Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. I add to that, no second-degree amendments be in order.

Mr. BUMPERS. I object. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague, Senator Cochran, in bringing to the floor the conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development and related agencies. This is the last annual agriculture appropriations bill which I will jointly author with my friend from Mississippi, and I regret to report that the progress this year has not been as smooth as in years past. Last year, my fellow conferees were able to conclude the business of the committee on conference in approximately 5 minutes. By contrast, it took us 5 days this year and I fear, at this late date, all hurdles toward enactment are not fully cleared. In fact, I, along with all Senate Democrat members of the conference committee who attached our signatures to the official conference papers, did so with an exception to one of the titles included in the conference report. Aside from the one area still in disagreement, the conference report before us is as good a product as was possible under the budgetary constraints we faced. We include in this measure nearly $52 million in new spending for food safety. This figure is well below the budget request, but represents a good increase in spending for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to help ensure that our Nation's food supplies remain the safest in the world. The conference report also provides adequate levels for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, including an increase for the WIC Farmers Market Program of up to $15 million. Overall, the USDA food assistance programs remain the single largest component of this conference report, totaling $36 billion in new spending. Rural development is another key element of this conference report. Included is more than $4.25 billion in rural housing program levels and nearly $725 million in budget authority for the Rural Community Advancement Program, which includes the water and wastewater program. I have seen firsthand the benefits these programs bring to rural areas in my State and I am glad we were able to achieve these levels for the coming year. Also, the conference report includes a special recognition for the needs of the Lower Mississippi River Delta, an often overlooked region of our Nation that has long deserved our special attention. I have worked for many years to improve conditions in this region and I am happy to have included special consideration for the delta in this measure. Agricultural research continues to receive the attention of our subcommittee. The level of spending for the Agricultural Research Service in this conference report is higher than either the House or Senate levels prior to conference. In addition, we were able to increase the levels of funding for basic formula research for our Nation's 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions. Funding for these institutions has been frozen for far too long, and this conference report provides a 7 percent increase above last year. Enhanced agricultural research is a commitment the Congress has made to our farmers and consumers and this conference report lies up to that commitment. I would be most remissed if I didn't pause to give credit, to my friend, Senator Cochran, for facing the grim budgetary challenge we faced this year. Our allocation was well below what was available for fiscal year 1998 and going into conference we had to adjust our numbers downward toward the lower House allocation. Our task was made even more difficult by the assumed enactment of hundreds of millions of dollars in user fees that looked good on paper but only served to raise faint expectations beyond what was possible. This conference report includes a general provision that will, hopefully, forestall the use of projected user fees in next year's budget and keep everyone working within a budgetary framework more closely associated with the realities we all must face. Given my years of work on this subcommittee, and my close friendship with Senator Cochran, I am greatly saddened by my reluctance to give unequivocal support for all matters contained in this conference report. As we began conference deliberations with the House, the President made it clear that two items under discussion were of such importance that their inclusion in the conference report would result in a veto. I must admit that I never thought the agriculture appropriations bill would ever be the target of a Presidential veto. In fact, the agriculture appropriations bill is usually approved by the Senate 100 to 0. I remind my colleagues that a few years go when much of the Federal Government faced a shutdown from failed appropriations bills, the agencies funded under this bill were among the few not included in that Governmental debacle. Such has been the history of the agriculture appropriations process during my tenure and it saddens me to think that I might be leaving the Senate with that possibility lurking as strongly as it does today. One of the items which drew the attention of the President was a provision in the House bill that placed a limitation on the Food and Drug Administration's funding for any testing, development, or approval of the drug RU-486, a chemical used to induce an abortion. Leaving for a moment the argument that science is better left to scientists than politicians, the inclusion of the abortion debate in the agriculture appropriations bill was a most unfortunate attempt to drag this bill down with one of the most divisive and politically charged issues of our time. I am very pleased to report that the Senate conferees made it crystal clear that the Senate was not going to allow the issue of abortion to infect the agriculture appropriations bill with the same paralysis that has inflicted other subcommittees. If the Senate had not held firm, a very bad precedent would have been set and all agriculture appropriations bills in the future would become the venue for, and be held hostage by, an issue best reserved for other forums. The other item of Presidential disapproval is tied to the levels of assistance for farmers and ranchers who are facing the most pressing financial times in recent years, maybe ever. It is on this point that I had to part with my friend Senator Cochran and express an opinion that our measure falls short of meeting current needs. The conference report includes provisions put forward by the majority party that strives to bring relief to farmers and ranchers who are suffering from lost crops and low prices. However, my concern is with the manner in which the assistance is to be provided. In order to help farmers suffering from low prices, the conference report would simply allow for additional ``Freedom to Farm'' payments to go to all producers who hold a Agricultural Market Transition Act contract. The fallacy with this approach is that it does not target the additional funds to people who are suffering from either crop failure or fallen prices. Instead, it makes funds available to landlords who may have received cash rent for their lands, suffered no loss at all, and in many instances never even faced a risk of loss in the first place. We have to recognize that many, though not all, farmers across America are suffering. Most are suffering from losses this year, but some from losses over several years. Some farmers have a crop to harvest, but low prices preclude any chance of a profit. The purpose of the Democratic alternative for disaster assistance is to make sure the relief payments go to those in need. I have heard from farmers in my State who have lost everything this year. They tell me that this year is worse than the crop failures of 1980, which was the worst year since the Great Depression. The Democratic alternative provides more relief, 100 percent more in fact, for farmers in my State and I feel we should not turn our backs on the one segment of the national economy that has not been surging into double digit profits on Wall Street. The President has indicated he will veto this bill if additional farm relief is not added. Congress needs to act swiftly to amend the shortfall in this bill and send to the President a package that truly meets the needs of farmers and ranchers. Mr. President, this brings me to the close of my last annual agriculture appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate. I want to once more thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Cochran, for his years of friendship on and off this subcommittee. I also want to thank all other members for their cooperation over the years. Mr. President, I say in closing that this is a very complex matter, this matter of disaster relief. The only disagreement on this side and the other side of the aisle is over the disaster provisions. As I say, they are both fairly complicated, and I am hoping that if the President vetoes the bill, as he has promised to do, we will be able to work out something--maybe not everything the President wanted, maybe more than others wanted--and that we will be able to reach a compromise that will actually take care of farmers. My fear is that, this being what I consider probably the worst year in the history for agriculture since the Great Depression, that the proposal in the bill is not adequate to save an awful lot of farmers who deserve saving. So I am hoping if the President does veto the bill, we can come back and hammer out an agreement that will save a lot more farmers. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, I believe they are. The CSREES water quality programs are intended to help investigate the impacts of non-point source pollution and recognize the public's concern about the possible risks to the environment resulting from the use of agricultural chemicals. Therefore, the purpose of the RRWMC's activities are clearly consistent with the goals of the agency's water quality research mission. Further, I understand that the RRWMC has been able to leverage non-federal funds on a ratio of about two to one. Given current budget constraints, this accomplishment is to be commended especially in recognition of the fact that the CSREES water quality grant has received nearly $48 million in appropriations since 1990 and has only been able to leverage approximately $1 million per year during that time. The record of RRWMC in leveraging non-federal funds is, therefore, all the more impressive and worthy of these federal dollars. In view of the important ongoing work of the RRWMC on the important issues of water quality protection, their cooperative relationships with a wide variety of stakeholders, and their ability to leverage non- federal resources, I believe the conferees would agree that RRWMC should be able to secure funding of, at least, last year's level in the coming fiscal year.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, I am. I understand the North Dakota program, developed through the Red River Water Management Consortium (RRWMC) is doing important work to help understand the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals in the Northern Great Plains region. I believe it is also noteworthy that the RRWMC is a basin-wide water management group, comprised of a number of government and industry stakeholders throughout the water basin and has included partners from municipalities, agricultural industries, county governments, resource conservation and development organizations, and public utilities. Cooperation and coordination of all these groups is vital and the network established in North Dakota should serve as an excellent model for other parts of the United States where water contamination, especially from agricultural runoff, posses a real or potential threat to the environment and public health.

Mr. BUMPERS. Over the past several years, the Congress has funded water quality grants through three separate items with in the CSREES Special Grants Program, including the two the Senator from North Dakota mentions. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill which Senator Cochran and I reported to the Senate earlier this year included a total of $2,897,000 for these activities. This amount includes funds at last year's level for the North Dakota program and the balance directed to the undesignated water quality item. The House included the third water quality grant and provided a total of $3,389,000 for all water quality special grants. The conferees recognized the need to strengthen our cooperative research activities for water quality, in a manner similar to the treatment of food safety and other priority research areas, and decided to consolidate and increase the funding level for water quality through the CSREES Special Grants Program. Accordingly, all funding for water quality research was moved to a single item and in recognition of the excellent record of the North Dakota program, language was included in the Statement of Managers explaining that the North Dakota program should continue to secure funding through that item.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say, and I would be remiss if I did not say it at this point, I think, one of the things I will miss deeply when I leave the U.S. Senate will be the excellent relationship I have had with the chairman of this committee. He has been, probably, much more generous to me through the years that he was chairman than I was to him when I was chairman. But I want the whole Senate to know of my deep admiration for him. I want the whole country to know it. He is a consummate gentleman. He is a man of impeccable integrity. He is accommodating to a fault to his colleagues. And one of the things I will miss is his counsel, advice and common sense. He is the personification of what public service should be. I have been most honored to serve with him and I will cherish his friendship always. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Iowa is correct. While the conference report does not allow for the transfer of title of the facility to USDA, and the Statement of Managers includes language limiting the use of funds for operational costs, that limitation does not apply to the allocation of funds pursuant to normal ARS scientist assignments. The Statement of Managers includes direction that an increase of $2 million for ARS research at Ames, Iowa, is included as reflected in the accompanying table. That table indicates an increase of $1 million for the National Animal Disease Center and an additional $1 million for Livestock Management. The latter amount is available for use at the National Swine Research Center consistent with normal ARS personnel funding allocations.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, when Senator Cochran and I reported the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development and related agencies to the Senate earlier this year, our recommendation included maintaining the studies and evaluations activities for USDA's food programs with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). This recommendation was consistent with the President's budget request. The studies and evaluations activities are important for a number of reasons. These activities enable better program management of the several domestic feeding programs administered through USDA. We should remember that USDA's nutrition programs comprise the lions' share of the USDA budget and are often all that stands between many of our people and abject hunger. Because of the long-term health implications associated with a healthy, nutritious diet, it is absolutely vital that program administrators have access to relevant and updated information regarding nutrition and program delivery.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed for 2 minutes prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to note the importance of coordinating the research agenda for the food program studies and evaluations between USDA's research and nutrition subcabinet officers. I cannot understate the importance of these two branches of USDA continuing to work together, as they have done this year, to ensure that FNS' research agenda meets the needs of program managers to have adequate information to guide their program decisions.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have lost this amendment several times. As you have heard me say previously, this is the seventh or eighth year that I have offered this proposal. Every year the specious, absolutely false arguments are made that people don't want any more taxes and that this is a new tax. This is nothing more than a continuation of the unfunded mandates bill we passed here in 1995. All my amendment does is say to the States, as the Supreme Court in 1992 said, if Congress gives the States authority to tax sales by mail- order catalog houses, the States may take the opportunity to make them pay it. You are talking about the Chamber of Commerce types who go to work at 8 o'clock in Little Rock, AR, in Allentown, PA, and Nashville, TN, and work all day long and collect sales taxes on every dime of every merchant on all the merchandise they sell; and some guy has a big warehouse across the State line and can ship that same merchandise into Tennessee, Arkansas and Pennsylvania without even collecting a sales tax. The Governors and the mayors and the municipalities, the council of shopping centers, the council of State governments, why do you think they are for this? Because we are saying, if you want to. If you don't want to, fine, don't do it. But we are saying you now have the right that the Supreme Court gave you to require these people who fill your landfills with catalogs to make them collect a tax just like Main Street merchants do. Why do you think they are for it? Because they see their tax base disappearing with Internet sales and mail-order sales. I ask every Member of this body before you cast your vote, ask yourself this question: What is going to happen to this country when the schools start closing because the tax base is gone? One of the biggest problems mayors have right now is with their police forces, their fire departments. Community schools are strapped. And all we are saying is if you want to collect a sales tax on out-of-State sales, you can. But this bill doesn't mandate it, doesn't require it. It simply gives you the right, and that is the reason all these organizations are for it. That is the reason the New York Times is for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I want to include, if it is agreeable with the manager, 2 minutes for the distinguished Senator from New York to speak on the previous nomination.

Mr. BUMPERS. I suggest to the distinguished floor manager that I will not object to his request, but I want to include 2 minutes immediately for the distinguished Senator from New York to speak on the previous nomination.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first, let me thank my very good friend, my distinguished colleague from the great State of Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for his very kind and gracious comments. He talked about how he is going to miss me. Rest assured, wherever I am, if he will just raise the window, he can probably hear me. But on a more serious note, I consider Senator Wyden to be one of the finest additions to the U.S. Senate in my 24-year tenure here. He is truly becoming a great Senator, but more than anything else he has great values. Great values are the first thing you have to have to be a good Senator. So while I am prepared to leave at the end of this year, Senator Wyden is one of the Senators I will certainly miss. Let me just start off by saying, this amendment deals with the rights of States to require mail-order catalog houses to collect sales taxes on merchandise shipped into their States. L.L. Bean, which does over $1 billion a year, ships a lot of merchandise into my State of Arkansas, as does Lands' End, as does 6,000 or 7,000 other mail-order catalog houses; and they do not pay one cent of tax to the State of Arkansas. They do not pay one cent of tax to any State. And I will tell you why. In 1967, the Supreme Court said, in the National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue case, that States may not require mail-order catalog houses to collect use taxes for them because it violates the due process clause in the Constitution, No. 1, and, No. 2, it violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution--finis, end of story. In 1992, as mail-order catalogs sales began to mushroom in this country, and States could see that their tax base was being eroded-- incidentally, we depend on the sales tax in our State for 50 percent of our educational funds--being eroded by this constant stream of catalogs coming into people's homes every day through the mailbox--I have been checking; I have been averaging between 5 and 10 a day for the past year--North Dakota said, ``Enough is enough.'' So they brought a lawsuit that resulted in the Quill decision in 1992. They tried to get the Supreme Court to reverse the Bellas Hess decision that prohibited States from making mail-order houses collect sales tax. It is called a use tax. It is the same thing, but if it comes from out of State we call it a use tax. And the Supreme Court, in a very rare remarkable case of sanity, said, ``We hereby reverse the National Bellas Hess case to the extent that we hold that the requirement of a State to make mail-order houses collect sales taxes on goods coming into their States no longer--no longer--violates the due process clause. However, we are not removing our objection to the fact that we believe the State's right to tax mail-order houses still is a violation of the interstate commerce clause.'' Now because the Commerce Clause grants Congress exclusive authority over interstate commerce, Congress may, if it chooses, grant the states the authority to require out-of-state tax collection. So here we are on October 2, 1998, about my sixth year to try to do something about this patently unfair proposition, asking Congress, please, do not impose a tax. My amendment does not impose a tax on anybody; it does not require the States to impose a tax on anybody. It simply does what the Supreme Court said in 1992 we had a right to do, and that is to give the States the right to require out-of-state sellers to collect sales tax on any goods they ship into that State. And what is wrong with that? You know, in 1995, I offered this amendment to the unfunded mandates bill, stood right here where I am standing now, made the same speech I am making today. You remember the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, offered the unfunded mandates bill. I never saw as many tears shed in the U.S. Senate in my life as I saw during that debate--crocodile tears, of course--for those poor States and counties and municipalities that the Government was always imposing mandates on. We passed laws, and we said to the States and the counties and the cities, ``You have got to do this; you must do that.'' And it was costing the States ``gazillions.'' They said, ``Let's get that old, mean Federal Government off the backs of the States and local governments. And in the future, any time Congress passes a law that mandates that the States and local governments do anything, we will make a computation of what it is going to cost the States to comply with it, and we will send them the money.'' I did not vote for that. I did not vote for it for a lot of reasons. I am not here to debate that one all over again. That is a done deal. But the interesting thing is, when I offered this amendment on the unfunded mandates bill, I said, ``Here is a mandate that you're imposing on the States by doing nothing. If you're so concerned about the States and local governments, why don't you help them with the biggest unfunded mandate of all?'' It is about $4 billion a year we impose on the States by saying, you cannot collect taxes on anybody but the poor old sucker on Main Street who collects the tax on every sale, every bag of groceries, every refrigerator, every automobile, if he happens to live in your hometown or your State. Yes, I was a Main Street merchant as well as a jackleg lawyer. I had a hardware, furniture and appliance store. And the catalog houses were my biggest competitors, not the guy down the street--the catalog sales. I was President of the Chamber of Commerce. I arranged for the annual banquet. I was in charge of the Christmas parade. I was on the school board. I did all of those things to make my town a decent place to raise my children. And I made everybody who bought a dollar's worth of goods pay 3, 4 or 5 cents in sales taxes. It went to teachers' salaries. It went to law enforcement, police officers, and to sweep the streets. It went to test the purity of the water we drank. That is what we depended on, the sales tax. But only, of course, if you happen to live there. Now, think about the fact that mail-order houses in this country are selling over $100 billion worth of goods through the mail. There are a few who collect this tax. Do you know why? Because they know it is right. Ask Senator Bennett from Utah, a big stockholder and one of the original finders of a big mail-order house called Franklin Quest about collecting use taxes. Don't take my word for it. Ask Senator Bennett what they did. I will tell you and let him ratify it. They sat around the table and said, ``Shall we or shall we not collect sales taxes for the States in which we sell merchandise?'' He said they discussed it and they concluded that, as good citizens, they should. And they did. I said, ``Bob, when I was chairing the Small Business Committee and held hearings on this subject, they always talked about how complicated and difficult it was because there are 7,000 taxing jurisdictions in this country.'' He said, ``Don't be fooled by that. Every month we push a computer button and it is done. It isn't complicated at all.'' Now, 7 or 8 years ago when I started this, that was the principal debate--``It is so complicated. It is just so much paperwork, we can't do it.'' You rarely hear that argument anymore, since Senator Bennett came and since I have enlightened this body about what he said. He is immensely respected here. The NFIB--I don't know where they are now--in 1995, they said only about 35 percent of their people wanted Congress to take this action. I was getting ready to say something unkind, but I won't pursue that any further. I simply want to say to my colleagues, where do you think this country is headed? The underlying bill is to give all sales on the Internet a free ride. The bill before the Senate is a 2-year moratorium. There will be amendments offered here to extend the moratorium to 3 or 5 years. Listen to this, colleagues, because as I say, I am not lambasting Senator Wyden's bill on Internet taxes. I am simply fortifying the argument I want to make on remote sales. That is, right now in 1997 Internet sales were roughly $8 billion. It is now estimated that by the year 2002 Internet sales will be $300 billion. You can buy an automobile on the Internet, no sales tax; you can buy a refrigerator; you can buy your furniture; you can buy anything you want on the Internet. Now, if we are looking at Internet sales of $300 billion a year by the year 2002, what will they be at the end of 5 years and how much revenue will the States have lost? I ask my colleagues, why in the name of God will you go back home and tell the chamber of commerce your heart is in the right place, you are for small business, you are for Main Street merchants, and turn right around and put them at a hopeless, competitive disadvantage? Why? Why should I organize the Christmas parade, pay my taxes to go to the schools, taxes for law enforcement, the fire department, while other people ship 4 million tons of catalogs into the States for them to dispose of? Ask any mayor, any Governor, what is their biggest headache? Almost invariably, it will come back, ``We need more money.'' Secondly, ``Our biggest headache is the landfill.'' Not only do states have to dispose of 4 million tons of catalogs, they also have to handle the boxes and the crates that the merchandise comes in. How can the catalog people tell us, ``We don't cause a burden. We are no burden to the local jurisdictions. Why do you want to tax us? We don't send our children to school in Charleston, AR. Why should we pay sales taxes?'' I will tell you precisely why they should. Because the revenue base of the States and local jurisdictions of this country is being eroded to the point where it will wind up being about half of what it is right now or less. Let me ask you a better question: Why shouldn't they pay a sales tax and compete with the people who live in those communities that have to pay taxes? It is a mystery to me. I don't take on these causes that I continue to lose for the fun of it. I take them on because I feel strongly about them. In 1995, the Senator from Maine, Mr. Cohen--who is now Secretary of Defense--and I got into a debate here. They said the Finance Committee had not even held a hearing. Of course, the Finance Committee hadn't held a hearing, the chairman of the Finance Committee doesn't favor this bill. Do you know something else? Somebody else said, let's study this. That is always the way out, ``Let's study it.'' For 7 years on the mining laws, they said we need to study this. We have been studying the mining laws since 1872, and the law is still fully intact, just as crass, just as base, just as unfair now as it was in 1872, and we are still studying it. We will study this some more. Somebody will make the suggestion, ``We have to study this. We don't know what the full impact of it is.'' Let me shift gears a moment to another item, and this is always shocking to anybody you tell it to. Unhappily, most things said on the U.S. Senate floor don't get any higher than the dome here. Nobody hears it. Forty-five States in this country have a use tax. Arkansas has one. It says to L.L. Bean, if you ship merchandise into Arkansas, the person you sell it to is liable for the Arkansas use tax. It is the same thing as a sales tax. In my State, it is 5 percent. How many people in Arkansas do you think realize that when they buy something from a remote seller, they are responsible for that use tax? Maybe about 1 in 200,000. Nobody knows it. Yet, 45 States have it. Just 10 to 15 States--I forget which number--but it was 10 in 1995; so it is maybe 15 or 20 by now--have laws that say you must report on your State income tax whether or not you bought anything from out of State. Now, the State of Maine does something that is really unique and, in my opinion, patently unconstitutional. If you live in Maine, when you fill out your income tax return, there is a line that says, ``Did you buy anything from out of State?'' You put in ``yes'' or ``no,'' and if the answer is yes, you put the amount down. Let's assume you bought some furniture for $1,000. I don't know what the sales tax is in Maine, but if it is 5 percent, you are liable for $50. ``Please multiply 5 percent times the amount you bought.'' And so everybody kind of routinely ignores that because they don't want to pay it and they don't have to admit that they bought anything from out of State. So do you know what else Maine does? They say that if this line is empty and you don't report having bought anything out of State from a mail-order house, please multiply .0366 times whatever your income is. If you make $30,000 a year, you put $11 on that line. As I say, in my opinion, that is powerfully unconstitutionally. That is a tax that nobody ought to have to pay, and it is the wrong way to do it. A lot of people get rude awakenings. One couple from Florida went up to North Carolina because they saw this big catalog saying, ``Buy your furniture at the factory in North Carolina and pay no sales tax.'' Not many people do this anymore. When I started in on this issue years ago, it was very common. Or, ``Buy your tile or your linoleum for your kitchen from''--such-and-such--``no sales tax.'' So this couple went from Florida to North Carolina and bought $25,000 to $35,000 worth of furniture. Later on, the North Carolina furniture company is audited and they find that they have sold this couple in Florida, as well as couples in a lot of other places, $25,000 worth of furniture. They notify Florida, and Florida calls these people up and say, ``You owe us $1,000,'' or whatever it is. Now, that is a rude awakening, isn't it? You thought you bought something that was tax free and you find out, to your regret, that you didn't. Well, Mr. President, I have just been handed a note that the majority leader wants to have a vote. Frankly, I don't like being interrupted in the middle of a debate. It is nothing but a bed check vote. But the majority leader apparently wants the floor by 10:30 and they want me to yield the floor. I got a note that I was going to yield so that Senator Leahy and somebody else could talk about a judicial nomination. I don't see Senator Leahy here. I don't see Senator Hatch here. Neither one of them is half as entertaining as I am either. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues of a very simple fact. Don't vote against this amendment because you want to go home and tell your constituents that it imposes a new tax. It does not. For all of you people, when we talked about unfunded mandates, who talked endlessly about States rights, this is a classic States rights issue. If you vote against my amendment, you are saying to the States: We don't trust you; we are not going to let you collect new taxes on remote sales; we are going to stand by while your tax base is eroded, while you try to raise property taxes in order to pay for schools, but we simply cannot trust you and, therefore, we are not going to give you the authority. I am telling you--I do not know how I can say it more dramatically, more graphically--as a former Main Street merchant, I can tell you it is patently unfair to make the people of my State and your States make Main Street merchants collect sales tax on every single dime they take in, but if you want to move just across the State line and ship it back into the State, you can do it and not charge any sales tax. I had a cousin who bought a fur coat in New York. The clerk said, ``You sound like you're southern.'' She said, ``I am. I'm from Little Rock.'' The clerk said, ``Why don't you let us mail this coat to you? That way you won't have to pay this $100 or $300''--whatever it was-- ``in sales tax.'' She said, ``Fine. Just mail it to me.'' That is the kind of thing that is going on, and it is going to continue to go on. On your desk, in about 10 minutes, you will find the list of people in this country who strongly favor the Bumpers amendment. You know who they are? They are the Governors; they are the mayors; they are the city councils; they are a whole host of Main Street merchant organizations. Look at it before you vote, and figure out what you are going to say to them the next time you address their organizations on why you didn't vote for this amendment. Tell the Governors why their tax base is being eroded. Mr. President, we exempt in this bill--listen carefully--we exempt every mail-order house in the United States that does less than $3 million a year. That exempts about 89% of the mail-order companies in the United States. My amendment would make the States put in a 1-800 number so any mail-order house that is confused can call the State and find out what that State's rule is. We have a blended rate so that the mail-order house only has to collect one rate and the States will distribute it between the cities and the counties. We have done everything in the world to make this as easy as possible for everybody. Mr. President, here is an article from the New York Times this morning. There is a copy of the article on every member's desk. This article make all the arguments that I have made here this morning. Let me tell you one other argument they make that I have not made, and that is that people who buy on the Internet are the wealthiest people in the country. They are the ones who are doing most of the buying, because they have Internet access. So if I am a wealthy person, I have a computer in my home, and I am on-line, this sales tax loophole favors me. The guy making $6 to $10 an hour does not have a computer in his house. He does not know what is available on the Internet. It is another way of discriminating against those who have the least. Mr. President, I am really sorry that we are in such a rush. I know a lot of people want to catch planes, and I am sympathetic to that. I have been in that situation myself. But I want to say, No. 1, please read the New York Times article; please look at the list of people that will be on your desk in about 5 minutes who support this amendment; and, finally, if you are going to vote against this amendment, please figure out what you are going to say to the mayors and the Governors who have the responsibility of keeping the schools open, who have the responsibility of funding the fire departments, who have the responsibility of funding the police departments, keeping the streets clean, keeping the landfills in compliance with EPA rules, and all the other things that cost ``gazillions'' of dollars across the country. Ask them why they are not allowed to collect a little tax to at least help pay the landfill for covering up 4 million tons of catalogs a year, if nothing else. So, Mr. President, I know everybody is in a hurry. And I guess I have said about all I need to say. I see Senator Dorgan on the floor who wants to speak and who has time allocated. So, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, if the Senator from Alaska is prepared, we are prepared to accept his amendment which is the pending business.