Chuck Grassley: “Indeed, the bill before us is smaller in size by more than $30 billion than the Senate-passed JOBS bill. There has been…”

“Indeed, the bill before us is smaller in size by more than $30 billion than the Senate-passed JOBS bill. There has been some grumbling about how much the bill grew beyond the simple repeal of foreign sales corporations' extraterritorial income provisions. One of the reasons it grew is because the Finance Committee found sufficient offsets, most of which are loophole closers--loophole closers Senator Kerry spoke about in the debate, that he wanted to close. We did this to allow Members to have enough revenue to offset particular Senators' interests in this bill. This is also true of Senator Landrieu's reservist amendment. Not only did we support it but we found a way to pay for it. We modified the foreign housing exclusion for high-income U.S. employees working overseas. Unfortunately, the House rejected that offset, and in turn the specific amendment. I think the Senate is being distracted by too much emphasis upon particular specific Member priorities. I believe the core benefits of the bill should not be sacrificed to narrow items. The core benefits go to manufacturers. It is all about creating jobs in particular, particularly about creating jobs in manufacturing in America, where there has been some concern expressed in the Senate about outsourcing. So that is what this bill is all about.”