[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4052-4055]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            2009--Continued

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes: one, to speak 
about an amendment that will come up tomorrow dealing with the 
alternative minimum tax and, on a second point, to speak against an 
amendment that will be offered tomorrow on the H-1B program. First, I 
will discuss the amendments I intend to pursue on the budget 
resolution.
  The first is similar to the amendment I offered in committee markup. 
Unfortunately, the committee did not adopt the amendment. The amendment 
is very straightforward. The amendment would exempt from the pay-go 
requirements an extension of relief from the alternative minimum tax. I 
want to explain the term pay-go. It means if you are going to offer 
something that has less income coming in from taxes, you have to offset 
it someplace else. Pay-go is a rule that applies to both taxes as well 
as expenditures. It is pay as you go.
  I want to make sure this doesn't apply to the AMT because, quite 
frankly, it is silly to talk about offsetting revenue from middle-class 
Americans from whom it was never intended to be collected in the first 
place. And the alternative minimum tax, if we don't do something about 
it, has that negative impact. As everyone knows, if we do

[[Page 4053]]

 not act this year, about 25 million families, most of them middle-
income families, will be faced with an alternative minimum tax increase 
of over $2,000 per family. The alternative minimum tax, which was meant 
to hit high-income people, filthy rich people, it now could happen that 
middle-income people would pay an increase in taxes of more than $2,000 
per family. We cannot let that happen. It is a result no one in 
Congress can defend.
  The alternative minimum tax was meant to apply, as I have said so 
many times, to a small group of high-income taxpayers who use tax 
preferences, legal ways of not paying taxes. There is nothing illegal 
about it.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee has wisely recognized the 
reality and the importance of shielding these 25 million families from 
the unintended reach of the alternative minimum tax. To that end, then, 
his budget resolution has revenue room, about $62 billion worth, for an 
AMT hold harmless for the current year. Unfortunately, though the 
budget revenue baseline is adjusted for the AMT for this year, action 
on an AMT patch faces pay-go points of order unless offset. So my 
amendment would clear away the hurdle for this year as well as for 
future years.
  My amendment would ensure that delivering relief from the AMT would 
trump an obsession with a tax increase notion of pay as you go. It is 
as simple as that.
  My second amendment deals with fundamental tax reform. Everyone knows 
our tax system could be improved. The alternative minimum tax monster I 
just referred to is only one of the major reasons we need to undertake 
tax reform. Senator Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, has been very 
articulate on that point. So this is a bipartisan statement as well as 
a partisan statement. If we undertake fundamental tax reform on a 
revenue-neutral basis under the current revenue baseline, we could be 
backing into a major tax increase on virtually every taxpayer.
  In 2011, the bipartisan tax relief bills of 2001 and 2003 expire or 
to use the terminology in Congress, they sunset. If we allow current 
law to continue--in other words, current law so that you have tax 
increases automatically without a vote of Congress--the tax burden on 
the American people as a group could be up to 10 percent higher than it 
is today. That would be well into the future after 2010, until Congress 
would reduce taxes. We should not have a tax increase without a vote of 
Congress, No. 1. But also we should keep taxes where they are now 
because it has been so good to the economy. You should not have a tax 
increase on the American people. That is what is going to happen if we 
don't make changes between now and the end of 2010.
  Tax reform should not be a stealthy method, then, to raise taxes on 
the American people. When I say ``raise taxes on the American people,'' 
let me repeat, the biggest tax increase in the history of the country 
is going to happen without even a vote of Congress. The amendment from 
my friend from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, with 
whom I have the privilege of working closely, makes the point that 
current law levels of taxation set to spring into effect in 2011 are 
intolerable on both sides of the aisle. My amendment seeks the same 
assurances, though in a complete manner, if we hopefully enter into a 
real legislative effort on fundamental tax reform.
  Those are my remarks in regard to two amendments that are going to be 
voted upon tomorrow.
  Tomorrow my friend, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget 
Committee, Senator Gregg, is going to offer an amendment or maybe has 
offered the amendment already to expand the H-1B visa program. I have 
nothing against the H-1B visa program. In fact, I value it as a legal 
channel for U.S. companies to bring in workers they need. That is under 
the assumption that we don't have workers in the United States to fill 
those slots. But I have to say, increasing the H-1B visa cap, which is 
the proposal, if we do that without reform, will only hurt U.S. 
taxpayers and American workers. The solution to increasing our global 
position in science and technology is, obviously, from the ground up, 
investing in American workers. We must strengthen educational 
opportunities for our American students, particularly in the areas of 
math and science. Such an investment will help reduce the trend in 
which 60 percent of the students in our U.S. STEM doctoral programs are 
foreign born.
  According to recent statistics released by the Department of Homeland 
Security, foreign outsourcers top the list of companies bringing 
foreign workers to the United States under the H-1B program. In fact, 
it is this overwhelming--6 of the top 10 visa recipients in 2007 are 
based in the country of India. Senator Durbin and I made the same point 
about the visa approvals during debate in the year 2006. We found that 
the top 9 foreign-based companies in 2006 used nearly 20,000 of the 
total availability of H-1B visas, and there is a cap on the number of 
H-1B visas. It seems to me that that 20,000 is close to a third of all. 
They are used by nine foreign-based companies. You would think, of the 
thousands and thousands of companies we have in America, that you would 
not have H-1Bs clustered to such a great extent around nine companies 
and nine foreign-based companies.
  We heard today that Microsoft, in testimony before the House of 
Representatives, wants an unlimited supply of H-1B visas. However, that 
company's visa approvals declined in 2007 from 2006. In 2006, Microsoft 
was approved for 3,117 H-1B visas. In 2007, it dropped from third to 
fifth place and only approved 959 visas compared to over 3,000 visas 
the year before.
  This very day, as I have indicated, Bill Gates said that Microsoft 
was ``unable to obtain H-1B visas for one-third of the highly qualified 
foreign-born job candidates that it wanted to hire.''
  It makes me question, then, why visa approvals decreased very 
dramatically for Microsoft, from 3,000 in 2006, down to 900 plus in 
2007. I think the statistics are very clear. Thousands of visas are 
going to foreign-based companies, leaving U.S. companies such as 
Microsoft scrambling for qualified workers. How can one explain the 
fact that most H-1B visas are going to companies based outside the 
United States? Do you think that increasing the cap, then, increasing 
the cap we have in current law, would actually benefit Microsoft and 
other companies? Answering these questions should lead one to the 
conclusion that the H-1B visa program is not working as originally 
intended. We need reform, even in conjunction with increasing the 
numbers.
  I am not opposed to increasing the numbers if they need to be 
increased. But it won't do any good if we don't have reform, and not 
just the so-called reform, then, of increasing the visa supply, as 
proposed by the high-tech industry. Reforms are needed so that U.S. 
businesses, both large and small, can find, recruit, and hire the 
workers they need.
  One of the major reforms needed to protect American workers is to 
require employers to make good-faith efforts to recruit U.S. citizens 
before hiring an H-1B visa holder. Only a small group of employers have 
to make this good-faith effort. We need to require all users of the 
visa program to first recruit Americans for these highly skilled, high-
paying jobs, or at least attempt to find if American workers are 
available, because Americans should come first.
  Another reform needed is to increase the investigative power of the 
Department of Labor over this program. The program is full of bad 
actors. Companies are using ruthless tactics to undermine the system 
and to pay lower salaries and benefits to foreign workers. Current law 
is handicapping Federal officials from rooting out more fraud. We need 
to give them the power to audit and the power to investigate abuse.
  In addition to those two major reforms, we need to increase 
transparency for U.S. taxpayers to view job openings that are filled by 
H-1B visa workers. We should require employers to better advertise job 
openings so American workers have a chance at the

[[Page 4054]]

jobs before they are taken by foreign workers.
  If we do not make changes in the H-1B program, foreign outsourcers 
will continue to import thousands of foreign workers to the detriment 
of U.S. businesses and opportunities for American workers to be hired 
first.
  So I want my colleagues to know I cannot support an increase in the 
visa supply without reform--and I mean real reform or drastic reform--
to the program. I have suggested some of those reforms. Like I said, 
raising the H-1B cap without reforms will only hurt American companies 
and American workers. American workers should come first.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns with 
the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution. This is a budget that says tax 
revenue will go up by $1.2 trillion. Most of this is going to come by 
eliminating tax relief, commonly known as the Bush tax cuts.
  Let me be clear: The people of Wyoming do not believe eliminating the 
President's tax cuts and dramatically increasing Federal spending is 
the right prescription for our economy. I would go so far as to say 
this budget does exactly the opposite of what is needed. This budget 
will send the wrong signal to small investors. The budget will send the 
wrong signal to ranchers. This budget will send the wrong signal to 
farmers. This budget will send the wrong signal to small business 
owners all across Wyoming.
  This budget sends a message the Federal Government is going to take 
more from them. It will take more from them at a time when they 
believe--rightly so--that they have already been hit too hard. In fact, 
43 million American families with children will pay an additional 
$2,300 out of their pockets each year if these tax cuts are eliminated. 
Twenty-three hundred dollars is not a small amount of money--not a 
small amount at all to the working families of Casper or Cheyenne or 
Rock Springs or Cody or Sundance. Twenty-three hundred dollars goes a 
long way in Wyoming, a long way toward paying a year's tuition at the 
University of Wyoming. Eliminating the tax cuts would cost 27 million 
small business owners $4,100 a year. Now, that is money that could be 
used for Christmas bonuses or well-deserved raises.
  In Wyoming, we believe the best way to achieve economic progress is 
to have the Government get out of the way. That is the spirit that 
powers Wyoming.
  In Wyoming, there is a monument to President Abraham Lincoln. It is 
on Route I-80, between Cheyenne and Laramie, and there is a plaque on 
the monument. The plaque says: ``It is time to think anew and act 
anew.'' That is what I believe is needed to reform the way Washington 
works.
  In Wyoming, where I served as a State senator, we had a budget 
session every 2 years. It is another area where Wyoming gets it right 
and Washington gets it wrong. In Wyoming, it works so well that the 
budget session lasts only 20 days. The Wyoming way is a much better way 
to deal with government spending.
  In Wyoming, we actually balance our budget every year. The Wyoming 
way would free up Congress to work on things such as making Washington 
work better for our country. The Wyoming way would make Washington work 
on finding solutions to problems, rather than always reaching into 
people's wallets and pocketbooks.
  It is time for Washington to get its house in order. This means 
extending the President's tax cuts. This is the way to actually bring 
in more revenue to the Treasury. To get Washington's fiscal house in 
order also means addressing spending on entitlements. This budget not 
only fails to do that, it actually makes matters worse. This budget 
allows entitlement spending to grow by $488 billion over 5 years. This 
is leveraging our children's future, young men and women of America, 
such as the pages who work in this very room. We are leveraging this on 
their future. Now, I do not wish to stifle the progress of future 
generations, such as these fine individuals, because of the mistakes of 
this Congress. Let us get Government out of the way so we can unlock 
the American entrepreneurial spirit. It is that spirit that made this 
country an economic leader in the first place.
  I would also like to take a few moments to discuss three amendments 
that have been filed. Two amendments have been filed by me, and the 
third is an amendment filed by Senator Mike Enzi, my colleague from 
Wyoming, and it is an amendment which I have cosponsored.
  My first amendment relates to the issue of Federal mandates. This 
amendment would provide $50 million to help States comply with 
regulations of the Endangered Species Act. It is my hope these funds 
could be distributed to the cities, the counties, to ranchers, to small 
business owners, all who have to comply with the ever-increasing, 
unfunded Federal mandates of the Endangered Species Act. The offset is 
provided through an across-the-board budget cut through function 920.
  A vast array of species can be found in my home State of Wyoming. 
Among these are the sage-grouse, the grizzly bear, the pygmy rabbit, 
the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, the white and black tail prairie 
dogs, the black-footed ferret, and the Canadian grey wolf. Many of 
these species are in the process of either being listed or delisted 
under the Endangered Species Act. But we have found there is one 
resource Wyoming doesn't have enough of, and that is Federal funds to 
protect, to manage, and to recover these species as is required by 
Federal law.
  Trust me when I say the people of Wyoming love our State's natural 
heritage. We believe we are in the best position to manage and protect 
our resources without the redtape and the regulations of the Federal 
Government. But that is not the reality we and other States face today. 
The Federal Government often, as a result of Federal lawsuits, is 
placing even additional new mandates on the States. As long as they 
are, the Federal Government has an obligation to provide funds with 
those mandates.
  I am pleased my good friend, Senator Enzi, is cosponsoring this 
amendment with me, and I urge its adoption.
  My second amendment would provide funding for salt cedar and Russian 
olive removal along America's rivers, streams, and tributaries. These 
two plants are nonnative, invasive species that are destroying riparian 
ecosystems across vast areas of the West. As the arid West continues to 
struggle with ongoing drought, salt cedar and Russian olive are 
invading the land and they are replacing native species all along the 
West's watershed. Entire ecosystems are being dramatically altered. 
Salt cedar and Russian olive drain valuable water flow from rivers and 
from streams. It is estimated that one Russian olive tree can use 500 
gallons of water a day, while some estimates place water use by a 
mature salt cedar plant at more than 200 gallons a day.
  The Presiding Officer knows that one of the West's most important 
natural resources--water--is under attack. Removal of these species to 
protect our water is a monumental undertaking but one we can no longer 
afford to avoid. Private landowners, local and State officials, as well 
as Federal agencies have an interest in addressing the problem. Recent 
pilot projects to eliminate these species on watersheds in eastern 
Wyoming and western Nebraska have been underway for a few years. 
Improvements in waterflow and the overall ecosystem and the quality of 
those areas have been dramatic. Success, however, can only be achieved 
if all interests in the watershed participate in eliminating these 
species.

[[Page 4055]]

  My amendment is simple. Congress has already authorized a program to 
fight this battle. My amendment would direct money within that program 
to improve the ecosystem and waterflow along the Platte River. Wyoming 
is under a Federal decree to provide more acre feet of water from the 
Platte River to help wildlife in Nebraska. By removing these invasive 
species that capture so much water from the river, we can help 
alleviate this Federal obligation on Wyoming's residents.
  Water is a precious resource. It is time we begin reclaiming our 
watersheds from the invasion of nonnatural species. I would encourage 
all Members of this body to support the amendment.
  Finally, I wish to discuss a Federal budget issue about which I am 
deeply passionate, as are all the people across the State of Wyoming. 
The Federal Government should not be picking the pockets of States to 
balance the Federal budget. I am not talking about Federal commitments 
to spending programs; I am talking about a Federal commitment to share 
revenue; specifically, revenue generated from mineral resource 
development.
  The Presiding Officer is very familiar with this. He knows, as do I, 
that States with Federal mineral extraction benefit from economic 
development. He also knows these benefits are not generated without 
significant impacts to local infrastructure and to public services. 
These revenues pay for vital State and local government services. 
Revenue sharing has traditionally been a clear 50-50 division. It is a 
division between the States and the Federal Government. In fact, 
current Federal law prohibits Federal administrative deductions.
  Apparently, that prohibition is not enough. In the fiscal year 2008 
omnibus bill, Congress included a 1-year formula change, reducing the 
amount paid to the States and increasing the amount flowing to the 
Federal Treasury. The lost revenue for the States came at the expense 
of funding for local schools, roads, water systems, and other basic 
services provided by the States.
  I am pleased to join my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi, in 
cosponsoring his budget amendment that addresses this Federal grab. I 
urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in this as a 
matter of principle. I have listened to speeches on this floor all week 
advocating for increases for one program or for another. Senator Enzi's 
amendment simply recognizes that States--not Washington--are capable 
and are well suited to make spending decisions.
  State legislatures can provide, if they want to, more for education, 
highways, and law enforcement. But they cannot make these decisions if 
the Federal Government continues to withhold the State's share of these 
revenues.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Enzi's 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________