[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 451-453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT--Continued

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have the greatest respect for my friend 
from Iowa. He is a person who has always been very deliberate and never 
hides his positions. I have no doubt if he were the one calling the 
shots and, as he said--and I am using his words--if it was in his pay 
grade, I am confident this legislation, the economic recovery bill, 
would have moved much further along.
  I have to say in response to my friend from Iowa that he is really 
looking at this matter, as he set out on the record, with a pair of 
glasses that do not magnify properly. They want to do what they want 
rather than go through the regular process and have legislation that we 
can amend, the so-called centrist package. The problem in all this--and 
the majority leader laid this out very well earlier this afternoon--in 
the Senate, whether we like it or not, it takes 60 votes to pass 
legislation. If someone opposes what you are trying to do, then you 
have to have 60 votes to break a filibuster and, in some cases, to 
overcome a point of order.
  The fact is, the items the Senator from Iowa mentioned, about which 
he feels so strongly, do not have 60 votes. The two leaders know that.
  Senator Daschle, after literally months of wrangling on this, said: 
OK, all this out here we do not agree on, but there are four things on 
which we can agree; why don't we pass something that has those four 
measures in it?
  That is what we have been debating since we came back into session on 
January 23. It does not matter what we try to do, it is not quite right 
with the other side. Even though these four matters in Senator 
Daschle's bill are matters everyone is saying publicly they agree on, 
they will not allow us to move forward on this legislation.
  They are even offering their amendments to the underlying measure so 
that at some time they can raise a point of order again on Senator 
Daschle's measure that is before the Senate.
  To show how sincere the majority has been on this issue, they raised 
a point of order to knock down our economic stimulus package, and 
because it did not have 60 votes, it worked.
  We could have, if we did not want to do an economic recovery package, 
raised a point of order on their legislation, but we chose not to do 
that because we wanted to keep this before the Senate. We wanted to do 
something with the stimulus package. Had we not wanted to, we could 
have raised a point

[[Page 452]]

of order on their legislation, and it would have fallen just like ours.
  I understand the majority leader's frustration.
  It does not matter what he comes up with, it is not quite good 
enough. I suggest when the political scientists, the historians, go 
over what has happened on the economic stimulus package late last year 
and this year, the record will be clear to the effect that Senator 
Daschle has been unable to move not because of anything he has done or 
not done but simply because the minority has not wanted to move 
forward.
  In the Senate, if there are 49 people, 45 people, 41 people who do 
not want to move legislation, legislation cannot be moved. That is the 
problem we have had.
  So I hope when we vote on cloture on Wednesday, my friends on the 
minority side will join with us to bring debate to a close on this so 
we can move forward with the legislative package that will stimulate 
the economy.
  It may not satisfy everything that everyone wants. For example, today 
I offered an amendment, which I think is tremendously important to this 
country, dealing with stimulating tourism, not in the year 2009 like 
their death and estate tax proposal but today and tomorrow, something 
that would stimulate the economies all over America because it would 
give people an economic incentive to fly. It would give people an 
economic incentive to buy dinners, to go places, have vacations, 
activities that would stimulate the economy.
  I indicated earlier today almost a half million people have been laid 
off in the travel and tourism business since September 11. These are 
people who have no jobs. A lot of these people are people who are on 
the Welfare-to-Work Program. They were trained because they could no 
longer be on welfare. I support the Welfare-to-Work Program. They were 
trained to be a housekeeper, a maid, maybe a cook, an assistant to a 
cook in a restaurant. Many of these people had never worked before in 
their life. They had a job, but they lost those jobs and now they have 
fallen through the cracks. They did not qualify for unemployment 
insurance, and they are really out on the street.
  All we are trying to do is move forward on legislation to stimulate 
this economy. We have so many more important things to do. We have to 
finish the farm bill. We have to do something about election reform. We 
have a bipartisan bill to do that. We also have energy legislation that 
must go forward in the immediate future. So I hope when the vote is 
called on cloture on Wednesday that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle will vote in favor of cloture and bring debate to a close on 
this economic stimulus package so we can move forward with the 
legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2728

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2728 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 2698.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the 
                 qualified small issue bond provisions)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MODIFICATIONS TO SMALL ISSUE BOND PROVISIONS.

       (a) Increase in Amount of Qualified Small Issue Bonds 
     Permitted for Facilities To Be Used by Related Principal 
     Users.--
       (1) In general.--Clause (i) of section 144(a)(4)(A) 
     (relating to $10,000,000 limit in certain cases) is amended 
     by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
       (2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--Section 144(a)(4) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of a taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2002, the $20,000,000 
     amount under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment under section 1(f)(3) 
     for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, 
     determined by substituting `calendar year 2001' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The heading of paragraph (4) of 
     section 144(a) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000''.
       (4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to--
       (A) obligations issued after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and
       (B) capital expenditures made after such date with respect 
     to obligations issued on or before such date.
       (b) Definition of Manufacturing Facility.--
       (1) In general.--Section 144(a)(12)(C) (relating to 
     definition of manufacturing facility) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) Manufacturing facility.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `manufacturing facility' means any 
     facility which is used in--
       ``(i) the manufacturing or production of tangible personal 
     property (including the processing resulting in a change in 
     the condition of such property),
       ``(ii) the manufacturing, development, or production of 
     specifically developed software products or processes if--

       ``(I) it takes more than 6 months to develop or produce 
     such products,
       ``(II) the development or production could not with due 
     diligence be reasonably expected to occur in less than 6 
     months, and
       ``(III) the software product or process comprises programs, 
     routines, and attendant documentation developed and 
     maintained for use in computer and telecommunications 
     technology, or

       ``(iii) the manufacturing, development, or production of 
     specially developed biobased or bioenergy products or 
     processes if--

       ``(I) it takes more than 6 months to develop or produce,
       ``(II) the development or production could not with due 
     diligence be reasonably expected to occur in less than 6 
     months, and
       ``(III) the biobased or bioenergy product or process 
     comprises products, processes, programs, routines, and 
     attendant documentation developed and maintained for the 
     utilization of biological materials in commercial or 
     industrial products, for the utilization of renewable 
     domestic agricultural or forestry materials in commercial or 
     industrial products, or for the utilization of biomass 
     materials.

       ``(D) Related facilities.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (C), the term `manufacturing facility' includes a facility 
     which is directly and functionally related to a manufacturing 
     facility (determined without regard to subparagraph (C)) if--
       ``(i) such facility, including an office facility and a 
     research and development facility, is located on the same 
     site as the manufacturing facility, and
       ``(ii) not more than 40 percent of the net proceeds of the 
     issue are used to provide such facility,

     but shall not include a facility used solely for research and 
     development activities.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, one of the things we are seeking to do, of 
course, in an economic stimulus package is to cause some jobs to be 
created. The amendment which I have offered increases the expenditure 
limitation on small issue bonds for manufacturing facilities. This is 
an amendment which would go back and readjust the limits that are in 
law which allow for issuing of bonds for manufacturing facilities. The 
amount of the bonds that can be issued in any one particular time were 
set in 1977 and 1978 so, obviously, things have changed since that time 
--in fact, many times over--as the equivalent has been changed.
  This amendment would make adjustments to industrial revenue bonds, 
the rules and regulations for manufacturing facilities. The amendment 
would not increase the amount of bonding capacity available to 
individual States. In other words, it would not be an increase of 
expenditures but, rather, would give more flexibility to those

[[Page 453]]

who are making grants to make them for a larger amount.
  Actually, the industrial revenue bonding capacity available to an 
individual State is the greater of an amount equal to $75 per State 
resident or $225 million. The formula is not affected by this 
amendment. Therefore, the amount of bonding available would not be 
affected.
  The maximum bond capital expenditure limitation on small issue bonds 
for manufacturing facilities has been $10 million. This amendment moves 
it to $20 million. It does not change the amount of money available. It 
simply makes more flexible the amount that could be offered for a 
particular facility. It provides for an inflation adjustment. This was 
established in 1978. The purchasing power of $10 million today is much 
higher, of course. This amendment provides that inflation adjuster we 
discussed.
  We have had some experience with this in our State where people seek 
to develop new facilities, new manufacturing facilities, which create 
new jobs. This allows the builder to issue bonds which are then 
guaranteed, which gives them a much lower rate, and encourages the 
development of new businesses and new bonds. It is designed primarily 
for software biotech manufacturing and production. It is something we 
ought to consider. It is not an expense but, rather, an adjustment to 
an existing program that makes it more consistent with today's change 
in the value of dollars.
  It addresses the financial problems caused by inflation. It amends 
the definition of manufacturing facilities to include a new economy, 
biotech and software. It allows companies to use industrial revenue 
bonds for research and development facilities which is a critical 
component.
  I think this can be accepted by both sides. It does not affect the 
cost of this bill. It does make what is available now much more 
flexible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deputy whip.

                          ____________________