulus bill. so to anyone on my side who says my opposition would have stopped the chairman from going forward, check the history

Chuck Grassley

4:03:25 to 4:03:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: books. it didn't stop the committee in 2002 and it wouldn't stop it now. the same outcome occurred in 2003 when i was chairman of the committee and senator baucus was the ranking member. we went

Chuck Grassley

4:03:40 to 4:03:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: forward in 2003. this time we were able to proceed in a bipartisan manner. and what did the committee process yield? let's examine this side of the question. asked another way, did the committee

Chuck Grassley

4:03:55 to 4:04:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: process improve the house bill with senate amendments? one thing i heard loud and clear from republicans was concern about suffocating income limits. the chairman heard me out and agreed to eliminate

Chuck Grassley

4:04:07 to 4:04:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: them. unfortunately, the support from the republican side of theisle did not line up with the principle that i heard from them that they wanted it included in the bill as a correction to the house bill.

Chuck Grassley

4:04:21 to 4:04:38( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: on the chairman's side of the aisle, meaning the democratic side of the aisle, there was great controversy overtaking those limits off. we heard the uncapped proposal over and over again defined

Chuck Grassley

4:04:38 to 4:04:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: as something specifically benefitting bill and melinda gates. to those on the left, let me tell you that there must be a lot of bill and melinda gates out there. the reason i say that is that $12 billion

Chuck Grassley

4:04:56 to 4:05:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of rebate checks is involved in going back to the house income caps. with the amount of checks capped, it means that there's millions of families -- not a few millionaires -- that are being affected.

Chuck Grassley

4:05:08 to 4:05:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: like i said, those facts didn't move many on my side away pr-t house bill that con -- from the house bill that contains those caps. so i revisited the issue with the chairman. the caps are back but at

Chuck Grassley

4:05:27 to 4:05:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a much higher level. they begin to phase out at $150,000 for single taxpayers and $300,000 for married taxpayers. so we include a few more middle-income people. madam president, that's double the house

Chuck Grassley

4:05:44 to 4:06:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: income limits, helping more middle-income people. higher income limits will hurt a lot of moderate income tax-payers we heard about. from my perspective this is a big improvement over the house bill.

Chuck Grassley

4:06:02 to 4:06:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: if your support -- if you support the finance committee bill, you're recognizing the burden these taxpayers families bear through the a.m.t. i don't want to hear any more demagoguery about bill and

Chuck Grassley

4:06:17 to 4:06:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: melinda gates getting checks because there's not going to be any more billionaires getting checks. no millionaires getting checks. no half-millionaires getting checks. but a lot of upper-income families

Chuck Grassley

4:06:29 to 4:06:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: who won't get a check under the house bill will get a check under the finance committee amendments. most on my side would consider these higher-income caps an improvement on the house bill. i particularly

Chuck Grassley

4:06:44 to 4:07:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: credit senators crapo and kyl for bringing this point up in our finance committee meeting. some on the other side, especially those from high-income, high-tax blue states, will quietly support this

Chuck Grassley

4:07:00 to 4:07:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: change as well, they don't want to face the shag grin of members who think nobody on the democratic side ought to be concerned with anybody that is a little bit higher income. on the other end of

Chuck Grassley

4:07:18 to 4:07:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the income scale are 20 million low-income seniors. underscore that point. 20 million low-income seniors. the house bill leaves them out entirely. the chairman's mark in the senate corrects that. and

Chuck Grassley

4:07:41 to 4:07:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i'd like to tell you that the house bill right here, you won't find seniors with social security income covered in this bill. you will find them covered in the senate bill. since we don't have the bill

Chuck Grassley

4:07:57 to 4:08:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: text yet, this is just holding up the chairman's mark, we made this happen by including social security benefits as a qualifying income in the chairman's mark. and here's what that mark says on page 3

Chuck Grassley

4:08:16 to 4:08:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: -- quote -- "all eligible individuals are entitled if they satisfy at least two of the following criteria: the sum of an individual's earned income. and, two, social security benefits must be at least

Chuck Grassley

4:08:32 to 4:08:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: $3,000." that language is not in the house bill. because that language is not in the house bill, 20 million seniors won't get checks if that house bill had been rubber stamped, or is rubber stamped by

Chuck Grassley

4:08:44 to 4:09:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the united states senate. during our committee process, many members discussed this effect in the house bill. as a result of careful finance committee member deliberations, we were able to improve

Chuck Grassley

4:09:01 to 4:09:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the house bill. many disabled veterans don't get checks under the house bill. here again, the house bill doesn't cover disabled veterans. under the senate bill -- under the senate bill, disabled veterans

Chuck Grassley

4:09:19 to 4:09:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: will be covered. the -- on page 2, the finance committee document says these words: "the provision modifies the chairman's mark to expand the rebate benefit to disabled veterans." during careful

Chuck Grassley

4:09:31 to 4:09:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: finance committee deliberations, senator lincoln and snowe filed an amendment to ensure that disabled veterans would be covered. the chaman incorporated that amendment into his modified mark. does

Chuck Grassley

4:09:45 to 4:09:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: anyone think that this is inappropriate improvement in the house bill? i ask that those who insist that we rubber stamp this house bill, if they don't -- if they don't have guts enough to tell chuck

Chuck Grassley

4:09:58 to 4:10:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: grassley if that ought to be included, at least in your own mind i hope you know you're wrong by not including the disabled veterans by saying that we ought to just rubber stamp the senate bill. so

Chuck Grassley

4:10:11 to 4:10:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the house bill which some are insisting cannot be improved by the finance committee includes 20 million senators and disabled veterans, the house bill also could send checks to illegal aliens. that's

Chuck Grassley

4:10:25 to 4:10:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: right. as i said before, spent a great deal of time on this point for those who maybe missed the beginning. the house bill, which some are saying is the best bill we can get and ought to be rubber

Chuck Grassley

4:10:36 to 4:10:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: stamped here in the united states senate, it's going to allow illegal aliens to get checks before we take care of all the people. you understand the house of representatives passed a bill to give rebate

Chuck Grassley

4:10:57 to 4:11:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: checks to stimulate the economy, making it possible for illegal aliens to get checks, but not 20 million seniors and tkaeubld people in this country who are here legally? i want to be specific on the

Chuck Grassley

4:11:11 to 4:11:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: modifications in the chairman's mark. and here's, again, the document i'm referring to. page 2, here's what the document says. "the provisions denies the basic credit and the qualifying child credit to individuals

Chuck Grassley

4:11:27 to 4:11:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: if they do not include on their tax return a valid taxpayer's identification number for, one, themselves. and if they are married, their spouse. and, two, any children for whom the qualifying child tax credit

Chuck Grassley

4:11:44 to 4:12:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: is claimed. for these purposes, a valid taxpayer identification number is defined as a social security number. continuing to quote, "if an individual fails to provide a correct taxpayer identification

Chuck Grassley

4:12:01 to 4:12:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: number, such omission will be treated treated as a mathematical or clerical error. under present law the internal revenue service may be summarily assessed additional tax dues as a result of a mathematical

Chuck Grassley

4:12:16 to 4:12:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: or clerical error without sending the taxpayer a notice of deficiency and giving the taxpayer an opportunity to petition the tax court where the i.r.s. uses the summary assessment procedure for mathematical

Chuck Grassley

4:12:34 to 4:12:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and clerical error, the taxpayer must be given an explanation of the asserted error and given 60 days to assess that i.r.s. -- that the i.r.s. abate the assessment. madam president, this provision

Chuck Grassley

4:12:51 to 4:13:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: uses i.r.s. verification techniques. it ensures that the taxpayers getting the check is identified by the tax system. during finance committee delirations, senator ensign and his staff raised this

Chuck Grassley

4:13:04 to 4:13:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: important issue. senator ensign filed an amendment that was addressed in the modified chairman's mark. the house bill has no such provision. and, again, i'm not going to keep holding these bills up, but we've

Chuck Grassley

4:13:20 to 4:13:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: got the house bill. without this provision the senate bill with that provision. there is no language to address what senator ensign raised in the committee, the house bill by making sure illegal aliens

Chuck Grassley

4:13:33 to 4:13:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: do not get a check. the finance committee amendment also beefs up the business stimulus package by adding additional years to the current law net operating loss carry-back rules. the finance committee

Chuck Grassley

4:13:45 to 4:13:59( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: bill adds extension of unemployment insurance benefits. i know this was a big sticking point in the negotiations between the house and the white house. in this respect, i favor the house bill. my personal

Chuck Grassley

4:13:59 to 4:14:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: preference would be to eliminate this provision. it, however, was a key issue for all the democrats. so, in compromise -- and you don't get anything done in the senate if you don't have some compromise

Chuck Grassley

4:14:13 to 4:14:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: -- nothing is strictly democrat or strictly republican can pass here except under a path of reconciliation. so in compromise, the chairman has it worked out and it was essential that it be worked

Chuck Grassley

4:14:32 to 4:14:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: out. i pushed hard for investment energy incentives, and the chairman agreed with me in that respect. so the last piece of this compromise in the expansion of investment incentives to seamlessly expand investment

Chuck Grassley

4:14:46 to 4:15:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: incentives for wind, biomass and other energy renewable products. in committee these provisions caught some criticism and i expect we'll hear more of the same during this debate.~ i'll respond in

Chuck Grassley

4:15:04 to 4:15:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: detail when those criticisms are given. madam president, i commit the -- for the bipartisan middle ground. it expands the benefits to more middle class americans, social security recipients and disabled

Chuck Grassley

4:15:23 to 4:15:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: veterans. it makes sure illegal immigrants don't get hecks. it also expands some -- checks. it expands -- it rounds out the package. i ask members to go back to the basic question of balancing a quick

Chuck Grassley

4:15:36 to 4:15:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: question on a house and that house bill being imperfect, as i pointed out in this debate, versus improvements that were made by the finance committee. the house bill could be passed quickly without improvements

Chuck Grassley

4:15:49 to 4:16:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: or we could finish the process here in the senate and have improvements made by the finance committee. i challenge anyone to argue that none of the improvements made by the committee process are important

Chuck Grassley

4:16:05 to 4:16:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: enough to finish the job here in the senate. i hope nobody comes over and tells us that, for instance, it's ok to give rebate checks to people that are here illegally. having made that point, madam

Chuck Grassley

4:16:19 to 4:16:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: president, we could prove our leaders right if we load up the bill in the senate. so we ought to keep our ball -- eye on the ball and not load it up. because we want to get a stimulus package passed.

Herb Kohl

4:16:44 to 4:17:04( Edit History Discussion )

Herb Kohl: we don't want that to sink. christmas is over. so let's not make this the traditional christmas tree that sometimes legislation becomes. thank you. i yield the floor the presiding officer: the senator

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid