U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–063—PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–163

EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS: LIVE OR LET DIE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 16, 2005

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

JON KYL, Arizona

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

RON WYDEN, Oregon

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

KOLAN DAVIS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Democratic Staff Director

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from Iowa, chairman, Committee

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon .................................................... 2

ADMINISTRATION WITNESS

Carroll, Hon. Robert, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC ...................................................... 4

PUBLIC WITNESSES

Alexander, Hon. Donald C., partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld,

LLP, Washington, DC .......................................................................................... 11

Hernandez, David, vice-president for tax policy, EDS, Plano, TX ....................... 13

Martin, Dr. David E., chief executive officer, M-CAM, Charlottesville, VA ....... 15

Doctoroff, Daniel L., deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding,

City of New York, New York, NY ....................................................................... 16

Giovengo, Dale, human resources director, Giant Eagle, Pittsburgh, PA ........... 18

Dubowsky, Hy L., PhD, director, economic development services, New York

State Department of Labor, Albany, NY ............................................................ 20

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Alexander, Hon. Donald C.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Response to a question from Senator Wyden ................................................. 37

Baucus, Hon. Max:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff:

Prepared statement of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) ......... 39

Carroll, Hon. Robert:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Doctoroff, Daniel L.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Dubowsky, Hy L., PhD:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48

Responses to questions from Senators Grassley and Baucus ....................... 63

Giovengo, Dale:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

Responses to questions from Senators Grassley and Baucus ....................... 69

Grassley, Hon. Charles E.:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1

Hernandez, David:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71

Responses to questions from Senator Baucus ................................................ 76

Page

IV

Martin, Dr. David E.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77

Santorum, Hon. Rick:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84

Wyden, Hon. Ron:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2

COMMUNICATIONS

The Active Financial Services Working Group ..................................................... 87

American Forest and Paper Association ................................................................ 91

Food Marketing Institute ........................................................................................ 94

Hotel Association of Washington, DC .................................................................... 96

National Employment Opportunities Network ..................................................... 97

National Retail Federation ..................................................................................... 100

Nellen, Prof. Annette ............................................................................................... 104

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes ................................................................................. 110

Puerto Rico, USA Foundation ................................................................................. 115

The Real Estate Roundtable ................................................................................... 117

Retail Industry Leaders Association ...................................................................... 124

Washington, DC Association of Realtors ............................................................... 126

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Coalition ................................................................ 128

(1)

EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS:

LIVE OR LET DIE?

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC.

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in

room SD–628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.

Grassley (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Also present: Senators Hatch, Thomas, Santorum, Bingaman,

Wyden, and Schumer.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everybody. I thank you very much

for joining us today on this very important issue, because we are

here to have a thoughtful review of tax provisions that expire at

the end of this year.

As an aside, we plan to hold a separate hearing, perhaps at the

subcommittee level of this committee, on widely applicable expiring

tax provisions. That hearing will look at the differing expiring

dates that resulted from the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax relief

bills. We hope to consider a rationalization of those dates. Today’s

focus is on the largely business-related provisions that expire annually.

Frequently, the tax writing committees in Congress are forced to

make an all-or-nothing decision as to whether or not to extend all

such provisions without any changes.

Last year was no exception. During the 108th Congress, the Senate was able to consider and to pass much-needed modifications to

extend their proposals, like the Research and Development tax

credit and the Work Opportunity tax credit.

Unfortunately, those improved provisions did not make it out of

the conference committee, because the House believed that they

lacked a basis for change.

One of the purposes of this hearing, then, is to create a record

for these long-considered and broadly supported changes so that we

may demonstrate their priority in the Senate, and to indicate that

we intend to pursue these amendments in the course of this year’s

legislative business.

Additionally, the hearing will provide members an opportunity to

examine the merits of other expiring provisions, to consider whether particular provisions should be made permanent or permitted to

lapse, to consider whether proposed expansions are appropriate

2

* For more information, see also, ‘‘Description and Analysis of Certain Federal Tax Provisions

Expiring in 2005 and 2006,’’ Joint Committee on Taxation staff report, March 11, 2005 (JCX–

12–05).

and desirable, and also to consider whether reforms are needed to

make provisions more administrable and more efficient.

Efficiency should be a key consideration of any tax incentive. For

each expiring provision extended or made permanent, we need to

be sure taxpayers’ dollars are not being wasted. Sometimes we

enact short-term provisions to provide temporary economic stimulus—for example, the temporary tax incentives enacted to aid in

the revitalization of the New York Liberty Zone after 9/11.

Representatives from New York are here today to discuss a proposal for re-working a targeted post-9/11 tax relief. In fact, one of

the reasons I am late getting this meeting started is because I just

had a very short conversation, face-to-face, with the governor of

New York on that issue.

Nevertheless, those incentives, even if we adopt changes, were

intended as temporary economic stimulus for that area and will be

permitted to lapse upon expiration.

Other temporary proposals were enacted as demonstration programs to allow Congress an amount of time to evaluate their efficacy. Periodically, this committee and Congress need to revisit

those provisions and to determine whether they achieved their stated objectives, whether additional time is required for evaluation,

and/or whether interim reforms are needed. This hearing will provide us an opportunity to make those evaluations.

In addition to the testimony that we will hear today regarding

some of the larger expiring provisions, Senator Baucus and I asked

the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide background and policy

recommendations for all of the extender provisions.*

In response to the publication of that document, we have requested comments from interested parties on all remaining expiring provisions. Commentary provided by Joint Tax and outside parties will be of great assistance to us as we move forward in the future consideration of these provisions.

Now, Senator Baucus cannot be with us today because he is involved with the mark-up of a very important highway bill. I would

turn now to Senator Wyden to speak for the Democratic members

of the committee.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Baucus very

much regrets not being able to come. We commend you for holding

this important hearing.

Personally, I can say I am very much in favor of compassionate

end-of-life programs, but I think some of these tax provisions ought

to be allowed to die and are simply not a good use of scarce resources in a belt-tightening climate.

I would just like to mention very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the issue

of energy and how it is treated under the Tax Code. There is hardly a bigger issue in our country right now than energy independence. Our Nation imports 10 million barrels a day. The country is

3

just a few cents short of record energy prices. Yet, our tax laws

subsidize wasteful practices every single day in the energy field.

The prime example is a part of the Tax Code that allows energy

producers to deduct more from their taxes than they have invested

in the wells that they try to develop. It is called ‘‘the suspension

of 100 percent of net income limitation on percentage depletion.’’

But what the provision really does is suspend the normal rules for

what businesses can deduct.

It allows deductions greater than the amount oil and gas producers have actually spent on their wells. Even if this provision

was justified way back when oil and gas prices were low, it certainly cannot be justified when oil prices have soared to around $55

per barrel.

This is not just my opinion. Here is what the Joint Committee

on Taxation said about this obsolete provision: ‘‘If the present law

provision was intended as a temporary measure to assist taxpayers

in times of depressed oil prices, further suspension of the limitation

may not be warranted. Domestic crude oil prices are currently

above $50 per barrel. When the suspension was first put into place,

domestic crude averaged $10.87 per barrel.’’

Oil prices are five times what they were when this tax break was

first instituted. It is time to give the American people a break from

an outdated law.

Now, it was originally the position of this committee that this

break would only be enforced when oil prices were low. In fact, the

original Senate language limited the break to periods when the

well-head price of crude was below $14 per barrel.

The committee’s report makes this clear when it stated, ‘‘The

committee believes that a suspension of the net income property

limitation for oil and gas production is appropriate if the price of

oil falls to unexpectedly low levels.’’ This provision was never intended to remain in force when oil prices skyrocket to the unexpectedly high levels our country is experiencing now.

With current prices at these levels, it is time to suspend the suspension of net income limits on deductions. Of all the expiring provisions the committee is considering whether to let live or die, I

would just suggest, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that this unjustified tax break should be among the first to get a thumbs down.

So, I thank you for your courtesy. As I say, Senator Baucus regrets that he cannot be here at this time. Of course, I will look forward to working with you in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Chairman, if we also could, could we have Senator Baucus’s

statement submitted for the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Without objection, it is received.

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now we go to Secretary Carroll, Deputy Secretary for Tax Analysis. Would you proceed with your testimony,

please? Thank you for coming, too, to represent the administration’s point of view on these tax provisions.

4

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT CARROLL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR TAX ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. CARROLL. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Senator Wyden,

and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to this important hearing to discuss the administration’s

proposals to extend expiring tax provisions.

Expiring provisions vary widely in scope and purpose. They are,

nevertheless, important components to tax policy and deserve careful attention. The President has proposed extending many of these

provisions in his fiscal year 2006 budget because they serve important policy objectives.

Whether to extend expiring provisions reflects a balance of fiscal

discipline and Tax Code stability so households and businesses can

make clear, well-informed decisions, and reevaluation of the effectiveness of certain tax provisions.

Consequently, whether to extend these provisions, and for how

long, is multi-faceted and complex. The factors that were considered in determining the treatment of expiring provisions are essentially threefold. Is the provision central to the President’s program

for promoting economic growth and creating jobs? Should the provision be more broadly considered in the context of reform of the tax

system, a key domestic priority of the President? Does the provision otherwise serve important policy objectives?

The President’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were essential to the robust economic growth we now see. They reduce the tax burden on

workers and small businesses and increase the after-tax reward

from working and saving. Reductions in the cost of equity capital

encourage more investment and innovation, leading to greater productivity and, ultimately, higher living standards.

Permanent extension of these tax cuts is a key component of the

President’s economic agenda to promote growth and to give households and businesses a predictable and stable Tax Code on which

they can depend.

While not necessarily core elements of the President’s policies to

promote economic growth in the face of the economic difficulties

and uncertainties over the past several years, certain expiring provisions are also important to the Nation’s continued economic

growth.

The Research and Experimentation credit provides a substantial

incentive for businesses to invest in technology development. It is

a source of innovation in the economy.

In order to make sound decisions, permanent extension of the

R&E credit is important to provide businesses with a predictable

and stable tax system to make R&D commitments that often can

involve substantial lead times. The President’s budget, once again,

proposes permanent extension of this credit.

The President has also made reforming our tax system a key priority. The Tax Reform Advisory Panel, named by the President earlier this year, will of course develop tax reform options to make the

Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more pro-growth.

In order to provide the Tax Panel with greater flexibility and

latitude, a number of expiring provisions were excluded from the

5

budget. For example, the provision to increase the AMT exemption

and allow all personal credits to be claimed against the AMT.

The so-called ‘‘AMT patch’’ will remain in effect through 2005.

These provisions were excluded from the fiscal year 2006 budget in

anticipation of the Tax Panel developing a long-term solution to the

AMT problem.

Likewise, the administration does not propose to extend the lowand moderate-income saver’s credit, nor the deduction for certain

higher education expenses, in deference to the ongoing work of the

Tax Panel.

The administration does propose a several-year extension of expiring provisions with certain policy objectives. This helps provide

taxpayers a basis on which they can continue to plan and make decisions.

At the same time, it also provides Congress and the administration a continued opportunity to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of these provisions on a periodic basis.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, members of

the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. We

look forward to working together with this committee, and others

in the Congress, on this, and other issues.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have a longer statement that you wanted to include in the record?

Mr. CARROLL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Then that will be done.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Finance Committee has had discussions

with IRS employees that raised concerns about the ability of the

IRS to effectively administer the Research and Experimentation

tax credit. We have a witness on the second panel that discusses

these issues of administration, and also whether the R&E credit is

meeting its stated purpose.

The administration has proposed making this credit permanent

at the cost of $76 billion. My question is, has the Treasury Department reviewed the issues of administration and effectiveness of the

R&E credit, and if so, what is their response to these matters that

have been raised by others?

Mr. CARROLL. The administration’s view is that the R&E credit

is a very important tax provision that provides a source of innovation in the economy. It encourages companies to invest.

The economic literature, particularly the more recent economic

literature, supports the incentive effects of the R&E credit. I think

there are some operational issues involving the definition of R&E

that do need to be addressed.

The CHAIRMAN. Can I interrupt you just a second? I think your

answer is in regard to the effectiveness and the necessity for the

legislation. We are talking just about the administrability of it.

Mr. CARROLL. That is something that Treasury has been looking

at. With respect to the administrability of the credit, one of the

issues is how research is defined. Another issue is how the base period operates with the 20-percent credit. Those are structural

issues that we have been working on at the Treasury Department

with the IRS.

6

What the administration did is simply propose permanent extension of the R&E credit without, as you know, proposing any structural changes, to ensure that the basic incentive effects and structure of the credit are in place.

But we would also anticipate that the Tax Panel will take a very

hard look at the R&E credit as it broadly considers investment incentives across the economy generally.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

The next question deals with tax-exempt bonds. For instance, the

Qualified Zone Academy bonds. The administration has proposed to

extend these.

Several issues. My understanding is, there are serious issues

raised about the real value of the 10-percent contribution required

from private entities. We are hearing reports, just as we do in charitable contributions of in-kind, that we are seeing very aggressive

valuations being given for the charitable contributions.

Additionally, there is not a requirement that an information return be filed by the issuers of these Qualified Zone Academy bonds.

Failure to have an information return raises serious administration

questions.

We have seen in the commentary by the Taxpayer Advocate that

the tax gap is particularly high in areas where there is not information reporting. Because there is no information reporting, my

understanding is that this program is falling through the cracks

and that there is no effective oversight of the program.

Finally, does Treasury have any knowledge that the money is

being used as was intended, that is, directly rehabilitating and repairing facilities? Again, my understanding is that, because of significant arbitrage taking place, some of the funds are being used

for other purposes. So, I have kind of laid out a proposition for you

to respond to here.

Mr. CARROLL. All right. Certainly.

We do have operational concerns with this provision. I understand that the exam activity for the QZAB is not very great. It

makes it very difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the provision,

and also makes it very difficult to, as well, evaluate the administrability of the provision.

We are also concerned with the fee structures and the arbitrage

opportunities. We have been working with the IRS to better understand those issues. The Tax Code, as you know, does not apply the

arbitrage limitations for QZABs. There is also no limit on the

issuance costs related to QZABs. In contrast, there is a 2-percent

limit applicable to private activity bonds, for example.

The administration proposal essentially does two things. First, it

extends QZABs for 2 years, through 2007, so it is only a 2-year extension. A key part of the administration’s proposal, the second

part, is we have proposed a new reporting requirement to facilitate

the program evaluation and assist in the administration.

The CHAIRMAN. On a follow-up point, but not just directly related

to the purpose of this hearing, I would appreciate clarification on

the administration’s position on tax credit bonds, in general.

Although there have been many proposals for tax credit bonds,

these Qualified Zone bonds are currently the only one in the Code.

We know that the administration opposes tax credit bonds for highVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:49 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 24063.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
7

way construction, as an example, and that is an issue on the Hill

right now.

I would like to understand the administration’s view on tax credit bonds, in general, because it is an issue that often comes up before this committee.

Mr. CARROLL. That is something I think I would very much want

to get back to you on.

The CHAIRMAN. In writing, you mean?

Mr. CARROLL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, since the red light is on, Senator Hatch

was here first, but we normally have deference to the Ranking

Member.

Senator HATCH. I have no questions. Go right ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I would call on Senator Wyden, then

Senator Bingaman, then Senator Thomas.

Go ahead.

Senator WYDEN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy,

and for Senator Hatch’s as well.

I think you heard me discuss, particularly, Mr. Carroll, this suspension of 100 percent of net income limitation on percentage depletion.

What troubles me about this, it is a tax break in the energy sector. It is not tied to production. It is not tied to the producer’s investment. It allows people in the energy sector to deduct more than

they had invested in their business. Do you not think it is time to

let this one die?

Mr. CARROLL. I think I really take your comments to heart. The

suspension of the net income limit, with respect to marginal production, was originally intended, as you say, to encourage domestic

oil production during periods of low oil prices when producers may

not have the net income from a particular property. But, as you

pointed out, of course, right now oil prices are at very, very high—

historically high—levels.

Senator WYDEN. So you would not disagree with my analysis,

that there are not any arguments for having it right now.

Mr. CARROLL. That is correct. This was originally intended to

provide an incentive during periods of low oil prices, not during periods of very high oil prices that we are seeing right now.

Senator WYDEN. I appreciate your answer, and I want to work

with the administration on re-doing this, if not eliminating this, because I want incentives for producers. We very much need more

production in this country.

But what is going on now, as I have outlined, is we are wasting

money with a very inefficient subsidy that could go for incentives

that I am sure that folks in Wyoming, Louisiana, and other parts

of the country would be very desirous to have.

At a time when we are importing 10 million barrels a day, we

just cannot afford to waste these kinds of dollars. So, I appreciate

your answer and your straightforwardness.

Now, the committee is very interested in examining this question

of making permanent the provision in the Code to allow military

service members to get the Earned Income Tax Credit while servVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:49 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 24063.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
8

ing in combat. Under current law, combat pay is excluded from

gross income for tax purposes.

An exception to the rule applies to taxpayers who claim the

Earned Income Credit. A taxpayer can elect to treat combat pay

that is otherwise excluded from gross income as earned income for

purposes of the credit. This allows taxpayers who receive combat

pay to claim the Earned Income Credit.

Now, this is a temporary provision. I, Senator Baucus, and others

feel very strongly about looking at making this permanent because

it is due to expire at the end of 2005. It is our understanding that

the President’s budget only suggests extending for 1 year the provision to allow the families—these are the families of those serving

in a combat zone—to get the credit.

Could you tell us what the rationale is for not permanently ending the penalty here and permanently putting into our Tax Code

some recognition for these families that make such a great sacrifice

for our country?

Mr. CARROLL. Well, certainly, as you pointed out, the President’s

budget does include a 1-year extension for this provision. It recognizes the sacrifices made by members of our armed forces serving

in combat zones.

Another point that you made is, failure to extend the provision

will particularly hurt those who can least afford it, the lowerranked personnel serving in the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it is the case that we would not oppose permanent extension of this provision.

That said, I would want to go on——

Senator WYDEN. I want to make sure that the record is clear on

that point. So, if Senator Baucus, myself, and others seek to ensure

that this tax break is permanently available for the families that

are serving in combat, your position is, you would not oppose that.

Mr. CARROLL. Right. That is correct. I would also want to point

out that we do also anticipate that the general issue of the Earned

Income Tax Credit and its structure, and other provisions that are

targeted to low-income individuals, is an issue that will generally

be taken up by the Tax Panel.

Senator WYDEN. I understand that. I think we all would hope

that combat action involving these courageous troops would end by

2006, but no one can count on that. I think it is a step forward that

you would not oppose this effort, because I know that many Senators of both political parties are interested in it.

One last question. Is my light on, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead with one more question.

Senator WYDEN. It is all right. I can wait. Senator Hatch has

been waiting, Senator Thomas also. I will get another round.

Senator HATCH. I am going to pass anyway.

Senator WYDEN. Let Senator Thomas ask, then I will go with a

second round.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Senator Thomas?

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. I am not sure I am ready. But just

in general—and I am sorry I was not able to hear all of your comments—we are always talking about simplifying the Tax Code. Is

this sort of thing necessary? What is your view of this? Are we

9

evaluating each one? What are we seeking to do? Are we seeking

to simplify the Tax Code at all?

Mr. CARROLL. A lot of the expiring provisions focus on very narrow areas of the Tax Code and very narrow constituencies. They

do raise issues of complexity in some areas, and I think there is

a real balance, a continuing and periodic reevaluation that needs

to take place for a lot of these provisions, to balance the policy objectives providing the benefits, however narrowly defined, with the

complexity and the effectiveness of the provisions. Getting additional information on the provisions and their effectiveness

through, let us say, additional information reporting, in the case of

the QZAB provision, and in other areas, would be helpful.

Senator THOMAS. Medical savings account. Is this the only one

that is available? Archer.

Mr. CARROLL. We have health savings accounts, which effectively

replace medical savings accounts.

Senator THOMAS. Why do we have this one?

Mr. CARROLL. This one is in place. It expires. It is not something

that we propose to extend. I think individuals, over a short period

of time—certainly individuals putting new savings aside for their

health needs—will, in effect, be using health savings accounts.

That is essentially the vehicle that will be used on a forward-going

basis.

Senator THOMAS. We are trying to simplify that, too.

Mr. CARROLL. That is right.

Senator THOMAS. Instead of having half a dozen different opportunities out there, we are trying to make it simpler.

Mr. CARROLL. Right.

Senator THOMAS. We seem to talk about it, but we do not seem

to do it. Generally, on most of these things that we look at, is it

what percentage of the potential involvement are people who are

itemizing as opposed to just using the standard deductions?

Mr. CARROLL. Well, certainly.

Senator THOMAS. I would guess that in many cases these deductions are there for people who do not even itemize.

Mr. CARROLL. Well, a lot of the expiring provisions actually, of

course, apply in the business area, and some of them apply in the

individual area. Many of them do apply to individuals who do not

itemize; some apply to those who do itemize.

Senator THOMAS. It just seems like we come up with ideas, someone needs something so we pass something, and then it piles up.

Then the next thing we do is talk about simplifying the Tax Code

and it is just kind of a mess, really.

Mr. CARROLL. Particularly on the individual side of the Tax

Code, as you point out, it is extraordinarily complex. It imposes

enormous compliance burdens on the economy. One of the major

tasks of the Tax Reform Panel, and one of the major interests of

the President, is to simplify the tax system.

One of the things that was done in the budget is, we did not propose to extend certain provisions, to give greater latitude to the

panel and their work over the next 5 or 6 months.

We also, in the case of some of the expiring provisions where we

did propose to extend, a lot of the extensions are only for 2 years.

That does give the panel the opportunity to, as well, reevaluate.

10

Senator THOMAS. The Tax Panel is looking at all these things?

Mr. CARROLL. The Tax Panel is broadly looking at the Tax Code.

It is looking at some of these specific provisions. Some of the points

that you made, particularly with respect to, let us say, the fraction

of taxpayers who itemize or do not itemize, really goes to the issue

of base broadening and to what extent we want to achieve simplification by providing the benefits of some of these provisions

more broadly across the taxpaying population.

That is an issue that, at the moment, we do not want to prejudge where the panel is going to come out, but we want to let the

panel do its work and kind of make a judgment.

Senator THOMAS. Obviously, there are situations in which we

need to do something. But it just seems like, in general, we are better off to try to simplify the Code, maybe reduce the overall general

taxes, and try to reduce to a minimum this idea of having special

things for restaurants, for example. I am sure someone will argue

that that is a good idea. Why restaurants as opposed to a bar?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden and I have about a question

apiece to ask.

Unlike in prior years, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2006

did not extend the DC Enterprise Zone characterization and the related tax incentives that have been in effect since 1998. In the view

of the administration, should these provisions be permitted to expire?

Mr. CARROLL. That is the position of the administration. As you

know, the administration has put forward a new proposal for opportunity zones to especially help communities in transition. DC

would be, certainly, eligible and able to apply for the benefits under

the opportunity zone legislation. That is the administration’s position.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, just in case we get to the end of 2005 and

the new provision has not been enacted, does the administration

have a position on whether or not the DC enterprise zone should

be extended?

Mr. CARROLL. Currently, we would very much like to work with

Congress to get the opportunity zone provision in place to avoid

that situation.

The CHAIRMAN. So then I think you are saying to us that you do

not want the DC enterprise zone extended if we do not get the new

legislation?

Mr. CARROLL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Senator Wyden?

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Carroll, I think it would also be helpful to get a sense of how

the administration goes about deciding the periods of time that it

assigns to various temporary provisions. You have got some that

are 1-year, some that are 2-year, and you have this chart that illustrates some of this.

At the same time, it is not clear, at least to my way of thinking,

how you reach these judgments with respect to various extension

periods and why one would be one year and one would be another

year.

11

Can you take us through the analysis that you apply in making

these judgments about the various periods of time assigned for the

tax provisions?

Mr. CARROLL. Sure. Several criteria were applied. In a sense, the

broader provisions that affect a broad portion or segment of the

population, the administration, by and large, chose not to extend

so that those provisions could be considered more directly in the

context of tax reform and the tax panel’s work, to give the Tax

Panel more flexibility and latitude.

With respect to the more narrowly defined expiring provisions,

we generally, by and large, propose to extend most of those through

the end of 2006. Essentially, in many cases, that was essentially

a 2-year extension to give us the opportunity to reevaluate and to

continue to consider the effectiveness of the provisions.

It also gives the opportunity for individuals and businesses to

make plans over the next couple of years in anticipation of a potential reform of the tax system, where some of these areas as well

might be affected.

There are a couple of provisions that we propose to extend permanently. The R&E credit is one example, where it is the administration’s view that that particular provision provides a very substantial incentive for companies to invest in innovative technologies

and as a source of innovation for the economy.

Because of that provision’s potential effect on economic growth,

innovation and job creation in the economy, which is a theme that

runs through many of the President’s tax policies, that is a provision that we felt ought to be extended on a permanent basis.

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Carroll.

Well, I should ask, does anybody have a second round? [No response].

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary Carroll.

Now we will go to our panel of experts. We have one panel, but

six people on the panel. We start with the former Commissioner of

IRS, Donald C. Alexander, whom I consider a friend and a person

that I talk to frequently. He is a partner at Akin, Gump.

We also have Mr. Daniel Doctoroff, Deputy Mayor for Economic

Development and Rebuilding for the City of New York; Dr. David

E. Martin, chief executive officer, M-CAM, Charlottesville, VA; Mr.

David Hernandez, Vice-President for Tax Policy, EDS, Plano, TX;

Mr. Dale Giovengo, Human Resources Director, Giant Eagle, Pittsburgh, PA; and Dr. Hy L. Dubowsky, director of Economic Development Services, New York State Department of Labor, in Albany,

NY.

If I did not pronounce two or three of these names correctly, I

will stand corrected by you.

We will go from Mr. Alexander over to Mr. Dubowsky.

Mr. Alexander?

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD C. ALEXANDER, PARTNER,

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement

which I would like to have introduced in the record. I do not propose to read any of it.

12

The CHAIRMAN. All right. And for all of you, if you have a longer

statement than the 5 minutes that you have been given, it will be

just automatically inserted in the record, at your request, without

asking permission at this point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alexander appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Alexander.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for having this hearing. I think it is very important. I have

gained much from the discussion thus far and the questions that

have been raised, Mr. Chairman, particularly the concerns about

administrability of the law, concerns that this committee and the

other tax-writing committee ought to pay some very serious attention to, and I am delighted to see that you are doing exactly that.

Simplifying the law is equally significant. I hope you do not leave

that to this panel, the panel that is supposed to report by July 31

and to take into account all kinds of ways to collect taxes, all ways

of administering tax programs, and all ways of devising such programs.

Are we going to have a value-added tax? Are we going to have

a flat tax? Are we going to continue to have an income tax? The

administration is already saying that they want to protect home

ownership and the charitable deduction. It sounds like an income

tax to me, because it is hard to do that in a VAT.

But, I hope you do not leave that to them. I have served on too

many commissions to take commissions very seriously, and I hope

that this committee does not delegate any of its responsibilities to

a commission appointed by the White House to carry out whatever

its instructions are.

Let us go back to administrability. There are 21 expiring provisions in this group, in addition to a few that deal with Internal

Revenue’s ability to share information with other agencies.

Now, I like the words ‘‘let die’’ that are part of the title of this

hearing. Many of these expiring provisions are candidates for consideration by committees other than the Finance Committee because they have nothing to do with the tax system, other than they

are an excuse not to have to vote on an outlay, but instead to confer a benefit upon a particular group, whether or not they really

need it, through the tax system.

That is what has made our law so complicated. That is why it

is so difficult to administer. That is why it is far from simple. It

is the most complex possible collection of some provisions that

make sense, greatly outweighed by provisions that do not. Hopefully, you can do something about that.

One way is to simply let the undeserving expire, and that surely

includes the District Enterprise Zone. One of the District Enterprise Zones, if I recall correctly, includes the Madison Hotel, where

you can get a good room for $350 a night and which deserves no

special tax benefit.

It is a fine hotel and should be very profitable. Not to pick on

the Madison particularly, but the District Enterprise Zone is in the

Code right now and does not need to be there.

The R&D credit. You will hear a lot about that later. That has

been extended 11 times. It expired once. The former Secretary of

13

the Treasury had something to say about it in his book, in his

usual explicit way. The Treasury Department has come out in favor

of making it permanent. Well, why not make it permanent, if you

are going to extend it for a couple of years? The reason that things

aren’t made permanent is largely budgetary considerations. You

can’t afford to make them permanent, so you extend them.

That is fine, provided you have a chance to look at them to see

if they are really doing what they were intended to do, and what

they are expected to do; whether the outlay is worth the cost.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Hernandez.

STATEMENT OF DAVID HERNANDEZ, VICE-PRESIDENT

FOR TAX POLICY, EDS, PLANO, TX

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, and other members of the committee. My name is

David Hernandez, and I am the Vice-President of Taxes for EDS

Corporation.

I hope my presence here today on the panel will serve to give a

face and basis to corporate America in order to allow you and the

rest of the Congress to hear first-hand exactly how important the

research and development tax credit incentive is to us, and how

much it has an impact on corporate America.

I think it is important to note whom I represent in order to put

my thoughts in context this morning. My own company, EDS,

helped found the information technology outsourcing industry,

which is an industry created to use technology R&D to create economic value and efficiency for our clients. That industry has helped

us create great jobs for over 120,000 employees in over 50 countries

around the world.

I am honored to testify today on behalf of the R&D Credit Coalition, as well, which represents more than 1,000 small, medium,

and large U.S. companies and 85 professional and trade associations, a rare and truly united front of industry in support of the

R&D credit.

First, I want to express our appreciation for the Senate’s longstanding commitment to a strong, vibrant, and permanent research

and development tax credit. The coalition commends Senator

Hatch, and in his absence, Senator Baucus, and all the members

of this committee for your leadership in promoting U.S.-based research activities.

The coalition has worked with Senators Hatch, Baucus, and

other members of the committee to make the current R&D credit

permanent, enhance the alternative incremental credit, and add an

alternative simplified credit option so that the R&D credit will encourage even more companies to increase their U.S.-based research

activities.

We are extremely pleased that a new bill was introduced just

yesterday that we can all support and rally behind in 2005, once

again showing the leadership that is key on this important tax policy issue.

Since 1981, the R&D credit has been a proven and effective incentive for nearly 16,000 large-, small-, and medium-sized compaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:49 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 24063.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
14

nies across all 50 States. Thousands of other companies that manufacture, distribute, market, and sell products and services made

possible by credit-eligible research are indirect beneficiaries of the

credit.

The credit has contributed to the development of new products

and new industries, and the high-quality, high-wage jobs that are

the product of technological innovation. As the leader of EDS’s tax

function, I am confident that you should think of the credit as a

jobs credit, in many ways.

We fund more in R&D as a result of the cost savings created by

the credit, which means we hire more people here in the U.S. to

complete this high-end technology R&D. The positive effects of the

R&D credit on my company’s operation feed off each other and, if

you will, spiral upward in a good way to create growth in our economy.

There are problems, however, that need to be addressed and we

cannot lose sight of. The historical pattern of expiration and extension makes it difficult for companies to plan for projects that are

long-term, high-cost, and high-risk.

Moreover, there are a significant number of research-intensive

companies that, due to their business model or changes in the economy, receive little incentive to increase their research activity in

the United States.

Economists agree that technological innovation has driven much

of the productivity growth of the last decade. It is truly what

makes our American economy so unique and great, and makes me

proud to be a leader in a company like EDS that helps drive that

technological innovation.

What you might not see, Senators, is that foreign jurisdictions

recognize the value and importance of R&D investments and the

high-quality jobs that flow from that investment.

Governments around the world are competing for corporate R&D

investment to help create a better economic future for their citizens. I, as the leader of EDS’s tax function, am often approached

by foreign development authorities seeking EDS R&D investment

dollars.

Just this week, the World Economic Forum released its annual

global information technology report. The rankings which measured the propensity for countries to exploit the opportunities offered by information and communications technology revealed that

Singapore had displaced the United States as the top economy in

information technology competitiveness. As a leader of a U.S. technology company, I am personally united with you to make the U.S.

number one again in that area.

There are 18 OECD countries employing tax incentives for R&D.

Our Canadian neighbors tout the value of their R&D tax credit in

the Wall Street Journal and on CNN.

I am a tax attorney and I try not to get, and often do not have

the opportunity to be, melodramatic about the tax laws that I interpret and apply every day. But it is also very rarely that I get

the opportunity to voice my opinions and the anecdotes associated

with my life to policymakers like yourselves.

So, if you will forgive me, the bottom line for me and our coalition is that a stronger and more reliable R&D credit is a tax policy

15

that will create and drive a stronger and better tomorrow for me,

for my company, for my kids, for you and your constituents as well.

Thank you again for inviting me to speak, and I welcome your

questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hernandez.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hernandez appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Dr. Martin?

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID E. MARTIN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, M-CAM, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

Dr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

It has been a delight working with you in the past on accountability and transparency in tax, particularly last year, working on

the area of patent donations, which was an area where a great deal

of economic gain was masquerading as economic incentive.

In fact, as this committee, and ultimately the Congress and the

President, understood, it was, in fact, a masquerade far more than

it was legitimate.

Most of my comments I would like to just include in the written

component of the record. But job creation and economic development are frequently used to justify the existence, together with the

recent calls for the extension, of the R&E credit and its expansion.

The Joint Committee on Taxation, in its recent report issued just

a few days before this hearing, actually indicated that 84.94 percent of the credit is actually claimed by companies with assets

greater than $50 million.

Given the credit’s use and its bias towards large companies and

the available disclosed financial data from public companies in that

sector, M-CAM undertook an independent investigation to assess

the use of the R&D tax credit in publicly traded corporations in the

United States.

This involved a survey of 5 years of every public financial disclosure of every publicly traded company in the United States. Out of

that, it was helpful to understand that only 200 of the public companies explicitly reported use of the credit during that period of

time.

Now, it is important to understand that ‘‘explicit use’’ and ‘‘actual

use’’ are two different things, and I want to be clear on the fact

that these are actually taken from the companies that actually selfreport the use of the credit.

Twenty percent of the companies using the credit also receive the

primary amount of their R&D funding through government contracts and government grants, which are coming from the support

not only of the United States, but also from a number of other

countries, not the least of which our neighbors to the north.

M-CAM decided to look at a question that, up until now, has not

been looked at, which is whether or not the R&E tax credit actually

has a demonstrable direct benefit in its users, which is something

that, while it has been frequently touted, has never been measured.

In fact, up until now and including the Joint Committee on Taxation, the actual record states that the economic benefit is actually

implied because there is a spill-over effect, because any time R&D

happens, good things happen.

16

But no one has actually taken a disciplined look at the population that actually uses the credit to determine whether they, in

fact, add to the economy. The following is helpful to understand.

We measured the stock performance of companies using the tax

credit compared against Standard & Poors.

Seventy-eight companies of the 200 that self-report, which is 39

percent of the population, actually outperformed the S&P, while 87,

or 44 percent, a larger group, under-performed, filed for bankruptcy, or de-listed during that 5-year period from 1998 to 2003.

For the companies that remained operational through the 5 years

of the study period, the average share price difference between a

company’s time of using the tax credit and the final reporting period during that period of time, was a positive 9.1 percent difference for companies that out-performed the S&P, and a 67.8 percent decrement for the companies that under-performed.

Now, just think about what I just said. There were more companies that under-performed, and their under-performance was much

under-performing the over-performance of the beneficiaries, leading

one to the question of whether or not the true beneficiaries of the

research tax credit are, in fact, those who research—particularly in

accounting firms—ways to look at historical tax statements and

apply the credit retroactively, begging the question of whether or

not the credit actually is used across the board and uniformly in

its intended area.

Remember this: accountability is neither anti-business nor antiAmerican. We, the people, pride ourselves in holding truth self-evident, but if we have no visibility, we have no accountability.

While this country says that it is, in fact, supportive of research

and development—and I, by the way, stand in unity with that position of being supportive of innovation and the public support of innovation—to imply, merely on an emotional argument that the

R&D credit is actually doing its job, without any empirical basis for

making the argument, is disingenuous.

We list some specific recommendations, but in the interest of

time and the number of people on the panel, I will leave the recommendations for questions. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Martin.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Martin appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Doctoroff?

STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. DOCTOROFF, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REBUILDING, CITY OF NEW

YORK, NEW YORK, NY

Mr. DOCTOROFF. Thank you very much. Good morning. I am Dan

Doctoroff, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding

for the City of New York.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify in support of a proposal in the President’s

budget to restructure certain tax benefits for Lower Manhattan’s

recovery.

Mayor Bloomberg wanted to be here this morning, but he is now

in Israel at the President’s request to lead the American delegation

for the dedication of the new Holocaust History Museum.

17

The mayor asked me to communicate, in the strongest possible

terms, his belief that the restructuring of unused tax benefits for

transportation infrastructure is essential to the redevelopment of

Lower Manhattan.

On September 11, 2001, almost 3,000 innocent people were killed

at the World Trade Center; 30 million square feet of commercial

space was lost or damaged; 60,000 jobs were lost. Damages were

in excess of $80 billion.

Since that day, we have made tremendous progress, especially on

the World Trade Center site itself. The site was cleared ahead of

schedule and $1 billion under budget.

We developed a master plan, including a memorial, that resolves

perfectly the seemingly impossible task of remembering and rebuilding.

We selected tenants for cultural buildings, including a new International Freedom Center. We have already laid the cornerstone for

the Freedom Tower. And, as a symbol of our progress, a new, 750-

foot tall building, Number 7, World Trade Center, rises over the

Lower Manhattan skyline.

Our success is, in large part, the result of Federal aid, thanks to

President Bush and the Congress, including this committee. I especially want to thank the New York delegation, including Senators

Schumer and Clinton.

After the attacks, the President and the Congress committed just over $20 billion to New York City, about $15 billion through appropriations, and another $5 billion through two categories of tax provisions.

The first category is tax-exempt financing, including provisions

that were to expire at the end of 2004, before this committee provided much-needed extensions. I want to thank you for that valuable assistance.

The other tax provisions were business-related, such as accelerated depreciation and employment credits. These provisions were

expected to provide about $3 billion toward the rebuilding.

The provisions were designed and analyzed in the rush of activity after 9/11, but it is now clear that they were not the right tools

for New York. In part, as a result, Lower Manhattan has bounced

back more slowly than we had hoped.

A report by State Assembly Speaker Shelvin Silver notes, 3 years

after the attacks, private sector employment in Lower Manhattan

was still 14 percent below pre-9/11 levels.

It is no surprise, therefore, that about $2 billion of these tax provisions remain unused. That is $2 billion of promised aid that New

York has never received, and never will receive, unless you take action. Senators, we need your help to fulfill the original commitment.

The President has proposed to repeal some of the tax benefits

and replace them with an expiring tax credit. The credit would

help pay for a rail link from Lower Manhattan to Long Island and

JFK Airport. This would address Lower Manhattan’s most important need for better connections to the suburban labor pool and to

visitors.

In fact, the new rail link will create as many as 80,000 new, permanent jobs to replace the jobs that were lost on 9/11. That was

18

our objective in the months following the attacks, and that is our

objective today.

This proposal will complete the initial aid package. This proposal

will help secure New York’s place as a global financial capital in

the face of competition from cities like London, Frankfurt, Hong

Kong, and Tokyo. This proposal will enable Lower Manhattan to

continue to generate economic activity and employment for the city,

the State, and the Nation.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doctoroff appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Giovengo?

STATEMENT OF DALE GIOVENGO, HUMAN RESOURCES

DIRECTOR, GIANT EAGLE, PITTSBURGH, PA

Mr. GIOVENGO. Chairman Grassley, Senators Wyden, Hatch,

Thomas, Santorum, and members of the committee, my name is

Dale Giovengo and I am the director of Human Resources at Giant

Eagle Markets in Pittsburgh, PA.

I have been with Giant Eagle for 35 years. I have served in both

store operations and corporate human resource capacities.

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the importance of the Work Opportunity

and Welfare-to-Work tax credits to my company. These are very

important and effective programs, and I am very pleased that this

committee is considering legislation to permanently extend and improve them.

Giant Eagle has been in business for 75 years. Our corporate office is in Pittsburgh, where we opened our first store in 1930. We

currently have 221 supermarkets located in Pennsylvania, Ohio,

West Virginia, and Maryland, four distribution centers, and employ

more than 35,000 people in those States.

Giant Eagle has been an active user of the WOTC and Welfareto-Work credits since their first enactment by Congress. Our company makes a special effort to reach out into the local community

to recruit new employees who are eligible for the credit.

In our community outreach effort, we work with a number of

community organizations, including the Allegheny County Intermediate Unit, Goodwill, Pittsburgh Vision Services, Pittsburgh

Public Schools, and the Cerebral Palsy Foundation.

Our company incurs additional training and acclimation costs in

order to work with this specific population. The WOTC/Welfare-toWork credits support our outreach efforts by offsetting these additional costs to the company.

For example, it is not uncommon for us to pay outside job coaches and trainers to work with some of these hires. Our experience

has shown us that our spending on special training for this population is a good investment. We have found that many of our

WOTC/Welfare-to-Work hires become loyal, well-trained employees,

with a turnover rate comparable to, or better, than our overall

workforce.

We encourage our store managers to hire WOTC/Welfare-to-Work

eligible employees. All credits earned by Giant Eagle are credited

back to store level, which contributes to that store’s profitability

19

and, ultimately, to the manager’s compensation, so they have some

personal motivation to maximize the hires that would qualify.

Allow me to share with you our WOTC/Welfare-to-Work hiring

experience for 2003. Ninety-four percent of our applicants were prescreened for tax credit eligibility, either as a referral from a community-based organization or in conjunction with our employment

application.

IRS 8850 forms were submitted for 1,386 of those individuals we

hired. So, WOTC/Welfare-to-Work hires made up almost 14 percent

of our new employees in 2003.

Our company treats our WOTC/Welfare-to-Work hires the same

as traditional hires. They are entitled to the same benefits, including health insurance, dental, vision coverage, life insurance, sick

pay, and vacation pay. This includes part-time employees, as well

as full-time. In addition, all of our full-time employees receive medical coverage for their dependents as well.

Mr. Chairman, we strongly support S. 595 because, first, a permanent program will end the harmful uncertainty that results

from temporary extensions, or, worse, the disruptions that occur

when the programs expire.

Second, merging the Welfare-to-Work tax credit into the Work

Opportunity tax credit will simply program administration.

Third, the proposed expansion of the age eligibility for the highrisk youth in food stamp groups will help companies like ours move

more unemployed men, who are often fathers of children on welfare, into the workforce.

To date, the program has been very helpful in encouraging us to

hire women on welfare, but as currently structured, we receive no

incentive to hire absentee fathers, who also face significant, if not

greater, barriers to work than welfare moms.

Finally, we also support the proposal to remove the income test

for the ex-felon category. Since I have a second, I just wanted to

describe one program that we have put in place that has been

somewhat underwritten by the tax credits.

We have, in two of our inner city stores, what we call Project Advantage. It is our store in East Liberty and our store in Waterfront,

where we employ about 400 employees. A lot of them, because it

is inner city, qualify under the Welfare-to-Work tax credit and the

WOTC credit.

We have hired three specific counselors to act as an EAP program for those two stores and counsel our employees on things like

child care, transportation, legal issues, housing, and it has been

very successful in those two stores in reducing the turnover and

maintaining the employment for those at-risk employees. So, this

credit has helped us offset the cost of doing that. We employed a

United Way nonprofit organization to run that program for us.

I thank the committee again for the opportunity to appear today,

and urge members to support the Santorum-Baucus bill to permanently extend and improve the Work Opportunity and Welfare-toWork credits. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giovengo appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Dr. Dubowsky?

20

STATEMENT OF HY L. DUBOWSKY, PhD, DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, ALBANY, NY

Dr. DUBOWSKY. My name is Hy Dubowsky and I direct economic

development services through the New York State Department of

Labor.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, members of the committee, on

behalf of New York State Governor George E. Pataki and the New

York State Department of Labor Commissioner Linda Angello, I

want to thank you for providing this opportunity to submit testimony regarding a review of tax extenders. My testimony will be

limited to the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work tax credits.

New York State is proud of our efforts to administer tax credit

programs. By applying uniform, constant standards, we have

earned the appreciation of the companies and providers that work

with us. This, combined with our excellent customer service, encourages participation and has enabled our State to maximize the

usage of all tax credits.

Under Governor Pataki, the WOTC program has certified more

than 155,000 individuals with barriers to employment. Those individuals were assisted in finding private sector jobs, the first step

of transitioning from dependence to independence.

According to the New York State Department of Labor, more

than 65 percent of these individuals were former public assistance

or food stamp recipients. The remaining third were vocational rehabilitation consumers, ex-offenders, supplemental security income

recipients, low-income veterans, and youth living in federally designated empowerment zones or renewal communities.

These statistics mirror those of the Nation; as these people transition into jobs, they start on a new road. They contribute to the

economic well-being of their communities and of the Nation.

The benefits of the WOTC program exceed the costs. In a 2003

report submitted to former U.S. Representative Amo Hoden, the

New York State Department of Labor concluded that WOTC benefits surpassed costs by more than $200 million.

Public spending was reduced as hard-to-employ individuals

transitioned into private sector jobs, earned wages, and lessened

their reliance on government-supported programs. Such budgetary

savings generate reoccurring economic benefits.

Tax credits are also used extensively by the not-for-profit workforce development community. The credits offer job developers and

counselors, working in everything from small neighborhood centers

to sophisticated training facilities, a carrot to enhance their

chances of placing hard-to-employ individuals.

Our ability to build a network of business and not-for-profit partners was weakened by the gap between the program’s expiration

on December 31, 2003 and reauthorization in October of 2004.

In New York, as in other States, the uncertainty surrounding

program reauthorization virtually brought our efforts to a halt. Acceptance of government programs depends on trust and a degree of

certainty to justify integrating the programs into long-term organizational development and marketing plans. The lack of certainty

that the credits will be extended beyond the December 31, 2005 expiration date may have negative consequences.

21

It may discourage businesses, service providers, and State tax

credit operations from investing in application and processing system improvements, computer and database upgrades, staff development and field structures.

More importantly, it may constrain our joint efforts to persuade

businesses to commit to behavioral changes when hiring workers

and to include individuals with barriers to employment in their

workforce.

Funding for the WOTC and WTW programs has remained constant for a number of years. The original Federal support level of

approximately $20 million that has supported the 53 State workforce agency operations has shrunk to $17.3 million this year. According to U.S. DOL, nearly a quarter of State operations receive

less than $65,000 for direct support of the tax credit programs.

New York State has learned to do more with less. We were the

first State in the Nation to offer electronic filing in addition to

paper forms. We give large businesses and consultants certification

data on CD-roms and a database that is easy for them to use. New

York has also promoted the tax credit programs through the State’s

Economic Development Team.

We have found that presenting employment tax credits as part

of a full package of incentives makes them more attractive to employers and more effective in the long run.

Our customers also appreciate the availability of a toll-free number, 1–800–HIRE–992, which serves as a single point of entry for

a number of agency services. We are able to offer our customers excellent service and personal attention, and still keep our administrative costs low.

It is possible, next year, that funding will be allocated to support

WOTC and WTW in lower amounts than this year. Without adequate support, State agencies may not be able to process applications that serve their business provider and local government partners in an effective and efficient manner.

Backlogs will grow, exacerbated by an anticipated response to

the provisions of the IRS TANF Revenue Ruling, which will effectively require State agencies to postpone reviewing current applications while staffers are assigned to re-review applications denied in

error.

New York State was proud to chair a joint Federal/State

workgroup which provided a framework for EWOTC, to guide the

States and U.S. DOL in developing a paperless process. EWOTC

addresses the evolving human resource needs of the business community, and it enhances the ability of State agencies to strengthen

their internal controls and system capabilities.

There are many, many, many low-income, hard-to-employ individuals who are currently out of reach of the WOTC/WTW program. Legislation introduced by Senator Santorum and Senator

Baucus, which cuts red tape by combining the WOTC and WTW

credits, raises the age limit for the food stamp and high-risk youth

categories from 24 to 39, and eliminates the onerous burden of

verifying income for recently released felons, is the next logical step

for this program. WOTC and WTW are often lost in the shadows

above the larger, well-funded workforce development or employment programs. It merits your attention.

22

We support reauthorization, the program enhancements offered

by Senators Santorum and Baucus, and assurances that adequate

funding will be made available for tax credit operations at the

State level.

Again, on behalf of Governor George E. Pataki and Commissioner

Linda Angello, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony

in support of these valuable programs.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dubowsky appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank you all very much. We will take

5-minute rounds in the order of: Grassley, Wyden, Hatch, Bingaman, Thomas, and Santorum.

Mr. Giovengo, I will start with you. There is considerable support

and evidence of the success of both the Work Opportunity tax credit and the Welfare-to-Work tax credit.

Everyone seems to agree that the programs should be merged,

and though not included in the President’s budget, a provision was

included in last year’s JOBS bill to make the provision permanent.

We are also here today, though, to consider ways to improve administration of each of these provisions. The IRS and practitioners

tell us that the untimely certification process creates considerable

uncertainty and complexity for corporate taxpayers and creates difficulty for the IRS to review and do the administration.

We understand that taxpayers are inconsistent in how they deal

with the problem of certification that failed to materialize. For example, Mr. Giovengo, you indicate that your company expected that

14 percent of its workforce would render tax credits, but realize

only about half of that amount. Because it takes some time to get

State certification, Giant Eagle has to take a position on its current

returns with respect to recent hires.

Can you please tell the committee how Giant Eagle addresses

this issue? That is, do you make an estimate on your current return and then amend the future years when certifications are obtained? If so, do you make an amendment each year for credits that

did not materialize over a period of years?

Mr. GIOVENGO. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You do all that?

Mr. GIOVENGO. We do.

The CHAIRMAN. As I have described it?

Mr. GIOVENGO. We get credits in an untimely manner.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Do I describe what is the situation for your

company?

Mr. GIOVENGO. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Then let me follow up with this. I would like you and Dr.

Dubowsky to offer recommendations on ways that the certification

process can be improved. States are obviously incentivized to promote employment using the credit so as to reduce welfare and encourage productivity.

Nevertheless, they fail to get the certification done in a timely

manner, and the suggestion seems to be that these offices are

under-funded by the Department of Labor or that the program’s potential expiration is the problem. I would appreciate any recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:49 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 24063.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
23

ommendations that you have on ways to streamline the process

and make the credit more effective.

Mr. GIOVENGO. We would be happy to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to do that in writing then?

Mr. GIOVENGO. Yes.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Dubowsky?

Dr. DUBOWSKY. We will be glad to submit further suggestions in

writing, sir.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Dr. DUBOWSKY. But, just very briefly, funding is obviously an

issue in States that support a maximum of one full-time equivalent

worker. Obviously, there needs to be an equitable distribution of

funding to support staff.

States need to strengthen their agreements with other State

agencies to be able to verify targeted status. New York has excellent agreements with our various verification groups and has direct

access to those databases; other States do not.

We believe that moving to a paperless process will streamline not

just the application process, sir, but in our submitted testimony we

allude to the fact that EWOTC will also provide management tools

for States both to interact with their own agencies and staff, but

as well with their employer-customers.

Finally, the issue of permanence of a long-term extension, certainly, in any organization, uncertainty dissuades folks from development and from long-term planning.

So, as to the extension, in fact, we would love to see this program

made permanent. It would allow us to go back to our budget folks

and say, we need to put some systems in place to address this important program in a timely manner.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. Alexander, with your experience and background, both in

practice as well as running the IRS, you give us a lot of helpful

perspectives. I would like to have your thoughts on an issue that

concerns me, the extent of Treasury’s consultation with the IRS

about the administration of specific Code provisions prior to proposing them to Congress.

I would ask you to give us, as best you can, the history of consultations between the IRS and Treasury and any sense you have

of the current practice. In addition, I know that Congress has gone

back and forth on having the IRS play a greater advisory role in

its deliberations, and so your thoughts on that as well.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It varies. It varies

depending on who is in the Commissioner’s office, who is in the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy’s office, how well they get along,

and how well the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy is willing to

let the IRS have its say at the Hill.

I can strongly recommend to you having oversight hearings, because then you can listen to IRS and you can ask them questions

about whether a particular provision that the White House might

like, Treasury might like, both might like, can actually be administered, whether taxpayers can get the benefit they are supposed to

get from it and whether the IRS can actually make sure that those

who would fudge a little bit are prevented from doing so.

24

Treasury likes to have the Hill to itself. Now, my distinguished

colleagues from Treasury are fine people. They have left, but they

are fine people, anyway. [Laughter.] But what you need to do, is

try to get by a barrier that 15th Street is going to erect, and has

erected for years, against going directly to 1111 Constitution Avenue.

The only way I know how you can do that is to use your oversight responsibilities, as well as your general responsibilities, otherwise, IRS is not going to be at this table talking to you about

whether some highly worthwhile thing—we just heard how wonderful all these credits are—actually is administrable.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much.

Now, Senator Hatch?

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Martin, let me start with you. Thank you for your very interesting comments and suggestions on the research credit. As a longtime proponent of the credit, and especially of making it permanent, I am interested in trying to improve it in any way we reasonably can.

Now, some of your comments raised some questions in my mind,

however. First, I am a little unclear as to why you began studying

the credit. You mentioned that you were doing some work for the

IRS in the area of patent donations when you discovered some

problems with the research credit. Am I correct in that?

Dr. MARTIN. Yes, that is correct. We actually were reviewing tax

behavior generally among the donation companies, and we found

an alarming number of cross-overs between donating companies

who were over-valuing donations and people applying, particularly

the credit, in retrospect.

Senator HATCH. Did someone commission you to undertake this

study?

Dr. MARTIN. No. As a matter of fact, similar to our work on the

patent donation situation, that was information we surfaced both

to this committee and to the Treasury.

Senator HATCH. So it was part of your work at the IRS.

Dr. MARTIN. No, no, no. We do that prior to. We have surfaced

this information in advance, because this was information that was

not available prior.

Senator HATCH. Now, you stated in your testimony that there is

no mechanism in existence today to ensure that the U.S. taxpayer

receives any of the intended benefit from the research credit.

What about the mechanism of an audit from the Internal Revenue Service? Are you saying that IRS is powerless in policing the

research credit? Let me just ask one last question on this. Is the

situation of the research credit not basically the same as with most

other credits or deductions claimed by taxpayers?

Dr. MARTIN. Well, there are a number of unique challenges that

the R&E credit affords both to the Service, from an enforcement

standpoint, and actually for the company trying to use the credit.

There are three layers of a response that I would want to provide.

The first layer is that the IRS is stymied equally, as is industry,

to define what qualified research is. That is something that has

been before this committee and before Congress since 1981.

25

The definition of qualified research remains ambiguous, and it

continues to have problems in that area, so what constitutes qualified research is problematic. But a broader issue, and this is the

same thing that we encountered in patent donations, which is the

case also in the research exemption, the problem that you wind up

with is the documentation that can be surfaced by a company is

commensurate with their documentation systems internally.

On many, many occasions, we have found, on the enforcement of

other matters, the IRS will actually submit information disclosure

requests to a taxpayer, and that information is neither surfaced,

nor surfaceable.

Given the absence of the documentation to justify what particular research was applicable against the credit, what is typically

done is, in fact, the large- and medium-sized business compliance

office within the IRS specifically has guidance that says that the

best they can do is statistically sample reports, because they cannot go through the record.

In this situation, what the IRS is confronted with is the absence

of documentation to verify the credit’s use and has no ability to effectively enforce it against either legitimate use or illegitimate use

of the credit; therefore, there is no transparency afforded, and the

absence of IDR and the absence of IDR response, unfortunately,

has also surfaced in an application of the fast-track settlement approach within IRS, where people failing to disclose under IDR requests are still being afforded the opportunity for fast-track settlement, which is absolutely ludicrous.

Senator HATCH. Let me ask Mr. Hernandez, do you agree with

Dr. Martin’s conclusion that there is no mechanism available today

to ensure that the research credit is not being widely abused? If

you have any other comments about Dr. Martin’s comments, I

would appreciate that.

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Thank you, Senator Hatch. A couple of reasons

on my part, in my function of managing the corporate tax function

for EDS.

The IRS is very vigorously pursuing enforcement, and tight enforcement, of the application of the Research and Development tax

credits. The documentation that Dr. Martin refers to is something

that the taxpayer has an obligation to produce and maintain in

order to back up the position that it takes on its tax return.

That documentation, in my case—and anecdotally, what I would

like to share with you—on audit is then backed up with specific

interviews behind the basis of our projects that we have claimed

a credit for. I do not think anyone on my IRS exam team would

indicate to you that there is a lack of information available to assess the applicability of the credit on our fact pattern.

The other thing I guess I would react to is a general criticism

of using statistical sampling in the audit process. It is potentially

a bit of an overstatement. There are so many individual line items

that flow through a corporate tax return these days that, in many

cases, many deductions—going back to your original question, Senator Hatch—the only way to possibly audit those results is through

statistical sampling, which is intended to reach an aggregate result

that would approach looking at each individual project that you

26

would look at with respect to the research credit that I have

claimed.

The other thing that I would react to, in general, to Dr. Martin’s

findings that he discussed, a bit unfortunately, but perhaps a bit

fortunately for us here today, I fall into Dr. Martin’s unfortunate

fact pattern. My company has not performed from a stock price

perspective to what we would have expected over the last 3 to 5

years.

But what I will tell you, Senators, is that the existence of the research credit has reduced our cost base and has given my company

an opportunity to reinvest in the technology associated with our

business, to reinvest in our strategic direction, in order to give the

company a chance to resurrect itself and, again, grow our stock and

our stock price based on our economic performance.

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. The Chairman has allowed me

to just ask two more questions, one for you and one for Mr. Alexander.

In your experience, does the research credit make a difference

when a company is making its spending and hiring decisions? Does

it really encourage a company to do more than it otherwise would

in terms of R&D spending?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. I think there are two aspects to answering that

question. I am constantly in dialogues with our senior financial executives, as well as our senior strategic and operational executives,

in the decision making process associated with investments that we

are going to make in our business. The biggest part of the dialogue

that I contribute to is the cost reduction associated with the Research and Development tax credit.

There is also an incentive effect, even if those decisions are not

made at the front end of those processes and strategic decisions, in

the following manner: the research credit serves as a reduction of

our overall cost base from an operational perspective.

The result is that we have more dollars in total to reinvest in the

company and the business. Therefore, you have a continued, positive effect to the existence of the credit, even absent a fact situation

where it was not at the front end of the decision-making process.

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you.

Mr. Alexander, I share the Chairman’s high opinion of you. You

have been very helpful to this committee for years and years.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, sir.

Senator HATCH. In your experience, does the administration of

the research credit present huge problems above and beyond those

presented by other credits or deductions? In other words, do we

need to institute new compliance requirements to ensure massive

fraud is not occurring with the research credit?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Hatch, the research credit has presented many administrative problems for years because, as pointed

out by the witnesses, it is very hard to define what it is, what is

research and what is not, where it stops.

Congress has contributed a little bit to the problems of the research credit by not making it permanent. It extended it 11 times,

1 year left out. If you are going to have a research credit, let us

have one that is either in the Internal Revenue Code, or if not,

somewhere else.

27

The research credit is sort of a substitute for an ancient problem

that we had with research expenses way back in the 1970s, when

people did not know whether research expenditures could actually

be deducted at all. Now we have gone not only toward a full deduction, we have gone toward a credit, which is a lot better than a deduction, as we all know.

But people need to know whether you are going to keep it in effect or whether you are not. That would solve one problem. The

other problem of trying to define it and trying to seek it out, trying

to get good answers to IDRs—which I hope you can get—and trying

to deal with the people that refuse to answer, but still claim the

credit—which I find is as impermissible as Dr. Martin—you can

improve the utilization of the credit. You can improve the administrability of the credit. But let us get rid of the uncertainty, if you

can, of whether the credit is going to continue to exist.

Senator HATCH. Well, I appreciate it. I want to thank Senator

Bingaman and Senator Grassley for allowing me to ask these two

questions, since I have to leave. But I appreciate all of you, and appreciate your testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hatch.

Now, Senator Bingaman?

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you all for testifying.

I wanted to just focus also on this R&E tax credit. I was going

to ask you, Mr. Hernandez. One of the efforts I have been making

around here for the last several years, along with Senator Domenici, and Senator Baucus has joined us in this, has been to work on

a proposed change in the R&E tax credit to deal with a couple of

weaknesses that we have identified.

The first part of the proposal that we made provides participants

in a research consortium with a flat 20-percent research tax credit.

The consortium would be defined as a group of five or more unrelated companies working together on a specific type of mutually

beneficial research, our thought being that we should try to be encouraging this kind of cooperative effort by companies, and that the

current tax credit does not do that.

The second part of our proposal would get rid of a restriction in

the current law that allows companies to only consider 65 percent

of their research expenses for purposes of calculating their credit

when the funds are paid to a Federal laboratory, a university, or

a small business that they have been working with.

Again, it seems to me that there is a good public policy reason

to want to encourage the expenditure of funds at our universities,

at our laboratories in this way. For that reason, we would eliminate that provision.

Mr. Chairman, there is a statement that I have by the president

and chief executive officer of EPRI, which is the Electric Power Research Institute, generally supporting this. I would ask if we could

make this a part of the record today.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

[The prepared statement of the Electric Power Research Institute

appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Also, I wanted to alert you to the fact that I

heard your statement about the bill that you have with Senator

28

Domenici. I would assure you that I will work with you on that and

be supportive of it, I believe.

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you. That would be a big help. We appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Let me ask Mr. Hernandez if he has had a chance to look at the

bill that we introduced in the last Congress. We have not reintroduced it yet. But let me ask if he is aware of this provision, and

if he has any views on it.

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Senator Bingaman, again, as a representative

of the R&D Credit Coalition, we supported the bill that was introduced in the Senate last year. The consortia changes that you specifically discussed are not part of the coalition’s objectives, but we

applaud you for trying to make the research credit a stronger incentive vehicle for encouraging research in this country. We applaud those efforts and we support you in them. Thank you.

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I also have to go to another hearing. But I appreciate your having

this hearing, and I appreciate the testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I am going to call on Senator Schumer, but

before I do that, I want to say to all members that the record would

be open for 48 hours for questions to be answered in writing from

any members of this committee, and in like mind then, hopefully

a quick written response from whomever those questions might be

directed to.

Anticipating what Senator Schumer might bring up, I would tell

him that I had a chance to visit with Governor Pataki just prior

to this meeting about some of the issues that New York City is interested in. You have already been complimented by the witnesses

for your work on this, as well as Senator Clinton.

Now, while you are asking questions, I am going to step out just

for a minute. But if you get done quickly, would the panel wait, because I have one more question I would like to ask.

Senator SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, would you like to ask it first?

The CHAIRMAN. No, you go ahead. Then I will come back.

Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you. There is still a Chuck here

at the hearing, I guess, so we are all right. [Laughter.] We used

to have four Chucks, but Chuck Robb lost, or left, so now we have

three.

Anyway, I want to thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for this hearing. I know its importance. I am going to

cut right to the chase here, but I do have to say I am a new member of the Finance Committee, as everyone knows, and I was

amazed at how many provisions are set to expire and how many

are just regularly renewed every year. I do not know why that is,

but I am glad we are having this hearing ahead of time. It makes

a good deal of sense.

One issue that I am very concerned with that is not the subject

of this hearing, of course, is the proposal that Senator Snowe and

I had, which is a law now making tuition tax-deductible. That is

a vital provision for middle-class families that does expire before

next year, so I hope we will pay some attention to that.

But I want to talk today and I want to welcome our two New

York witnesses, Daniel Doctoroff, the Deputy Mayor for Economic

29

Development and Rebuilding, someone I have known for close to 2

decades.

And Dr. Dubowsky, I want to thank you for being here, someone

I have known for about a minute and a half, now.

Dr. DUBOWSKY. We went to the same high school.

Senator SCHUMER. Oh. A Madison High School graduate. Wow.

Dr. DUBOWSKY. We have a lot of common ground.

Senator SCHUMER. You graduated in the class of 1967?

Dr. DUBOWSKY. 1968.

Senator SCHUMER. Oh. I was 1967.

Dr. DUBOWSKY. I also went to your first employer. That is how

I got into college. I was not working at the Stanley Kaplan Print

Shop.

Senator SCHUMER. He knows a lot about me. My first job was to

run the mimeograph machine at a Madison High School teacher’s

office, who was starting a new company. He had this brand-new

idea. He was going to tutor students to prepare for the SATs.

[Laughter.]

I ran the mimeograph machine. We had an electric one. So as the

machine went around and around and around in this little 3 foot

by 3 foot room, and I had to work weekends, after school, and

sometimes in the summer, I read the preparatory materials over

and over again, and I got 800s on my tests. [Laughter.]

Which disproves what the College Boards were saying, that it

was aptitude; it was really achievement. If you study for the test,

it works. I then had a fight with Kaplan. When I got those 800s,

he wanted to hang them up on the wall.

Dr. DUBOWSKY. Let me assure you, I did not get 800s. [Laughter.]

Senator SCHUMER. All right. But, anyway, he wanted to hang

them up on the wall and I said no, and my employment was terminated. He went on to sell the business to the Washington Post for

$50 million, and look what happened to me! [Laughter.]

So, anyway, getting back to my long association with both Mr.

Doctoroff and Dr. Dubowsky, I am glad both of you are here, and

you are able witnesses for the great city that we all love, New

York.

Now, we are here to talk about some of the provisions, the tax

initiatives, that were enacted to help rebuild Lower Manhattan

after 9/11. I worked with, in fact, Deputy Mayor Doctoroff on those.

They have been very successful.

Downtown is not a wasteland: people are moving back; Goldman

Sachs plans to build a headquarters there; commercial companies

are beginning to look at moving back there, and a few have already

decided to do it; residentially, it is booming.

So, this is all a success story. I think, without the assurance that

America, this Congress, and this Senate gave the Nation, we would

not have been able to do it. So, I thank you.

But not every provision was fully utilized. We do have remaining

tax incentives, which were not fully used. We thought more of them

would be used than were. With the help of Mayor Bloomberg and

Governor Pataki, Senator Clinton, and the House delegation, Republicans and Democrats alike, we were able to persuade the Bush

administration to make these funds a little more fungible.

30

In fact, I had a good relationship with Mitch Daniels. When we did the initial agreement about the $20 billion which he and I negotiated, there was a codicil that said if we did not use all these

funds, we could use them for transportation, in particular. So, the $2 billion to connect downtown to the Kennedy Airport is in keeping with the spirit of the $20 billion because we want to

see downtown stay vibrant, and its great missing rail link is to

Kennedy Airport and to Long Island.

Anyone who lives on Long Island, which is one of the main places

for New York City’s workforce, has to really go a convoluted way

to get to Lower Manhattan. It is one of the reasons Lower Manhattan has not grown as quickly as midtown. So, it makes a great deal

of sense.

The point I want to underline over and over again is, this is not

new money. This was money we did not spend. It was money promised to New York. Without this, we would not be getting the $20

billion in change that we were promised over and over again.

And I want to salute the President for stepping up to the plate

and admitting that. We have had our disagreements, but on the

$20 billion he has been true blue. He has stuck by his commitments through thick and thin and deserves a great deal of credit

for that.

From the day he made the promise to me 2 days after 9/11 that he would support the $20 billion, in the Oval Office, through this

very moment, he has really been true to his word. So, this is an

important thing to do.

I want to ask Mr. Doctoroff a question. At a Finance Committee

hearing a few weeks back, I asked Treasury Secretary Snow whether the President was committed to fighting for the new provision.

Secretary Snow was not quite on point. He said the President

supports the provision. I have the feeling he was not fully up to

date on it.

Now, you and I know that fighting for something is different

than just supporting it. We are going to need to do that, given the

budget vagaries here.

What has been your communication with the Bush administration? Have they committed to the degree of support as opposed to

the actual support? Will they be fighting for this throughout?

Mr. DOCTOROFF. Thank you, Senator. I would concur with your

view about President Bush and his commitment to New York and

fulfilling the commitments that were made immediately after 9/11.

We have had extensive conversations with the White House.

We can submit into the record a letter from OMB Director Josh

Bolton. We have seen absolutely no evidence that, from the President on down, they are not prepared to live up to the commitments

that they made after 9/11.

Senator SCHUMER. And that includes this $2 billion?

Mr. DOCTOROFF. Especially this $2 billion, because this is really

the last amount of money that really needs to be resolved. Everything else has either been spent or is largely accounted for. So, this

is the final piece of the puzzle.

Senator SCHUMER. And the one other worry I have, and I would

want to share this with the Chairman, as well as with you, Mr.

Deputy Mayor, is if this is added into the transportation bill, which

31

it may be, there is some talk about that, I would not want it to

come out of other things that New York would be entitled to in the

transit bill, because this is not new money, but an old commitment.

I would prefer to have it stay in the extenders bill for that reason. But if for some reason we were going to put it in the transit

bill, I would want it made sure, with that caveat. What do you

think of that?

Mr. DOCTOROFF. We think that is absolutely correct. The provisions were initially tax provisions, and we think it is most appropriate for them to remain tax provisions. So, we do not think it has

a place in the transportation bill, and we share your concern that

it could reduce other funding for New York. This is really 9/11-specific.

As I indicated in my testimony, despite what I think has been

a remarkable recovery, we are still way behind where we were on

9/10/2001. We are still down 60,000 jobs in Lower Manhattan.

I think, with everybody involved, there is absolute unanimity

among our Congressional delegation, and Senator Schumer really

has been the true champion of this project, among the Governor,

the mayor, the local business community, community groups. This

is the single most important project in order to bring Lower Manhattan back, not just for New York City, but for the Nation.

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me have some reaction to what you asked me

to pay special attention to. It probably would be better if this were

not in the highway bill, not for the reasons that you give, but because this committee has a very heavy lift on additional money to

offset.

But then that would also give me an opportunity to challenge

you. The issue of certain taxes and reconciliation is still out. In the

case of reconciliation, it only takes 51 votes. Then that leaves two

propositions about any tax legislation.

One, regular order with offsets would only take 51 votes. If we

could find offsets, that is always our druthers. But then for your

help, if we cannot find offsets, then it would be very helpful for you

to help us get the 60 votes that it might take to get a bill otherwise

passed. Particularly, if this were included in it, I would expect that

we would get that help.

Senator SCHUMER. If this were included, it would make it much

easier to get those 60 votes, as far as I am concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you. Thank you for listening to

me, because I am sharing with you some of the problems that I

have down the road.

Senator SCHUMER. I understand, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure you are very familiar with them, but

as time goes on, as a member of this committee, you will become

even more familiar with them.

Senator SCHUMER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

In all seriousness, Chairman Grassley, when we brought this

issue to him last year, both Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus understood the problems of New York, understood the

commitment, and really worked hard. As you know, it was in the

Senate proposal. It just was not in the House’s. I want to thank

you for that, Mr. Chairman.

32

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you.

Now, I think my last question is directed just to Dr. Martin, but

if anybody else wants to respond, I would welcome it.

I appreciate your testimony regarding the R&D tax credit. While

I am a supporter of the R&D tax credit, we need to make certain

it is targeted to achieve the intended results and that it can be effectively administered by the Internal Revenue Service.

I want you to discuss, further, a few points raised in your testimony. First, I would like you to expand on your experiences with

the IRS in terms of examination by the IRS of R&D tax credit

issues. In addition, please comment on any particular abuses you

may have seen, as well as IRS’s response to resolving or settling

exam questions on these issues.

Dr. MARTIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have already commented

to Senator Hatch on the issue with respect to allowing settlement

in the face of non-response to IDR, which is a very material and

very real problem, because as the Service tries to audit, if there is

obfuscation on the part of a taxpayer, it makes their job very difficult.

In the pressure that they have to do revenue recognition, obviously, they have to make a very difficult decision of trying to force

the issue or moving to settlement. That is probably the over-arching concern.

So, I think the first issue is that, anecdotally and in practice that

we have seen ourselves involved in from time to time, the absence

of transparency with respect to the flow of information between the

taxpayer and the IRS is probably the single largest enforcement

problem.

The biggest problem, ultimately, is then the court’s interpretation of what has been defined, all the way up to appellate court,

as ‘‘willful practice of ignorance.’’

Willful practice of ignorance is a very interesting standard to be

trying to debate, whether you are trying to enforce or comply with

the regulation. What we need to do is, we need to make sure that

we have a vehicle whereby the taxpayer can clearly and transparently indicate the research for which the credit is being applied,

and, second, have the Service looking at the same data.

The fact of the matter is, in retrospect of application—which is

where the predominant use of this credit is afforded, not in prospective research planning but in retrospective application—it is

absolutely imperative that there be a clear picture that, at the time

that the research was being undertaken, that research, in fact, met

the requirement, because it is a stimulator in its construction, not

a retrospective revenue smoother.

Now, I am not opposed to retrospective revenue smoothing, but

let us not call it a research credit in that case, let us call it a revenue smoothing credit, and let us use it as an economic incentive

that way.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, second, I would like to have you expand

on your statement about companies having the affirmative duty to

disclose to the IRS certain issues related to the credit. I would ask

that you compare this to the company’s opposite position not to disclose because of patent and trade secrets.

33

Dr. MARTIN. Certainly. There is a tension, particularly in the

area of patentable innovation, where the Patent Office standard—

and this has been supported under Rule 56 of the Patent Statute—

actually allows the applicant not to disclose, and has no duty to

disclose any due diligence verifying the uniqueness of their work.

Under the ‘‘qualified research’’ definition, the work must be considered unique to be qualified, and it has to be done for the first

time to be qualified. There is no qualification requirement and no

qualification statutory standard in any part of the law that actually

allows for the enforcement of this kind of dynamic challenge that

we face.

On the IP side, there is no duty to disclose. On the part of the

tax side, there is an inference to disclose under audit, but there is

no duty there as well. An active and affirmative duty to disclose

the conditions that met the requirement as a part of a stimulation

plan that would be a priori in its definition, meaning that prior to

the application of the credit a company would attest that they are

engaging in research that is qualified and agree to documentation

standards, does not place an onerous burden on industry, but

would clarify the audit requirements for the IRS.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, finally—and if you would like to respond

in writing on this you could do that, but if you want to respond

now I have time—I would ask for your specific recommendations to

the committee as we consider the administration’s proposal to

make the R&D credit permanent.

In particular, I would like your thoughts on what could be done

to achieve the results intended by Congress, encourage transparency, improve disclosures, and ensure effective enforcement.

Dr. MARTIN. I have five specific recommendations in my written

comments. I would merely want to reinforce, and actually applaud

Mr. Hernandez for his comments with respect to the fact that there

are a number of people who diligently try to use the credit appropriately. But I think that if we make this permanent, as a condition of making it permanent, that the statute defining its permanence should also define regular oversight requirements that would

measure economic output numbers to verify that the country is actually benefitting from the use of the credit, because, at this point

in time, in the history of the credit, since 1981, there is not a single

study performed in any federally sponsored research, IRS-sponsored research, or any economic research that actually verifies that

the credit itself and its application directly leads to the creation of

jobs or economic gain.

Every study that has been cited in the Joint Committee on Taxation report infers just that, based on an inference that has not

been substantiated, and we need to have that written into the statute, otherwise the abuse levels are upping the ante.

The CHAIRMAN. I will take note of your five specific points that

you made in your extended statement.

I thank this panel. I think it has been very, very useful, and I

think has given us a real eye-opener on review of extenders. Today’s hearing, I think, informs our committee very much as it considers these extenders, and obviously they will be considered.

Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]

(35)

A P P E N D I X

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD C. ALEXANDER

36

37

RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question: Mr. Alexander, according to the Congressional Research Service, two of

the largest tax breaks for oil and gas production are not economically efficient:

(1) Expensing of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Cost; and (2) Excess of

Percentage Over Cost Depletion. That is the analysis of the Congressional Research

Service (CRS) in the Tax Expenditures Compendium that CRS recently prepared for

the Senate Budget Committee (S. Prt. 108–54). Please provide your views on CRS’s

conclusion that these tax incentives are economically inefficient and, if you agree

with their analysis, what you would recommend Congress do to improve these inefficient tax incentives.

Answer: As I understand it, neither the Expensing of Oil and Gas Exploration and

Development Cost nor the Excess of Percentage Over Cost Depletion are expiring

provisions. Moreover, since I have not studied either of them in recent years, I am

not in a position at this time to conclude that these tax incentives, as now in effect,

are economically inefficient. I continue to believe, however, that Congress should

conduct regular hearings on both social incentives and economic incentives in the

Internal Revenue Code to see whether they should be revised or removed.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS

Thank you, Chairman Grassley.

This hearing is aptly titled, ‘‘Expiring Tax Provisions: Live or Let Die.’’ Back in

the early 70s, there was a popular song by a similar name. That song spoke about

the ‘‘ever-changing world in which we’re living’’ and said that ‘‘when you’ve got a

job to do, you got to do it well.’’ That’s a good description of why we’re here today:

38

to consider what to do about several temporary tax provisions that are about to run

out, some of which have been renewed many times over, and even allowed to expire

on occasion.

This leaves America’s taxpayers in an ‘‘ever-changing world’’ of uncertain tax laws

that makes it difficult for them to plan and make decisions about their future.

Congress needs to do its job, and not wait until the last minute when these laws

are ready to expire and then simply re-extend them. We should decide if they should

be made permanent or not; whether they live or are let die.

To put this hearing in context, there are 43 tax provisions that are due to expire

on December 31, 2005. Some were made temporary to provide a short-term economic

stimulus, while others are temporary either to limit or to test the effect they would

have on the economy, jobs, our businesses and our citizens. Now, it’s time for us

to check in on these laws and decide their fate.

Many of these provisions have proven themselves worthy of staying, because they

have improved the U.S. economy, business performance and the quality of life for

our citizens.

Just last week, Senator Santorum and I introduced legislation to combine and

permanently extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Welfare-to-Work tax

credit, creating a win-win situation both for employers and low-income individuals

who are looking for a job.

Recently, in my home State of Montana, more than 1,000 people were certified

as eligible under the WOTC program over an 18-month period, including 476 Food

Stamp recipients, 475 AFDC/TANF recipients, and 52 veterans. Knowing that the

credits are permanent will give employers the certainty that they need to continue

and expand their participation, and reduce the administrative burden and complexity associated with a credit that comes and goes.

Since 1996, these credits have helped more than 2 million individuals on public

assistance to enter the workforce, giving them hope and a future. A credit that so

strongly assists employers to provide jobs and the unemployed to get jobs, building

up the U.S. economy in the process, is one that must be kept on a permanent basis.

We will hear from two witnesses today that this credit is working for employers

and employees, and I look forward to their testimony.

Another win-win for everyone is the Research and Development Tax Credit. It

benefits employers by providing financial incentives to take risks to develop new

and innovative technology and products, keeping U.S. companies competitive in today’s global economy. Plus, the credit keeps research here in the U.S. instead of allowing it to be out-sourced to foreign countries. It is true that companies must conduct research to stay competitive. The big question is, ‘‘Where will this be done?’’

The R&D tax credit is critical to our economy by keeping and creating high quality, good-paying jobs here in the U.S. Vigorous research and development is vital

to the growth and well-being of our economy and to improvements in our current

and future standards of living.

We will hear testimony today in support of permanent extension of this important

credit for innovative research.

We also want to remember our responsibility to continue to support the recovery

of New York City after September 11, 2001.

Several New York Liberty Zone provisions to stimulate the resurgence of the economy and way of life in New York City are set to expire next year. We do not want

that recovery, coming along so well, to slow down because folks are uncertain

whether these economic incentives will continue.

We need to make sure that we continue to provide the tools to that area to continue the rebuilding and rebirth. We will hear expert testimony from the city itself

about how these incentives have helped recovery.

I welcome also two respected tax experts testifying today, one from the Treasury

Department, Bob Carroll, and the other from private practice but formerly in charge

of the IRS, Don Alexander, who will advise the committee on a broad range of expiring tax provisions. Since the President did not include a number of these provisions

in his budget, we hope Secretary Carroll can explain why.

And, I look forward to Don Alexander’s testimony about the problems as a former

tax administrator with tax provisions that come and go.

So, again, I thank my friend and Chairman, Chuck Grassley, for calling this important hearing. We have a job to do today—to take a serious look at several of

these expiring provisions and consider whether they should live or die. Many of

these temporary tax incentives make America a better place for jobs, individuals,

business and the economy and should be extended or made permanent. Let’s do our

job and do it well.

39

STATEMENT OF THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (EPRI)

SUBMITTED BY HON. JEFF BINGAMAN

40

41

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT CARROLL

42

43

44

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. DOCTOROFF

Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus and members of the committee, thank you for this

opportunity to come before you on behalf of Mayor Bloomberg to support a proposal

contained in the President’s budget. This proposal would restructure some of the tax

benefits that were provided to help in the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan after the

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Mayor very much wanted to testify in

person this morning, but at the President’s request he is now in Israel to attend

the dedication of the new Holocaust History Museum in Jerusalem. In his absence,

the Mayor asked me to communicate, in the strongest possible terms, his belief that

enabling the restructuring of previously-promised tax benefits for transportation infrastructure is an essential part of the long-term redevelopment of Lower Manhattan, and will have substantial benefits for the national economy. I urge you to enact

that restructuring at the first opportunity.

On September 11, 2001, 2,749 people were killed at the World Trade Center.

Seven buildings were destroyed and 30 million square feet of commercial space was

lost or damaged, leaving 1.6 million tons of debris on the Trade Center site alone.

Sixty thousand jobs were lost. The PATH rail station below the Trade Center was

destroyed, as were portions of five subway lines and 12 subway stations. There was

widespread damage to the communications and utility infrastructure of Lower Manhattan—the nerve center of the Nation’s and the world’s financial markets. Estimates of the damage range from $80 billion to over $100 billion.

We have made tremendous progress since that dark day, under the leadership of

Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki, and with the tireless efforts of the Lower

Manhattan Development Corporation. The Trade Center site was cleared ahead of

schedule and under budget, thanks in large part to New York’s construction firms

and unions. Residential life has returned to Lower Manhattan. Rail and subway

service has been restored, and we will begin construction this summer of the first

of two new stations for local and regional transportation. Perhaps most importantly,

45

plans are moving forward for rebuilding on the Trade Center site itself. We have

already laid the cornerstone for the Freedom Tower and selected a design for the

memorial to the victims. We have selected tenants for the cultural buildings, including a new International Freedom Center. And as a symbol of our progress a new

750-foot building—Number 7 World Trade Center—rises over the Lower Manhattan

skyline.

Our success to date is in large part the result of the assistance we received from

the Federal Government, thanks to the commitment of President Bush and the help

of those of you in Congress, including this committee. I especially want to thank

the New York delegation, Senator Clinton, and of course Senator Schumer, who has

joined you on the Finance Committee.

In the months following the attacks, the President and the Congress committed

to providing $20.577 billion to help with the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. About

$15 billion of that assistance was provided through various appropriations and

about $5 billion was provided through several tax provisions that were enacted in

the spring of 2002.

There were a total of seven tax provisions that fell into two broad categories. One

category involved tax-exempt financing and the other involved a variety of businessrelated provisions. All of the provisions had sunset dates. However, the estimate

that they would contribute $5 billion to the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan was

based on projected levels of usage that have not materialized, due to the design of

the provisions and lower-than-expected economic activity.

Last year, this committee extended the two tax-exempt financing provisions that

would have expired at the end of 2004 and which have proved very helpful in assisting in the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan: tax-exempt Liberty Bonds and the ability

of the city and State of New York to take advantage of lower interest rates in their

bond financings. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for those critically

needed extensions.

However, there remains the question of the other, business-related provisions—

including accelerated depreciation and employment credits. In total, they were estimated to provide about $3 billion toward the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. We

heard from the business community, however, that those provisions were not being

used as expected—largely because the level of economic activity had not rebounded

as fast as Congress had projected. For example, a recent report by New York State

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver notes that 3 years after the attacks, private sector

employment in Lower Manhattan was 14 percent below its pre-911 level. Speaker

Silver’s report provides a thoughtful and sobering reminder that despite our collective efforts and the passage of more than 3 years, the Lower Manhattan economy

continues to suffer from the events of September 11th.

This has significant implications for the actual value of the tax incentives promised. For example, consider the incentive that provides accelerated depreciation for

leasehold improvements in Lower Manhattan. Congress estimated the value of this

benefit at $595 million, based on their projections of leasing activity. The New York

City Economic Development Corporation tracks new leases signed, as well as typical

leasehold improvement costs per square foot. Based on that data, we were able to

estimate with a high degree of confidence that just $218 million of these benefits

had actually been realized, leaving an unused benefit of $377 million. This illustrates why we—and the administration—believe that the initial commitment will

not be realized.

Moreover, as the rebuilding plans have moved forward, it has become apparent

that the mix of benefits originally enacted is not what is really needed to rebuild

Lower Manhattan and solidify its place as the world’s financial center. The city, the

State and the downtown business community all agree that what is needed is better

transportation links, specifically to the pool of workers who live on Long Island and

to the visitors arriving at John F. Kennedy Airport.

The proposed Long Island and JFK rail service would materially address this deficiency and help re-attract lost jobs, by dramatically cutting travel times to the area.

Indeed, the new rail link will help to create as many as 80,000 new permanent

jobs—jobs that will be accessible to the metropolitan area and will contribute mightily to the Nation’s economy. An estimated $9 to 12 billion worth of economic output

will be generated by the rail link annually—an amount, each year, more than the

project’s total construction cost.

This transit investment will make Lower Manhattan a more attractive financial

center, particularly for international businesses heavily dependent on air travel that

would locate downtown and create jobs. In so doing, the rail link will help preserve

New York’s place as a global financial capital in the face of competition from cities

such as London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, and Tokyo. It will also provide efficient acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:49 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 095484 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 24063.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
46

cess for the millions of people from around the globe who are expected to visit the

World Trade Center memorial each year.

In surveys of major downtown employers, this rail link is consistently rated as

the most important unrealized transportation infrastructure project. We are grateful

for the strong support of New York’s business and civic communities, including especially the Downtown Alliance, the Association for a Better New York, the Real Estate Board of New York, and the New York City Partnership.

After extensive discussions, the administration agreed that the tax benefits were

not being used as expected and the full amount of assistance promised would not

materialize. The White House estimated that $2 billion of the original amount

would not be realized. They also recognized that the best way to secure Lower Manhattan’s pre-eminence in global finance and to ensure that the Federal Government

gets the best return on the funds already invested in rebuilding Lower Manhattan

would be to restructure the tax package.

That restructuring takes the form of repealing some of the tax benefits, with appropriate protections for those few who have made investments in reliance on them.

In their place would be an expiring tax credit for the expenses of building the rail

link to Long Island and Kennedy Airport. The credit would be limited to $200 million a year for 10 years, split evenly between the city and State of New York, for

a total of $2 billion.

I want to emphasize that we are not asking for a new commitment of assistance

over and above the initial Federal commitment of $20 billion. Rather, we are asking

for the fulfillment of that commitment through a restructuring of benefits that were

expected to stimulate economic recovery, but that have not proved successful. It is

our judgment that a restructuring of these incentives will complete the promised

benefits package, and play a major role in fulfilling the initial purpose of the assistance: rebuilding Lower Manhattan.

This is an important project and one that will provide national benefits by securing Lower Manhattan’s, and through it the United States’ place in the world’s financial markets. New York City is an economic engine that benefits the entire country.

As one small example of that, in a typical year New York City sends to the Federal

Government $64 billion dollars and only gets back $51 billion. The difference, $13

billion, is what New Yorkers send every year to Washington to help finance what

the Federal Government does elsewhere in the country and around the world. A

good deal of that $13 billion comes from the Lower Manhattan business community.

This community generates critically needed economic activity, tax revenues, and employment for the city, the State, the region, and the Nation. We would all benefit

by not only protecting, but also growing, the economic engine that is Lower Manhattan.

47

48

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HY L. DUBOWSKY, PHD

My name is Dr. Hy L. Dubowsky and I direct economic development services for

the New York State Department of Labor. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of New York State Governor George E. Pataki and New York State

Department of Labor Commissioner Linda Angello, I want to thank you for providing this opportunity to submit testimony regarding a ‘‘Review of Tax Extenders.’’

My testimony will be limited to the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work tax

credits (WOTC/WTW).

Since their inception, the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work tax credit programs have been an integral part of New York’s workforce development strategy.

They are widely used to encourage the hiring of individuals with barriers to employment by providing an employment-based tax incentive that effectively lowers the

cost of labor. The credits enable employers to partially offset the personnel transaction costs typically associated with recruiting, hiring and training a new employee. The credits, over the long-term, actually help employers to overcome their

anxieties about hiring people with barriers to employment, and help to modify the

stereotypical images associated with such individuals.

In tight labor markets, employers may be apt to ease their hiring standards. However, when the market is flush with workers, they will not—and those most in need

of a job will be unable to compete in the marketplace. By using the credits to reduce

the costs of labor, employers are more likely to continue to hire from these applicant

pools, gaining comfort with each successful hire of an individual with barriers to

employment.

New York State is proud of our efforts to administer the tax credit programs with

a high degree of customer service. Our knowledgeable staff and quick responsiveness benefits both businesses and providers.

Another characteristic of our program is our consistency in making determinations. By applying uniform, constant standards we have earned the appreciation of

the companies and providers that work with us. This, combined with our excellent

customer service, encourages participation and has enabled our State to maximize

the usage of all the tax credit programs.

Under Governor Pataki, the WOTC program has certified more than 155,000 individuals with barriers to employment. Those individuals were assisted in finding private sector jobs, the first step towards transitioning from dependence to independence.

According to the NYS Department of Labor, more than 65 percent of those individuals were public assistance or food stamp recipients, a statistic which mirrors

that of the Nation’s. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), approximately 2,523,000 individuals have been certified nationwide, the majority of which,

66 percent, are former TANF and food stamp recipients. The remaining third are

vocational rehabilitation consumers, ex-offenders, Supplemental Security Income

(SSI) recipients, low-income veterans and youth living in federally-designated empowerment zones or renewal communities. As these people transition into jobs, they

start on a new road, contributing to the economic well-being of their communities

and the Nation.

The benefits of the WOTC program exceed the costs. In a 2003 report, submitted

to former Representative Houghton, the NYS Department of Labor concluded that

WOTC benefits surpassed costs by more than $200 million. Public spending was reduced, as hard-to-employ individuals transitioned into private-sector jobs, earned

wages and lessened their reliance on government-supported programs. Such budgetary savings, whether they are due to TANF case closings or reduced recidivism

rates, generate recurring economic benefits. Moreover, economic gains also are derived from the inclusion of the new payroll, which, unlike entitlement transfer payments, is included in calculations of gross domestic product.

Tax credits are also used extensively by the not-for-profit workforce development

community. This community is charged with developing and placing a population

that is hardest to serve. This population requires the development of training and

family support systems before job placement efforts can even start. Many tax-crediteligible individuals have never worked before or have been out of the workforce for

a long time. The credits offer job developers and counselors, working in everything

from small neighborhood centers to sophisticated training facilities, a ‘‘carrot’’ to enhance their chances of placing these hard-to-employ individuals.

Within the last month, I conducted several training workshops in New York City

on Using Employment Tax Credits. Approximately 200 people attended, including

representatives from the United Way, Council of Jewish Organizations, St. Nicholas

Neighborhood Preservation Corporation, Federation Employment and Guidance

Services, Goodwill Industries, and Center for Employment Opportunities. Their

49

staffs serve people across the entire range of job seekers with barriers to employment, including TANF and food stamp recipients, the hearing-impaired, physically

challenged, blind, mentally impaired and economically disadvantaged. These partners use these programs everyday.

For example, the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) in New York City

serves more than 2,000 parolees a year and makes approximately 800 placements

each year. They work with more than 150 private sector companies, and use the

WOTC as a major incentive in attracting companies to work with them.

Trine Rolled Moulding Corporation, which produces moldings for high-end department stores, has enjoyed a working relationship with CEO for 18 years. In the last

2 years alone, the firm has hired 20 CEO participants. James M. Lange, the company’s director of operations, stated, ‘‘Trine has benefited from the tax credits and

payments to pay for hourly wages for employees. These credits have saved our company many thousands of dollars, and helped to provide us with some great employees.’’

Our ability to build a network of business and not-for-profit provider partners was

greatly weakened by the gap between the WOTC/WTW programs’ expiration on December 31, 2003 and reauthorization in October 2004. In New York, as in other

States, the uncertainty surrounding program re-authorization virtually brought our

efforts to a halt. During the 9-month hiatus, New York’s certification activity

dropped by 54 percent from the prior year, an experience that was mirrored nationwide. Acceptance of government programs depends on trust and a degree of certainty to justify integrating the programs into long-term organizational development

and marketing plans. The lack of certainty that the credits will be extended beyond

the December 31, 2005 expiration date may have negative consequences. It may discourage businesses, providers and State tax credit operations from investing in application and processing system improvements, computer and database upgrades,

staff development and field structures. More importantly, it may constrain our joint

efforts to persuade businesses to commit to behavioral changes when hiring workers, and to include individuals with barriers to employment into their workforce.

Funding for the WOTC/WTW programs has remained constant for a number of years. The original Federal support level of approximately $20 million, for support

of 53 State Workforce Agency operations, has shrunk to $17.3 million this year. According to USDOL, nearly a quarter of State operations receive less than $65,000

for direct support of WOTC/WTW.

New York State has learned to do more with less. We were the first State in the

Nation to offer electronic filing in addition to paper. Large businesses and consultants are provided certification data on CD-ROM in a database that is easy for them

to use. New York has also promoted the tax credit programs through the State’s economic development team. We have found that presenting employment tax credits as

part of a full package of incentives makes them more attractive to employers and

more effective in the long run. Our customers also appreciate the availability of a

toll-free number, 1–800–HIRE–992, which serves as a single point of entry for a

number of agency services. We are able to offer our customers excellent service and

personal attention, and still keep our administrative costs low.

It is possible that next year even fewer funds will be allocated to support WOTC/

WTW. Without adequate support, State agencies may not be able to process applications nor service their business, provider and local government partners in an effective and efficient manner. Backlogs will grow, exacerbated by our anticipated response to the provisions of the IRS TANF Revenue Ruling (IRS 2003–112), which

clearly defined several WOTC eligibility categories. The ruling will effectively require State agencies to postpone reviewing current applications while staff is assigned to re-review applications denied in error due to incorrect interpretations of

statutory language regarding the TANF and food stamp target groups. States across

the country are still processing 2004 application requests that sat idle during the

9-month hiatus. Uncertainty about funding may dissuade States from developing

long-term plans and committing resources to address the backlogs.

We also face new challenges associated with improving internal WOTC/WTW systems. As oversight over the activities of the financial and accounting sectors grows,

driven largely by the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, there will be a ripple effect flowing into the public sector. To respond to the demands of their national

business customers for real-time information quality controls, State agencies need

to develop internal control mechanisms that ensure we administer the tax credit

programs in a manner consistent with Federal statutes and USDOL program guidance. To that end, resources are needed to support the development and implementation of E-WOTC, a paperless application, certification and operations management

tool designed to streamline the process, eliminate paperwork and provide better

database management. New York State was proud to chair a joint Federal-State

50

workgroup, which prepared a draft report titled, Phase II Report: Workgroup Recommendations for State Workforce Agency Integration of Electronic 8850. This report

will be submitted to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training.

It provides a framework for E-WOTC to guide the States and USDOL in developing

a paperless process that addresses the evolving human resource needs of the business community and enhances the ability of the SWAs to strengthen their system

capabilities.

In New York, since August 1997, Governor Pataki’s welfare-to-work programs

have lowered TANF caseloads by 48.5 percent, or more than 500,000 individuals.

The joint efforts of the New York State Department of Labor, local social services

districts, provider agencies and our business partners enabled many of these individuals to use WOTC/WTW credits in their job search efforts. Yet there are many

more low-income, hard-to-employ individuals who are currently out of reach of

WOTC/WTW. Those released from prison and absentee fathers who must live up to

their commitments need a helping hand. Legislation introduced by Senators

Santorum and Baucus, which cuts red tape by combining the WOTC and WTW tax

credits, raises the age limit for the food stamp and high-risk youth categories from

24 to 39, and eliminates the onerous burden of verifying income for recently released felons, is the next logical step for this program.

WOTC and WTW, often lost in the shadow of other larger and well-funded workforce development and employment programs, merits your attention. We support reauthorization, the program enhancements offered by Senators Santorum and Baucus and assurances that adequate funding will be made available for tax credit operations in the States.

Again, on behalf of Governor George E. Pataki and Commissioner Linda Angello,

thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of these valuable programs.

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY

Question: As a follow-up, I’d like for you to offer recommendations on ways that

the certification process can be improved. States are obviously incentivized to promote employment using the credit so as to reduce welfare and encourage productivity. Nevertheless, they fail to get the certifications done in a timely manner, and

the suggestion seems to be that these offices are under-funded by the Department

of Labor or that the program’s potential expiration is the problem. I would appreciate any recommendations you have on ways to streamline this process and make

the credit more effective.

Answer: The WOTC/WTW tax credit programs are jointly administered by the

U.S. Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service through 53 designated

State agencies. The program has evolved since its inception. It has benefited them

largely by the interaction among the States and our Federal partners as a result

of national and regional Federal and State Coordinator Development Conferences,

peer review and ad-hoc national workgroups such as the E-WOTC Workgroup,

which New York was proud to share. We remain vigilant in our efforts to meet our

statutory and fiduciary responsibilities and offer excellent service to our business,

job-seeker and provider customers. We are constrained, however, by our resource allocation, statutory authority and the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the program.

Respectfully, I offer the following proposed actions for your consideration in an effort to strengthen the WOTC/WTW program, extend its reach to those job-seekers

in need and encourage greater acceptance of the program in the overall workforce

development system.

1. Support efforts to develop an E-WOTC initiative. The majority of New York’s

tax credit applications are received electronically, followed up by corresponding

paper forms. Most large employers and consultants use this option, speeding up

processing and providing access to real-time status information from our database.

E-WOTC would eliminate paperwork completely, streamline the process and provide

real-time application status. Any State agency with a PC and Internet access, using

off-the-shelf database software, could benefit from an E-WOTC system. E-WOTC

will also provide real-time information on program operations that readily can be

incorporated into USDOL reports to the Treasury Department and the Congress on

program operations.

64

2. Combine the WOTC (Sec. 51 IRC) and WTW (Sec. 51–a IRC) credits as proposed by the Encouraging Work Act of 2005. Combining the two credits would eliminate paperwork, streamline the application process and make it easier for businesses to understand and take advantage of the credits.

3. Require States to enter into cooperative data-sharing agreements with their respective social services (TANF) and vocational rehabilitation agency, in order to obtain verification data on a timely basis. A number of States have had difficulty establishing agreements with their State program counterparts to facilitate the flow

of information, which hampers and delays their ability to certify.

4. A long-term or permanent extension will provide a foundation to integrate the

tax credits into the workforce delivery system. As I noted in my testimony, ‘‘Lacking

some degree of comfort that the credits will be extended beyond the December 31,

2005 expiration date discourages businesses, providers and State tax credit operations from investing in application and processing system improvements, computer

and database upgrades, staff development and field structures.’’ In an era of limited

resources and competing needs, it is difficult to sustain the program successes as

we have in New York, over the long-term, without a commitment to the program.

5. We support the provisions of the Encouraging Work Act of 2005, S. 595, introduced by Senators Santorum and Baucus, which expands the food stamp and highrisk youth groups and eliminates the income check for ex-felons. These are welcome

additions to the program. We also suggest eliminating the 2-year (24-month) eligibility window for individuals to qualify for the Welfare-to-Work credit under Sec.

51–a IRC. This is for individuals who exceed their respective State TANF limits. It

would further extend the incentive to additional individuals with barriers to employment. By definition, individuals exceeding their State TANF eligibility and who remain unemployed have severe employment barriers and require intensive services

and assistance in order to find a job.

6. Tax credit processing is best done in a tightly controlled, central office environment. The need for accuracy and consistent interpretation of the rules and statutes

are of paramount importance. Decentralizing the process would weaken quality and

internal controls, increasing the potential for fraud and abuse. We respectfully recommend that the WOTC/WTW programs remain under the central office control of

a single designated State agency under the governor’s control.

7. Give tax credit operations adequate resources to perform the tasks at hand.

They will need more support to meet the anticipated challenges of program expansion, E-WOTC, responding to the IRS TANF Revenue Ruling and recent USDOL

TEGL instructing States to use the revised eligibility criteria for TANF, Food

Stamps and Veterans. At current program levels (estimating the program’s annual

cost at approximately $450 million), administrative support totals less than 4 percent. Most public programs provide administrative funding in the 15 percent range.

If WOTC/WTW was supported at even 10 percent of the revenue estimate, it would

more than double our funding, providing the necessary resources throughout the

State tax credit processing system. Funding for this increase is readily available

from the taxpayer savings generated from reduced public spending, as these individuals move from dependence to the independence of a job.

8. Strengthen oversight of the tax credit program by authorizing USDOL to impose sanctions on tax-credit consultants and employers who are found to be in flagrant violation of the program statutes and rules. USDOL and the States have virtually no quality control tools to prevent fraud and abuse by scurrilous operators

bent on abusing the program. Barring Federal criminal prosecution, we lack the

ability to impose administrative sanctions or debar these violators from participating in the program. An administrative process, with sanctions, would greatly enhance our ability to maintain the high level of quality control for which the vast

majority of employers and the consultant industry strive.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BAUCUS

Question: Your testimony mentions the negative consequences that occurred when

the WOTC/WTW credits were allowed to lapse for 10 months in 2004. Can you describe the challenges and problems resulting from this lapse, and can you estimate

the number of individuals who missed out on jobs in New York as a result of this

lapse?

Answer: From the expiration of the WOTC/WTW programs on December 31, 2003

until the program’s reauthorization on October 4, 2004, State program operations

existed in a state of flux. New York continued to process applications, issuing final

determinations for applications with 2003 start dates. We were unable to bring closure, however, to the 35,327 applications received with 2004 start dates. We were

forced to review and then file them, in anticipation of a program extension. During

65

this interim period, we curtailed our marketing efforts, limiting outreach to business

and community-based provider groups. We were hopeful that reauthorization would

be retroactive back to January 1, 2004 for applications received with 2004 start

dates. However, we could not provide any guarantee to our business customers that

they would receive a tax credit from hiring a hard-to-employ individual from one

of the eight WOTC target groups. This uncertainty makes it very difficult to ‘‘do

business.’’ Echoing this sentiment, the Iowa WOTC coordinator Jeanne SorensonWright indicated that: ‘‘Hurt is not the word. I had been out working with employers and getting them ready to hire and get involved, and then to inform them that

everything was pending really hurt.’’ This sentiment is echoed throughout the country by the respective State coordinators.

Historically, the programs have received only temporary authorization lasting 1

or 2 years. This uncertainty may discourage States from investing in application

and processing systems. It hampers our ability to market and develop communitybased partnerships, and, most importantly, it dissuades businesses from integrating

targeted workers into their human resources and hiring practices.

Quantifying the effect of the loss of the tax credits on the ability of hard-to-employ

job-seekers to obtain employment is a difficult task and falls beyond our analysis,

requested by former Representative Houghton. While we suspect that hiring took

place regardless of the immediate availability of the credit, the uncertainty surrounding reauthorization made it harder for providers to place their clients and for

our workforce system to integrate the credits into their overall job development efforts.

We have been approached by representatives of the Treasury Department to develop a model to expand on our earlier analyses of the WOTC program, including

the question of the effects of the credit on hiring practices. Because of the resource

commitment and the limited availability of confidential tax data, we have yet to

pursue this offer.

Question: I understand that you have done some research on the credits and

found a $200 million cost savings from this program for the State of New York.

Since we are in the process of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these incentives,

can you provide greater detail about these savings?

Answer: The New York State Department of Labor, at the request of former Representative Amo Houghton, analyzed the costs and benefits associated with the

WOTC program in New York State. The report titled, The Work Opportunity Tax

Credit Program, The New York State Experience, An Exploration of Costs and Benefits, 1996–2003, concluded that the program benefits exceeded its taxpayer costs by

$200 million. As we indicated in the report, the recurring benefit stream generated

by transitioning the hard-to-employ into private sector jobs exceeds the one-time

taxpayer costs of supporting the WOTC credit.

Comparing the cost of WOTC to the savings, as measured by the value of the tax

expenditures compiled by the Treasury Department, there is a net measurable benefit. Table 2 provides information on the potential taxpayer cost of the WOTC credit

compared to the overall benefits provided to New York State taxpayers.

66

67

68

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE GIOVENGO

Chairman Grassley, Senator Santorum, and members of the committee, my name

is Dale Giovengo, and I am the Director of Human Resources at Giant Eagle Markets in Pittsburgh, PA. I have been with Giant Eagle since 1970, and in those 35

years I have served in both a store operations and corporate Human Resource capacity.

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to

discuss the importance of the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work tax credits to

my company. These are very important and effective programs, and I am very

pleased that this committee is considering legislation to permanently extend and improve them.

Giant Eagle has been in business for 75 years. Our corporate office is in Pittsburgh, where we opened our first store in 1930. We currently have 221 supermarkets, 101 of which are in Pennsylvania, 116 in Ohio, 1 in West Virginia and 3

in Maryland, our newest market, and 4 distribution centers. Combined, our stores,

distribution centers and corporate office employ more than 35,000 people.

Giant Eagle has been an active user of the WOTC/WTW credits since their first

enactment by Congress. I am proud to report to the committee that our company

makes a special effort to reach out into the local community to recruit new employees who are eligible for the credit. In our community outreach effort, we work with

a number of local community organizations, including the Allegheny Intermediate

Unit, Goodwill, Pittsburgh Vision Services, Pittsburgh Public schools and the Cerebral Palsy Foundation.

Our company incurs additional training and acclimation costs in order to work

with the special employment needs population. The WOTC/WTW credits support our

outreach efforts by helping to offset these additional costs. For example, it is not

uncommon for us to pay outside job coaches and trainers to work with some of those

we hire. Without these credits, it would be cost-prohibitive for us to hire from the

special needs population.

The individuals we hire with special employment needs often lack the basic work

skills that our traditional new hires have, and we must provide additional training.

Our experience has shown us that our spending on special training for this population is a good investment. We have found that many of our WOTC/WTW hires become loyal, well-trained employees with a turnover rate comparable to or better

than our overall workforce. We are very pleased that by providing employment opportunities to these individuals we are helping families to move away from welfare

dependence and become part of the productive, tax-paying workforce.

As part of our commitment to encouraging our store managers to hire WOTC/

WTW eligible employees, all hiring credits earned by Giant Eagle are credited back

to the store level, which contributes to that store’s profitability. We prepare and distribute within our company monthly reports on store-level and corporate-wide participation in the programs, indicating how many new hires were credit-eligible and

which of our stores hired these new employees.

We track our WOTC/WTW hiring very carefully, and maintain records that allow

us to identify all applicants who are members of one or more of the target groups.

Allow me to share with you our WOTC/WTW hiring experience for 2003. Company-wide, we had 10,041 new hires, of which 9,405, or 94 percent, were prescreened for tax credit eligibility, either as a referral from a community-based organization or in conjunction with our employment application. As part of that process,

IRS 8850 forms were submitted for 1,386 of those individuals we hired. All in all,

WOTC/WTW hires made up almost 14 percent of our work force in 2003.

Of course, not all WOTC/WTW hires ultimately get certified. As a result, we do

not earn a credit for every employee with respect to whom we file an 8850. Due to

a combination of factors, including unintentional inaccurate self-identification by applicants, difficulties in documenting eligibility, turnover, and the varying interpretations on program eligibility from State to State, a little over half of the WOTC/WTW

hires were actually certified and resulted in a tax credit.

Despite the fact that some of our potential credit-eligible hires do not pan out,

we are convinced that the WOTC/WTW credits are invaluable tools supporting our

programs for employing individuals with disabilities, welfare recipients and other

target group members. The tax credits we receive go a long way toward offsetting

the additional administrative costs associated with our special outreach and training programs.

Our company treats our WOTC/WTW hires on an equal footing with more traditional hires. In that regard, they are entitled to the same benefits, including health

insurance, dental, vision, life insurance, sick pay and vacation pay. This includes

69

part-time employees (those working 16–39 hours) as well as full-time. In addition,

all of our full-time employees receive medical coverage for their dependents.

Mr. Chairman, we would like to take this opportunity to express Giant Eagle’s

strong support for S. 595, the Santorum/Baucus bill that would permanently extend

these programs, simplify program administration by combining WOTC and WTW

into one tax credit, and make a number of long-sought and needed program enhancements. I should like to note that many of the program enhancements were included in the President’s fiscal year 2005 and 2006 budget proposals.

Giant Eagle supports the provisions in S. 595 because:

First, by making the credits permanent, Congress will send a strong signal of its

commitment to the programs and end the harmful uncertainty that results when

the programs are extended temporarily, or worse, the disruptions that occur when

the programs expire.

Second, merging the Welfare-to-Work tax credit into the Work Opportunity Tax

Credit will simplify program administration, because it will allow us to track only

one program instead of having to track two different credits.

Third, the proposed expansion of the age eligibility for the high-risk youth and

food stamp groups will help companies like ours move more unemployed men, who

are often fathers of children on welfare, into the workforce. To date, the program

has been very helpful in encouraging us to hire women on welfare, but, as currently

structured, we receive no incentive to hire absentee fathers, who also face significant if not greater barriers to work than welfare moms.

Finally, we strongly support the proposal to remove the income test for the exfelon category as a means of resolving the difficult dilemma of documenting family

income for a group that has virtually none.

In conclusion, S. 595 will make important strides in improving these excellent

programs and will provide our company with even greater incentives to reach out

and hire structurally unemployed individuals.

I thank the committee again for the opportunity to appear today, and urge Members to support the Santorum/Baucus bill to permanently extend and improve the

Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work credits.

RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY

Question: As a follow-up, I’d like for you to offer recommendations on ways that

the certification process can be improved. States are obviously incentivized to promote employment using the credit so as to reduce welfare and encourage productivity. Nevertheless, they fail to get the certifications done in a timely manner, and

the suggestion seems to be that these offices are under-funded by the Department

of Labor or that the program’s potential expiration is the problem. I would appreciate any recommendations you have on ways to streamline this process and make

the credit more effective.

Answer: The primary concern employers have is receiving the WOTC/WTW tax

certifications for qualified hires in a timely fashion from the State job services. Because of numerous program hiatuses and the inadequate funding of the State job

services, there often is little stability in the State WOTC/WTW workforce which is

responsible for processing certification requests. As a result, after every program hiatus, not only are there significant processing backlogs, but oftentimes a whole new

processing workforce has to be trained when the program starts up again. This results in even further processing delays and, ultimately, this discourages employer

participation in the program. The best way to encourage employers to maintain and

expand their participation in the program would be to provide a long-term, if not

a permanent, extension of the program and adequate processing funding to the

States. While in the past the State job services have received as much as $25 million to administer the program, current funding is at approximately $18 million. A

funding level of $30 million would be more appropriate.

Another processing issue which is of major concern to employers concerns the administration of the Title IV–A category. We are pleased that IRS has issued Revenue Ruling 2003–112, which makes it clear that any member of a family which was

on a welfare grant or food stamp grant, or anyone who was a member of a veteran’s

family for at least 1 day during the qualifying period is eligible and should have

always been considered eligible. DOL, in its Training and Employment Guidance

Letter (TEGL) to the States, has made it clear that the job services need only apply

the ruling prospectively for ‘‘inventoried’’ (not yet processed certification requests)

since November of 2003 when Revenue Ruling 2003–112 was issued. The TEGL goes

on to indicate that IRS will be working out a settlement to this problem with taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, it now has been 3 years and 4 months since the original authors (Senator Baucus, Congressmen Houghton and Rangel) of the WOTC program

70

wrote IRS about this issue. Yet to date, despite IRS having issued a Revenue Ruling

that says the State Job Services always should have certified all members of a family on these programs, no matter for how long they were on the program during the

qualifying period, we are no closer to employers receiving the WOTC/WTW credits

for those who were wrongfully denied certification. If employers are to continue to

have faith in these programs, IRS needs to be told to reach an equitable settlement

with employers that does not involve unreasonable burdens. In addition, settlement

needs to recognize that the remedy provided must be national in scope and based

upon the best survey data available—that which is provided by employers. Any resurvey of the State job services as to whether they properly administered the program will only result in the States verifying and justifying the methodology they

already used.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BAUCUS

Question: I read in your testimony that almost half of your workers eventually

do not qualify for the WOTC/WTW credits. That seems to be a huge disincentive

to participate. Why is this so, and what can we do about it?

Answer: The number one reason for the discrepancy in 8850s submitted versus

certifications is the disruptions to the State Department of Labor Certification Units

caused when WOTC and Welfare-to-Work authorizing legislation expires and goes

into hiatus.

Even when funding exists, DOL staff gets anxious over the future of the program

and often will try to transfer to a more stable program, and administrators are hesitant to invest resources on upgrades and improvements. This causes staffing shortages, and/or new/inexperienced staff in the units as well as the postponement of

technology upgrades within these units. As a result, even pre-hiatus pending 8850s

are sometimes treated with greater inefficiency. 8850s submitted during the hiatus

in accordance with the now-expired statutory requirements are often just filed and

stored until renewal. In the best-case scenario, a State will work on the 8850s submitted and determine whether or not a certification should be issued, and hold them

in a pending file until WOTC is re-authorized. But even in this type of instance,

forms are being worked with certain processing constraints and with a reduced

sense of urgency.

When WOTC gets reauthorized after a hiatus, we always experience a delay in

receiving certifications because of the backlog that exists within the State. In addition, we always find that some of our 8850 submissions seem to have disappeared

into a ‘‘black hole’’ and can’t be found by the agencies. Although we send everything

with a U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing and keep copies of the original

8850s, any resubmissions we do often go to an agency where they are trying to deal

with an existing backlog crisis.

The best solution to this problem would be a permanent or, at least, multi-year

extension of the credits.

The second reason revolves around the fact that a significant number of our job

applicants accidentally identify themselves incorrectly as a member of a group when

they fill out the 8850. For instance, the Welfare category requires that someone receive TANF for 9 out of the 18 months prior to hire, and many people who have

been on and off of assistance do not remember the exact months, so they may have

only been on for less than 9 out of the last 18 months but checked the box anyway.

There is not much that can be done regarding accidental misidentification. Perhaps at a future date, simplifying the definition of the Welfare and Food Stamp categories should be looked at. But, the broadening of the age categories for Food

Stamp families and persons living in the distressed Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities, categories that have much more clear-cut identifiers (age and

residence), will give unskilled and unemployed males more job opportunities.

The third reason for the discrepancy is that many State agencies defined the Welfare category incorrectly, as the IRS acknowledged in 2003. Now that the agencies

have been redirected on their definition, we hope that this issue is resolved. At the

same time, we are still waiting for Treasury to fairly compensate us for the credits

we were entitled to but did not receive between 1996 and 2004.

The fourth reason for the discrepancy is inherent in documentation difficulties we

encounter with some of the target groups, especially the Ex-Felon category, which

requires the target group member to document family income in order to be certified. The change proposed in S. 595 to eliminate the income test will solve this

problem.

I feel that the changes in S. 595 go a long way to making WOTC a better and

more efficient hiring incentive.

71

1S. 664, as introduced in the 108th Congress.

2S. Amdt. 2647, as amended, to S. 1637, March 3, 2004.

Question: I was encouraged and interested by your statement that your employees

hired through the WOTC/WTW program have a comparable rate of retention to

other employees at Giant Eagle. Do you know why this is?

Answer: We know that the WOTC/WTW population has special needs and that,

if they are to succeed, many of these individuals need extra support services, including special outside trainers and job coaches. Giant Eagle recognizes that, without

the extra assistance, these individuals have little chance to succeed in our work environment. WOTC helps support these services.

In turn, many of the people receiving such extra help develop a special loyalty

to Giant Eagle. In other cases, our WOTC initiatives give job skills to workers who

are less inclined to leave us because of circumstances surrounding the reasons they

qualified for the credit, such as a significant disability or having young children.

So in the end, WOTC is a win for people with limited skills who need jobs and

a win for companies like Giant Eagle who need good employees.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID HERNANDEZ

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and members of the committee, my name is

David Hernandez. I am Vice President, Taxes and General Counsel, for EDS. I am

here today on behalf of the R&D Credit Coalition (the ‘‘Coalition’’), which represents

more than 1,000 small, medium and large U.S. companies and 85 professional and

trade associations.

EDS provides a broad portfolio of business and technology solutions to help its clients worldwide improve their business performance. EDS’s core portfolio comprises

information-technology, applications and business process services, as well as information-technology transformation services. EDS’s A.T. Kearney subsidiary is one of

the world’s leading high-value management consultancies. With more than $20 billion in annual revenue, EDS is ranked 87th on the Fortune 500. I am pleased to

testify on behalf of the R&D Credit Coalition.

First, I want to express our appreciation for the Senate’s longstanding commitment to a strong, vibrant, and permanent R&D credit. The Coalition commends Senators Hatch and Baucus, and all the members of this committee, for your leadership

in promoting U.S.-based research and for recognizing the value of an effective Federal incentive to businesses that will result in more U.S. investment, jobs, innovation and economic growth. Last year, the Coalition worked with Senators Hatch,

Baucus, and other members of this committee on legislation 1 to make the current

R&D credit permanent and add an alternative simplified credit option to encourage

even more companies to increase their U.S.-based research activities. We fully endorsed the proposal that was unanimously adopted last year as an amendment to

the Senate’s JOBS Act. 2 While we were disappointed that the Senate’s improvements to the current credit were removed in conference with the House, it was critically important that the current-law credit was extended so that ongoing research

projects could proceed without interruption in 2004 and 2005.

IMPORTANCE OF INNOVATION

Before turning specifically to the R&D tax credit, I want to talk briefly about the

broader importance of innovation to job growth, economic vitality, and increased

standards of living.

Economists agree that, in the long run, productivity growth is the principal source

of improvements in living standards. There is consensus that the productivity

growth in recent years has been driven by the combination of accelerated technical

progress and the resulting investments in capital assets, research and development,

human capital, and public infrastructure. In order to continue this pattern of

growth, the focus of public policy must be on providing continued incentives to companies that invest, innovate, and create the new capital and knowledge that drive

the U.S. economy.

In 2001, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee, ‘‘Had the innovations of recent decades, especially in information

technologies, not come to fruition, productivity growth during the past 5 to 7 years,

arguably, would have continued to languish at the rate of the preceding 20 years.’’

72

3OECD Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Outlook 2004.

4 International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, Tax Treatment of Research and Development

Expenses, December 2004, 230 pages. http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation—customs/resources/

documents/eu—rd—final—rep—dec—2004.pdf

U.S. businesses and Federal policymakers should continue to work together to

promote policies that will foster those same high levels of growth for decades to

come.

Without a growing economy, Americans’ standard of living, and our ability to support the needs of our aging population, will be in jeopardy. Faced with a static or

decreasing workforce as U.S. demographics shift, U.S. lawmakers must focus on encouraging technological developments to increase productivity, enabling a smaller

workforce to support a growing population of retirees.

It will take the continued support of both public and private investment in research and development to foster the level of innovation needed to keep the United

States economically competitive. Research confirms, however, that private-sector

R&D funding generally falls below the optimal level of spending necessary to provide maximum benefits to the overall economy. Corporate research is high-risk,

long-term and limited by the ‘‘free rider’’ problem in economics. The benefits of R&D

will not fully accrue to those businesses conducting the research, so there must be

an additional incentive for businesses to undertake the costly and risky investment

in additional research that benefits the public good. Thus, it makes public policy

sense for the U.S. government to do all it can to encourage companies to further

increase R&D spending in the United States.

Foreign jurisdictions also have recognized the value and importance of R&D investments and the high-quality jobs that flow from that investment. Governments

around the world are competing for corporate R&D investment to help create a better economic future for their citizens.

RESEARCH INCENTIVES

According to the OECD 3, ‘‘Support to business R&D remains a central feature of

innovation policies across the OECD, especially as governments aim to boost business R&D spending. With the exception of several Eastern European countries, direct government support to business R&D has declined, both in absolute terms and

as a share of business R&D, and greater emphasis is being placed on indirect measures, such as tax incentives for R&D.’’

Between 2002 and 2004, Belgium, Ireland, and Norway established new R&D tax

incentive regimes, bringing to 18 the number of OECD countries employing tax incentives for R&D. Canada, which offers a 20-percent flat tax credit for R&D spending, continues on its mission of inducing U.S. companies to locate R&D operations

in that country. The United Kingdom also developed an R&D tax incentive for large

firms, complementing the incentives currently provided for small firms. Countries

are also making efforts to stimulate entrepreneurship and boost R&D activities in

small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by, for instance, supporting venture

capital and providing preferential support to SMEs.

In 2004, the European Commission requested the International Bureau of Fiscal

Documentation to carry out an information survey on the current tax treatment of

research and development expenditures in the 25 EU Member States and the

United States and Japan. A stated purpose for this study was to provide information that would enable the European Commission to find an incentive to increase

the R&D spending within the Member States that would be competitive with other

countries such as the United States and Japan.4

The Federal R&D tax credit, according to many government and private-sector experts, has been a proven, effective means of encouraging increased research and development activity in the United States. Other countries are looking at our system

and actively trying to compete for U.S. business’s R&D investment.

Just this week, the Work Economic Forum released its annual Global Information

Technology Report. The rankings, which measure the propensity for countries to exploit the opportunities offered by information and communications technology (ICT),

revealed that Singapore has displaced the United States as the top economy in information technology competitiveness. As a matter of fact, the United States has

dropped from first to fifth place in this ranking. Iceland, Finland and Denmark are

the countries ranked two, three and four out of the 104 countries surveyed. Iceland

moved up from tenth last year.

We should respond to this development by acting this year to strengthen and

make permanent our R&D tax credit so that we can regain our competitive edge.

73

5See, e.g., Hall, Bronwyn H. and John Van Reenen. ‘‘How Effective Are Fiscal Incentives for

R&D: A Review of the Evidence.’’ Working Paper 7098. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau for

Economic Research, April, 1999; U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Tax Policy and Administration: Review of Studies of the Effectiveness of the Research Tax Credit, May, 1996, 26 pages;

Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, The Effectiveness of Research

and Experimentation Tax Credits, OTA–BP–ITC–174, September, 1995, Washington, DC, 65

pages. 6Koch, Cathy. Supporting Innovation and Economic Growth: The Broad Impact of the R&D

Tax Credit, Washington Council Ernst & Young, April, 2004, 15 pages. http://www.nam.org/

s—nam/bin.asp?CID=155&DID=230921&DOC=FILE.PDF

There is a significant body of evidence produced by the General Accounting Office,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Bureau of Economic Research, and others that

concludes that the R&D credit represents a very sound investment in U.S. economic

growth. 5

In 1998, Coopers & Lybrand (now PricewaterhouseCoopers) completed a study,

Economic Benefits of the R&D Tax Credit, which dramatically illustrates the significant economic benefits provided by the credit. According to the study, making the

R&D credit permanent would stimulate substantial amounts of additional R&D in

the United States, increase national productivity and economic growth almost immediately, and provide U.S. workers with higher wages and after-tax income.

It is clear that the current R&D tax credit reduces the cost of investing in additional U.S.-based research for companies that qualify under the current formulation.

For these companies that undertake that research, that assistance can often mean

the difference between a project getting the green light or being put back on the

shelf. The fate of that additional research project not only matters to the researchers and technical personnel who would be hired to do the research, but it also matters to the unrelated small or medium-size company that might be hired to help

take a product to market. Often, the discussion of the R&D tax credit centers on

large companies that claim the credit. What has been overlooked, unfortunately, are

those companies that don’t claim the R&D credit, but whose livelihoods are linked

to the products and services developed as a result of this additional research. Technology-based productivity increases benefit all businesses—even businesses that do

no R&D.

Let me illustrate. Ace Clearwater Enterprises, Inc., a Torrance, CA company,

makes many of the component parts that are used by large aerospace companies.

When the large companies do more R&D in new and improved products and need

to build and test more prototypes, Ace Clearwater does more business and hires

more people. As R&D increases, so too does the need for suppliers, manufacturers,

and ultimately a host of others when products are finally taken to market. Those

firms and their employees are spread out in every community and every State, and

their contribution to economic prosperity is vital.

These firms may not be the first thing that comes to mind when you hear about

the R&D tax credit, but they certainly are among the first beneficiaries of increased

investments in research and could be the first casualties if those levels of investment decline or move offshore.

Currently, companies of all sizes, across a wide range of industries and in every

State, claim the R&D tax credit. A 2004 study 6 by Washington Council Ernst &

Young showed that the credit is highly beneficial to small firms. According to this

study, in 2000:

• Nearly 16,000 companies claimed the R&D credit.

• More than 4,500 firms with assets of less than $1 million (25 percent of all

firms) claimed the credit. For the smallest firms in the study, those with assets

between $1,000 and $99,000, on average the value of the credit claimed equaled

9.4 percent of their assets.

• Employees of companies in the manufacturing, services, retail and wholesale

trade, construction, and real estate sectors were among the greatest beneficiaries of that investment.

If we want to maintain and improve that track record, it is important for Congress to adopt the changes embodied in S. 664, which was introduced in the last

Congress by Senators Hatch and Baucus, that would—on a permanent basis—maintain the traditional credit, increase the Alternative Incremental Research Credit

(AIRC) rates and provide for an Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) in order to induce even more research-intensive businesses to undertake additional U.S.-based research spending.

Now, let me focus on the R&D credit and the proposed improvements included

in legislation overwhelmingly endorsed by the Senate last year, that the business

community firmly believes will strengthen the incentive value of the credit.

74

HISTORY OF THE R&D TAX CREDIT

Congress first enacted the R&D credit in 1981 to provide an incentive for companies to increase their U.S. R&D activities. The Federal R&D tax credit is available

only for research done in the United States. The bulk of the qualified expenditures

are the salaries of workers directly involved in R&D.

The initial credit rate was equal to 25 percent of a company’s incremental ‘‘qualified R&D expenditures’’ (QREs) in excess of a rolling base amount equal to average

QREs for the prior 3 years. Currently, the credit rate is 20 percent of a company’s

QREs and the base amount calculation is linked to the taxpayer’s gross receipts.

The original credit was scheduled to expire at the end of 1985. Recognizing the

importance and effectiveness of the R&D credit, Congress decided to extend it and

has extended it on ten subsequent occasions. In addition, the credit’s focus has been

narrowed by further limiting both qualifying activities and eligible expenditures—

increasing the credit’s incentive leverage. With each extension, the Congress indicated its strong bipartisan support for the R&D credit.

In 1996, Congress added the elective Alternative Incremental Research Credit

(‘‘AIRC’’) to the statute, making the credit available to R&D-intensive industries

that could not qualify for the credit under the regular formula. The AIRC adds flexibility to the credit to address changes in business models and R&D spending patterns that are a normal part of a company’s life cycle.

In 1999, the credit was extended until June 30, 2004, and a modest increase in

the AIRC rates was adopted to bring the AIRC’s incentive effect more into line with

the incentive provided by the regular credit.

Most recently, in 2004, as part of the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004

(P.L. 108–311), the credit was seamlessly extended for the period beginning July 1,

2004 through December 31, 2005. This seamless extension was particularly important, as it ensured there was no disruption in ongoing research projects.

THE CURRENT CREDIT NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED AND MADE PERMANENT

In order to maximize its incentive effect, the R&D credit should be permanent.

Research projects cannot be turned off and on like a light switch and generally represent multi-year commitments; if corporate managers are going to take the benefits

of the R&D credit into account in planning future research projects and future hiring needs, they need to know that the credit will be available to their companies

for the years in which the research is to be performed. Research projects have long

horizons and extended gestation periods. Furthermore, firms generally face longer

lags in adjusting their R&D investments compared, for example, to adjusting their

investments in physical capital. The 12-month gap in the credit from July 1995 to

June 1996 reduced the business community’s willingness to plan based on assumed

future extensions of the temporary credit.

In the normal course of business operations, R&D investments take time and

planning. Businesses must search for, hire, and train scientists, engineers and support staff, and in many cases invest in new physical plants and equipment. There

is little doubt that some of the incentive effect of the credit has been lost over the

past 24 years as a result of the constant uncertainty over the continued availability

of the credit. This must be corrected so that the full potential of its incentive effect

can be felt across all sectors of our economy.

In order to provide for the maximum potential for increased R&D activity, and

for the government to maximize its return on tax dollars invested in the credit, the

practice of periodically extending the credit for short periods, and then allowing it

to lapse, must be changed by making the R&D credit permanent.

Although the current statutory incentive is effective for many companies, many

others that spend significant amounts on R&D in the U.S. get little or no benefit.

Consequently, a simple extension of present law will provide insufficient incentive

to maintain or increase their R&D spending in the United States. Moreover, the

R&D inducements outside the U.S. will look relatively more favorable to these taxpayers.

For example, many taxpayers are no longer able to qualify for the traditional

credit because their sales increased significantly in the intervening years, or they

entered into an additional line of business that generated additional gross receipts

but performed little R&D, or they became more efficient in their R&D processes and

were able to spend less to perform the same R&D activity.

In 1996, the addition of the AIRC at significantly reduced rates partially addressed this issue for many companies. It is time to take the next step by both increasing the AIRC rates and providing for an Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC)

calculation that will improve the credit’s incentive value for increased research activity and job creation in the United States.

75

The U.S. business community needs a stable, consistent, and improved R&D credit that will strengthen its incentive value, stimulate the Nation’s economic growth

and sustain the basis for ongoing global technology. We urge the Congress to enact

the Hatch/Baucus proposal in 2005.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT LAW

In addition to the need for permanency for the R&D credit, changes to the statute

need to be made in order to maximize the credit’s incentive value. In order to extend

an incentive for U.S.-based R&D to more companies, Congress should adopt the Alternative Simplified Credit (‘‘ASC’’). The ASC is an elective credit that equals 12

percent of the excess of current-year qualified research expenses (‘‘QREs’’), over 50

percent of the taxpayer’s average QREs for the prior 3 years. These credit and base

amounts are designed to provide an effective credit rate comparable to that provided

on average by the traditional credit. Importantly, the ASC is calculated without reference to gross receipts, a feature of the traditional credit that, as discussed above,

has left many research-intensive companies unable to qualify for the credit.

While the new ASC may provide a greater incentive for many AIRC companies

over time, AIRC firms should be given a more meaningful incentive to continue and

increase their research activities in the United States as they assess the value of

the new regime. In order to move closer to the incentive value provided by the traditional credit, Congress should increase the AIRC rates to 3 percent, 4 percent and

5 percent, respectively, which will bring those rates in line with the levels envisioned when the AIRC was originally proposed in 1996.

While the ASC increases the incentive value of the credit for certain businesses,

it is equally important to avoid disrupting the current incentive for companies that

benefit under the traditional credit and AIRC. The traditional credit, in its current

form, provides a strong incentive for many companies that continue to increase R&D

activities in the United States at an equal or higher rate than revenue. For companies whose R&D investments continue to increase, the traditional credit calculation

may yield a higher credit amount for that company than under the new ASC.

Overall, the introduction of an elective new credit calculation is intended to provide a comparable incentive to other companies engaged in research that have been

unable to qualify for the traditional credit while avoiding penalizing those companies that have responded to the incentives provided by the traditional credit by significantly increasing their U.S.-based R&D spending.

CONCLUSION

Private sector R&D in the United States stimulates investment in innovative

products and processes that greatly contribute to overall economic growth, increased

productivity, new and better U.S. jobs, and higher standards of living in the United

States. By creating an environment favorable to private sector R&D investment in

the United States, Congress can encourage companies to site new research projects

here and maintain and attract the high-skill, high-wage jobs associated with those

projects in the United States. Investment in R&D is an investment in U.S. jobs. A

strong, vibrant, and permanent R&D credit is essential for the competitiveness of

U.S. companies, as many foreign countries have chosen to offer direct financial subsidies and reduced capital cost incentives to ‘‘key’’ industries.

The R&D Credit Coalition applauds the Senate Finance Committee and the full

Senate for its commitment to fostering economic growth through effective Federal

tax policies that support private sector investments in innovation, and will continue

to work with you to achieve a strong and permanent R&D credit.

Thank you for inviting me to speak on this important subject. I am happy to take

any questions.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BAUCUS

Question: You testified that some foreign countries, such as Canada, are aggressively courting U.S. research, which would mean a drain on U.S. jobs and the U.S.

economy. Could you explain for the committee how these countries are trying to lure

U.S. research dollars out of the U.S. and into other countries, and whether they are

being successful?

Answer: Today’s global R&D incentive regime is rooted in global competitiveness

concerns. National governments in more than 30 countries use tax policy to attract

investment and have enacted research and development tax incentives in the form

of credits or enhanced deductions. These countries are trying to lure research dollars out of the U.S. through a variety of means, including:

• Lower tax rates;

76

• Direct cash incentives and investment subsidies;

• Tax credits and ‘‘super’’ deductions tied directly to research and development

activities; and

• Other tax incentives designed to attract foreign investment.

All of these are actively marketed to tax executives and corporate officers through

direct marketing calls, seminar presentations and even print and television media

campaigns.

I am not aware of any way to specifically measure the success of such efforts. The

simple fact that the list of countries offering such incentives continues to increase

would indicate that policy makers in an increasing number of countries believe that

the incentives must have an impact on corporate behavior.

Question: Do you have an estimate of the total amount of R&D investment that

the U.S. has lost as a result of these efforts by foreign countries?

Answer: I am unaware of any publicly or privately sponsored data or studies

which have quantified the total amount of R&D investment that the U.S. has lost

as a result of these efforts by foreign countries. The evidence seems to be more anecdotal in nature. The R&D Credit Coalition will continue to look for any such studies

or information and provide it to the committee if located.

77

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID E. MARTIN

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM

THE ENCOURAGING WORK ACT OF 2005

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to review important tax incentives

scheduled to expire, such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and Welfareto-Work tax credit (WTW). I was pleased to join Senator Baucus, Senator Smith,

Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Jeffords last week in the reintroduction of the Encouraging Work Act of 2005, S. 595. I would particularly like to thank Dale

Giovengo, Human Resource Director, Giant Eagle Markets in Pittsburgh, for his

compelling testimony on the effectiveness of the WOTC and WTW credits in providing work opportunities for many who are disadvantaged or disabled in Pennsylvania and throughout the country.

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and Welfare-to-Work tax credit (WTW)

are tax incentives that encourage employers to hire public assistance recipients and

other individuals with barriers to employment. The combination of Welfare Reform

passed by Congress in 1996 and the assistance to employers found in the WOTC

and WTW has enabled expanded opportunity for many Americans. Yet more can be

done. We were pleased that the Senate JOBS bill passed last year included a permanent WOTC/WTW provision along with helpful reforms largely supported by the

administration. Unfortunately, it was only extended in the final conference report.

Without action by Congress WOTC and WTW will expire on January 1, 2006. Under present law, WOTC provides a 40 percent tax credit on the first $6,000 of

wages for those working at least 400 hours, or a partial credit of 25 percent for

those working 120–399 hours. WTW provides a 35 percent tax credit on the first

$10,000 of wages for those working 400 hours in the first year. In the second year,

the WTW credit is 50 percent of the first $10,000 of wages earned. WOTC and WTW

are key elements of welfare reform. A growing number of employers use these programs in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, food, and other industries.

These programs have helped over 2,700,000 previously dependent persons to find

jobs.

Eligibility is limited to: (1) recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

(TANF) in 9 of the 18 months ending on the hiring date; (2) individuals receiving

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits; (3) disabled individuals with vocational rehabilitation referrals; (4) veterans on food stamps; (5) individuals aged 18–

24 in households receiving food stamp benefits; (6) qualified summer youth employees; (7) low-income ex-felons; and (8) individuals ages 18–24 living in empowerment

zones or renewal communities. Eligibility for WTW is limited to individuals receiving welfare benefits for 18 consecutive months ending on the hiring date. More than

80 percent of WOTC and WTW hires were previously dependent on public assistance

programs. These credits are both a hiring incentive, offsetting some of the higher

85

costs of recruiting, hiring, and retaining public assistance recipients and other lowskilled individuals, and a retention incentive, providing a higher reward for those

who stay longer on the job.

After 8 years of experience with these programs, their value has been well demonstrated. In 2001, the GAO issued a report that indicated that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC. With the resources provided by WOTC, employers have provided job mentors, lengthened training periods,

engaged in recruiting outreach, and listed jobs or requested referrals from public

agencies or partnerships. WOTC and WTW have become a true public-private partnership in which the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the

States, and employers have forged excellent working relationships.

But the challenges for employers and those looking for better opportunities are

real. The job skills of eligible persons leaving welfare are sometimes limited, and

the costs of recruiting, training, and supervising low-skilled individuals cause many

employers to look elsewhere for employees. WOTC and WTW are proven incentives

for encouraging employers to seek employees from the targeted groups. Despite the

considerable success of WOTC and WTW, many vulnerable individuals still need a

boost in finding employment. There are several legislative changes that would

strengthen these programs, expand employment opportunities for needy individuals,

and make the programs more attractive to employers.

• Combine WOTC and WTW. The administration’s fiscal year 2006 budget proposes to simplify these important employment incentives by combining them

into one credit and making the rules for computing the combined credits simpler. The credits would be combined by creating a new welfare-to-work target

group under WOTC. The minimum employment periods and credit rates for the

first year of employment under the present work opportunity tax credit would

apply to WTW employees. The maximum amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for WTW employees and $6,000 for other target groups

($3,000 for summer youth). In addition, the second-year 50-percent credit under

WTW would continue to be available for WTW employees under the modified

WOTC.

• Eliminate requirement to determine family income for ex-felons. Under current

law, only those ex-felons whose annual family income is 70 percent or less than

the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard during the 6 months preceding the hiring date are eligible for WOTC. The administration’s fiscal year

2006 budget proposes to eliminate the family income attribution rule.

• Permanent extension of WOTC and WTW. Permanent extension would provide

these programs with greater stability, thereby encouraging more employers to

participate, make investments in expanding outreach to identify potential workers from the targeted groups, and avoid the wasteful disruption of termination

and renewal. A permanent extension would also encourage the State job services to invest the resources needed to make the certification process more efficient and employer-friendly.

• Raise the WOTC age eligibility ceiling from 24 to 39 years of age for members

of food stamp households and ‘‘high-risk youth’’ living in enterprise zones or renewal communities. Current WOTC eligibility rules heavily favor the hiring of

women because single mothers are much more likely to be on welfare or food

stamps. Women constitute about 80 percent of those hired under the WOTC

program, but men from welfare households face the same or even greater barriers to finding work. Increasing the age ceiling in the ‘‘food stamp category’’

would greatly improve the job prospects for many absentee fathers and other

‘‘at risk’’ males. This change would be completely consistent with program objectives, because many food stamp households include adults who are not working,

and more than 90 percent of those on food stamps live below the poverty line.

WOTC and WTW are also key elements of welfare reform. Employers in the retail,

health care, hotel, financial services, and food industries have incorporated this program into their hiring practices and, through these programs, more than 2,700,000

previously dependent persons have found work. A recent report issued by the New

York State Department of Labor bears this out in economic terms. I am pleased that

Dr. Dubowsky is here from the New York State Department of Labor to elaborate

on the study. Comparing the cost of WOTC credits taken by New York State employers during the period 1996–2003 (for a total of $192.59 million) with savings

achieved through closed welfare cases and reductions in vocational rehabilitation

programs and jail spending (for a total of $199.89 million), the State of New York

concluded that WOTC provided net benefits to the taxpayers even without taking

into account the additional economic benefits resulting from the addition of new

wages to the GDP.

86

In that regard, the New York State analysis concluded that the roughly $90 million in wages paid to WOTC workers since 1996 generated roughly $225 million in

increased economic activity. Perhaps even more importantly, the study found that

roughly 58 percent of the TANF recipients who entered private sector employment

with the assistance of WOTC stayed off welfare. I mention the New York State

study because it is the first of its kind; however, I am certain that similar conclusions would be reached in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any of the other

48 States and the District of Columbia. These programs work and do so at a net

savings to taxpayers. In fact, over a 7-year period there were more than 110,000

certifications for both WOTC and WTW in Pennsylvania alone, enabling many to

leave welfare and find private sector work. The legislation is supported by hundreds

of employers throughout Pennsylvania and around the country. WOTC and WTW

have received high praise as well from the Federal Government. A 2001 GAO study

concluded that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because

of WOTC, by providing job mentors, longer training periods, and significant recruiting outreach efforts.

WOTC and WTW are not traditional government jobs programs. Instead they are

precisely the type of program that we should champion in a time when we need to

be fiscally responsible. These are efficient and low-cost public-private partnerships

that have as their goal to provide a means by which individuals can transition from

welfare to a lifetime of work and dignity.

The Work Opportunity Credit and Welfare-to-Work credit have been successful in

moving traditionally hard-to-employ persons off welfare and into the workforce,

where they contribute to our economy. However, employer participation in these important programs can be increased, particularly among small and medium-sized employers. This is due to the complexity of the credits and the fact that they are both

only temporary provisions of the tax code subject to renewal every year or two.

Small, medium, and even some large employers find it difficult to justify developing

the necessary infrastructure to administer and participate in these programs when

their continued existence beyond 1 or 2 years is constantly in question.

This legislation will remedy this problem by combining WOTC and WTW into one,

more easily administered tax credit, and by making it a permanent part of the tax

code. Many organizations, including the National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, Food Marketing Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Restaurant Association, American Hotel and Lodging Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Association of Chain Drug

Stores, American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Health

Care Association, support this legislation. Representatives Jerry Weller (R-IL),

Charles Rangel (D-NY), and Phil English (R-PA) are introducing identical legislation

in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with Senator Baucus and

my colleagues to move this important legislation forward this year.

(87)

COMMUNICATIONS

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

Æ