Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2004

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to inform my colleague from Washington, at the appropriate time, when she concludes her statement, I plan on making a budget point of order.

First, I compliment my colleague, Senator Graham from South Carolina, for his leadership on this issue for years. I believe today we are going to pass a bill that is long overdue.

I also compliment my colleague, Senator DeWine from Ohio, for his leadership.

I complimented him in private. I have observed his very high quality of debate. We have had some excellent debate today, and I compliment Members on all sides. I think it has been very important and we are going to pass a good bill today, largely due to the leadership of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and also Senator Graham of South Carolina. I compliment both of our colleagues for their effort. This is an important bill, one that deserves to be passed and sent to the President.
[Page S3162]

I rise today to speak against the amendment of our colleague from Washington. I have great respect for our colleague from Washington, especially for the title of the amendment. The Wellstone Domestic Violence Act is very well named, but when looking at the substance of the bill I find it leaves a lot to be desired.

I happen to believe in the legislative process. This bill has not had a hearing. I happen to be on the Finance Committee. There are two or three things that deal with Finance Committee issues that we have not touched. It did not go through the Labor Committee. It addresses family leave, not the Family Medical Leave Act. It is basically a whole new act. It is not consistent with the Family Medical Leave Act. To qualify for the Family Medical Leave Act, we exempt employers with 50 employees or less. This says employers of 15 or less. That does not make sense to me.

I look at the unemployment section of it, and a lot of people are not even aware of this-I have not heard very much debate about this-but if a State does not comply with the unemployment dictates given by this bill we tell the States they must have unemployment compensation for people who are victims of abuse as defined by this. The tax to the State goes from $56 a year to $434 a year. That is a 675-percent increase. That is a heavy penalty on the States.

One could say, well, they give States time to amend their law. They are given 25 days if they are in session and 180 days if they are not in session. Oklahoma is shortly going to be out of session and we do not go back into session for the rest of the year, so 180 days would not be adequate. I guess there would have to be a special session. I used to serve in the Oklahoma Legislature. Most legislatures are kind of like Congress, they do not move that fast. If they do not move that fast, they have a very heavy penalty increase in their unemployment compensation taxes.

The main thing I guess I am objecting to, as I look at it, there is a new tax credit in this bill. It is a 40-percent tax credit for a provision that is very expensive. It applies to a lot of things. It applies to a long definition that would qualify expenses that an employer might incur to implement workplace safety.

I used to be an employer in the private sector, and I know all employers are interested in safety. Almost all of those expenses related to safety are expensed. None of them, to my knowledge, get a tax credit. This amendment would say, for some safety provisions employers are going to get a 40-percent tax credit.

Then I started looking at the definition. It applies to basically any new security personnel, purchase, or installation of new security equipment and so on. That is wide open. In this day and age of terrorist threats, there are a lot of people who are going to be hiring more security personnel and they are going to say: Thank you very much, Government, because you just gave us a 40-percent tax credit.

If a company is profitable, that is worth a lot. If they are not profitable, it is not worth much.

I asked the Joint Tax Committee to give an estimate on how much this would cost. I just received it. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from Dr. George Yin, that gives the revenue estimate, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION,

Washington, DC, March 23, 2004.
Hon. DON NICKLES,
U.S. Senate, Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR NICKLES: This letter is in response to your request dated March 17, 2004, for a revenue estimate for Senate amendment 2859, which according to your request may come up for a vote on March 24, 2004, under a unanimous consent agreement for H.R. 1997.
In general, the amendment would establish a new general business tax credit equal to 40 percent of the domestic and sexual violence safety and education cost paid or incurred by an employer during the taxable year. Any amount taken into account for purposes of determining the credit would not be eligible for any other credit or deduction. Under the amendment, the types of cost that may be included for purposes of determining the amount of the credit include, among other things, the hiring of new security personnel and the purchase or installation of new security equipment, the purpose of which is to address domestic or sexual violence. Because the hiring of all new security personnel and the purchase or installation of all new security equipment is, in part, for the safety of employees, we have assumed that all such expenditures would be eligible for the tax credit.
The amendment would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003. Estimated changes in Federal fiscal year budget receipts are as follows:
[By fiscal years in billions of dollars] 2004 -0.6
2005 -1.3
2006 -1.5
2007 -1.7
2008 -1.8
2009 -1.8
2010 -1.9
2011 -1.9
2012 -1.9
2013 -2.0
2014 -2.0
2004-09 -8.7
2004-14 -18.4
I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,

GEORGE K. YIN.

Mr. NICKLES. He says the cost of this provision in 5 years is estimated at $8.7 billion, and over 10 years, $18.4 billion.

That is a lot of money. We are going to say companies get a 40-percent tax credit if they do something in the realm of safety, which one could almost drive a truck through anything and call it safety.

I am not a big fan of tax credits anyway, but that is beside the point. This is a very expensive provision, one, in my opinion, that has not been well thought out, one that is enormously expensive, one that is not paid for.

A week before last, we had votes saying we should be paying for these new spending proposals and tax cuts. Well, this is a big tax cut that is not paid for. Frankly, it is a big loophole that is not paid for. It also causes other little constitutional problems.

We have a Constitution that says all revenue measures have to originate in the House. We do not have a tax bill before us. This did not originate in the House of Representatives. I know my colleagues very well in the House. I respect them and I know they will blue-slip this if this amendment is passed because this would turn this into a tax bill. So this amendment would kill this bill.

Our colleagues in the House want to pass the bill as it is. I hope that a majority in the Senate want to pass the bill as it is.

As it is, this amendment does a couple of things. It increases spending and it increases taxes, both of which violate the budget, both of which I can make a budget point of order against, and at the appropriate time I will make a budget point of order against this amendment, certainly for the tax provision, and I will leave it at that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, is all time yielded back from our colleague from Washington?

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this bill has a big tax provision that is estimated to cost $18.4 billion. Therefore, a budget point of order does lie against this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the pending amendment offered by our colleague from Washington, Mrs. Murray, decreases revenues and if adopted would cause an increase in the deficit in excess of the levels permitted in the most recent budget resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 505 of House current resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.