Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Grassley and others to introduce the TERFF Act, Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fisherman. This bill includes several provisions providing tax relief that will help our nation's farmers. First, this bill will create FFARRM, Farm, Fish and Ranch Risk Management, Accounts that will provide farmers, ranchers and fishermen with additional money management tools. Agricultural producers will be allowed to contribute up to 20 percent of their annual income into these accounts. The tax on this income will be deferred for up to five years or until the depositor withdraws the money. The bill will amend the tax code to ensure that farm cash rents are not subject to an additional 15 percent self-employment tax. Additionally, the bill will ensure CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, payments are not subject to the same self-employment tax. I have also co-sponsored a similar CRP bill with Senator Brownback from Kansas. The bill will also enable States to expand opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment. The bill provides that interest, rent and royalty payment made by a subsidiary to a non-profit are not subject to a unrelated business income taxes. The bill provides a tax deduction to farmers and ranchers who donate food to hunger relief organizations. The bill will correct a problem experienced by farmers who use income averaging by ensuring that farmers are not disqualified from using income averaging due to the alternative minimum tax, AMT, calculation. The bill would reapply taxes on cooperatives using animal value-added practices in the same way as cooperatives using manufactured value- added practices. Furthermore, it would allow cooperative producers of ethanol to receive the same tax benefits as large corporations. The bill will also allow farmer cooperatives to use preferred stock to raise equity capital. This bill will help our nation's farmers and ranchers. The agriculture sector of our nation's economy needs the relief.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Brownback and others to introduce the CRP, Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. This bill will clarify Congressional intent that the CRP was not intended to be subject to self employment social security taxes. In a 1999 decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that CRP payments could no longer be treated as real estate rental income a status that would make those payments exempt from social security taxes. The CRP provides financial incentives for improving and preserving environmentally sensitive land--taking it out of production and enhancing its environmental benefit. The CRP program increases water quality, wildlife habitat and prevents soil erosion--all factors which have become even more important in light of recent concerns about nonpoint source pollution in our nation's waterways. This case overturned a 1998 Tax Court ruling that CRP payments are not subject to social security taxes because they are a rental payment the government makes in exchange for farmers taking environmentally sensitive land out of production. Since other rental payments are exempt from this additional tax, CRP payments were considered exempt as well. As a result of this confusion, there is now a discrepancy between active farmers who take part in CRP--which are now subject to the tax because it is considered income--and landowners who do not farm but take part in CRP and are exempt from the tax. Clearly, this is not what Congress intended when it set up this program. This bill will allow farmers and ranchers the ability to rest assured once and for all that conservation payments made by the government will not be subject to the high tax rate imposed by social security self- employment--a rate of 15 percent of the payment--in future years. As a result, working farmers will enjoy the same status as non-farm landowners in this program which encourages conservation of land, water and wildlife.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Brownback and others to introduce the CRP, Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. This bill will clarify Congressional intent that the CRP was not intended to be subject to self employment social security taxes. In a 1999 decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that CRP payments could no longer be treated as real estate rental income a status that would make those payments exempt from social security taxes. The CRP provides financial incentives for improving and preserving environmentally sensitive land--taking it out of production and enhancing its environmental benefit. The CRP program increases water quality, wildlife habitat and prevents soil erosion--all factors which have become even more important in light of recent concerns about nonpoint source pollution in our nation's waterways. This case overturned a 1998 Tax Court ruling that CRP payments are not subject to social security taxes because they are a rental payment the government makes in exchange for farmers taking environmentally sensitive land out of production. Since other rental payments are exempt from this additional tax, CRP payments were considered exempt as well. As a result of this confusion, there is now a discrepancy between active farmers who take part in CRP--which are now subject to the tax because it is considered income--and landowners who do not farm but take part in CRP and are exempt from the tax. Clearly, this is not what Congress intended when it set up this program. This bill will allow farmers and ranchers the ability to rest assured once and for all that conservation payments made by the government will not be subject to the high tax rate imposed by social security self- employment--a rate of 15 percent of the payment--in future years. As a result, working farmers will enjoy the same status as non-farm landowners in this program which encourages conservation of land, water and wildlife.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Grassley and others to introduce the TERFF Act, Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fisherman. This bill includes several provisions providing tax relief that will help our nation's farmers. First, this bill will create FFARRM, Farm, Fish and Ranch Risk Management, Accounts that will provide farmers, ranchers and fishermen with additional money management tools. Agricultural producers will be allowed to contribute up to 20 percent of their annual income into these accounts. The tax on this income will be deferred for up to five years or until the depositor withdraws the money. The bill will amend the tax code to ensure that farm cash rents are not subject to an additional 15 percent self-employment tax. Additionally, the bill will ensure CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, payments are not subject to the same self-employment tax. I have also co-sponsored a similar CRP bill with Senator Brownback from Kansas. The bill will also enable States to expand opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment. The bill provides that interest, rent and royalty payment made by a subsidiary to a non-profit are not subject to a unrelated business income taxes. The bill provides a tax deduction to farmers and ranchers who donate food to hunger relief organizations. The bill will correct a problem experienced by farmers who use income averaging by ensuring that farmers are not disqualified from using income averaging due to the alternative minimum tax, AMT, calculation. The bill would reapply taxes on cooperatives using animal value-added practices in the same way as cooperatives using manufactured value- added practices. Furthermore, it would allow cooperative producers of ethanol to receive the same tax benefits as large corporations. The bill will also allow farmer cooperatives to use preferred stock to raise equity capital. This bill will help our nation's farmers and ranchers. The agriculture sector of our nation's economy needs the relief.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, in introducing the Water Conservation and Quality Incentives Act. This bill aims to authorize the use of State revolving loan funds for construction of water conservation and quality improvements. Senator Wyden and I have worked together to bring some common sense improvements to the existing revolving fund program. One of the big changes we would like to see will encourage additional conservation of water resources by the many irrigation districts in the Nation. Every Montanan understands that water is the lifeblood of our State, and I am glad to be working on this bipartisan effort to more effectively use this vital resource. This bill will encourage water conservation by providing the opportunity for loans to be made to irrigation districts from the State revolving funds. These loans will be used to construct pipelines and develop additional conservation measures. In the West, irrigators are by far the largest water users. They use the water to produce the many agricultural products we enjoy in this country. Between the water source and the field, a large portion of the water used in irrigation is displaced due to seepage as the water flows through the canals and ditches. The water is not lost, since it seeps into the soil and assists in the overall soil moisture, but it makes for an inefficient system because it is not immediately available to the irrigator. One of the reasons this is damaging to producers is the fact that in most irrigation districts, irrigators pay for water that is released to them whether it makes it to the crop or not. Displacement of this water does not help a producer's bottom line. At a time when prices are low and markets are questionable, it is important that we give tools to the producer to make sure they have every opportunity to stay in business. Water saved under the proposal in this bill will not only assist the producer in water and cost savings, but will also make certain the future of water in the many rivers and streams in the west. Efficient irrigations systems make good environmental sense because the more water you have to pump out of a river, the less water there is left for the fish and animals that depend on it as part of their habitat. This bill creates a win-win situation both for water users and for the multiple users of water in our states, particularly Oregon and Montana. We have an opportunity here to do something useful and worthwhile for the irrigators and also for those who enjoy fishing, boating and other instream water uses. I thank Senator Wyden for his work on this measure and I am pleased to work with him on this issue of great importance.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, in introducing the Water Conservation and Quality Incentives Act. This bill aims to authorize the use of State revolving loan funds for construction of water conservation and quality improvements. Senator Wyden and I have worked together to bring some common sense improvements to the existing revolving fund program. One of the big changes we would like to see will encourage additional conservation of water resources by the many irrigation districts in the Nation. Every Montanan understands that water is the lifeblood of our State, and I am glad to be working on this bipartisan effort to more effectively use this vital resource. This bill will encourage water conservation by providing the opportunity for loans to be made to irrigation districts from the State revolving funds. These loans will be used to construct pipelines and develop additional conservation measures. In the West, irrigators are by far the largest water users. They use the water to produce the many agricultural products we enjoy in this country. Between the water source and the field, a large portion of the water used in irrigation is displaced due to seepage as the water flows through the canals and ditches. The water is not lost, since it seeps into the soil and assists in the overall soil moisture, but it makes for an inefficient system because it is not immediately available to the irrigator. One of the reasons this is damaging to producers is the fact that in most irrigation districts, irrigators pay for water that is released to them whether it makes it to the crop or not. Displacement of this water does not help a producer's bottom line. At a time when prices are low and markets are questionable, it is important that we give tools to the producer to make sure they have every opportunity to stay in business. Water saved under the proposal in this bill will not only assist the producer in water and cost savings, but will also make certain the future of water in the many rivers and streams in the west. Efficient irrigations systems make good environmental sense because the more water you have to pump out of a river, the less water there is left for the fish and animals that depend on it as part of their habitat. This bill creates a win-win situation both for water users and for the multiple users of water in our states, particularly Oregon and Montana. We have an opportunity here to do something useful and worthwhile for the irrigators and also for those who enjoy fishing, boating and other instream water uses. I thank Senator Wyden for his work on this measure and I am pleased to work with him on this issue of great importance.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Alabama to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. I sponsored this bill in the 105th and again in the 106th Congress. I felt strongly enough about this bill to sponsor it again this year. One of the most common concerns I hear from my constituents is regarding the Federal Government's authority to levy and collect taxes. This is an important role that we in Congress do not take lightly as we are accountable to the voters who pay those taxes. Three years ago, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which provides that when a major agency rule takes effect, Congress has 60 days to review it. During this time period, Congress has the option to pass a disapproval resolution. If no such resolution is passed, the rule then goes into effect. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will expand the definition of a major rule to include any IRS regulation which increases taxes. It is not the role of the IRS to make decisions that will result in increased taxes. For example, if the Office of Management and Budget finds that the implementation and enforcement of a rule would result in an increase of Federal revenues over current practices or revenues anticipated from the rule on the date of the enactment of the statute, the Stealth Tax Prevention Act would allow Congress to review the regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid raising taxes on hard working Americans, in most cases, small businesses. Bureaucrats are not directly accountable to taxpayers--I am. Under the bill introduced today, an IRS implemented stealth tax could not go into effect for at least 60 days following its publication in the Federal. Register. This window would allow Congress the opportunity to review the rule and vote on a resolution to disapprove the tax increase before it is applied to a single taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation to ensure that the IRS neither usurps the proper role of Congress--nor skirts its obligations to identify the impact of its proposed and final rules. When the Department of the Treasury issues a final IRS rule that increases taxes, Congress should have the ability to exercise its discretion to enact a resolution of disapproval before the rule is applicable to a single taxpayer. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs, to elected Members of the Congress, not unelected and unaccountable IRS bureaucrats. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Alabama to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. I sponsored this bill in the 105th and again in the 106th Congress. I felt strongly enough about this bill to sponsor it again this year. One of the most common concerns I hear from my constituents is regarding the Federal Government's authority to levy and collect taxes. This is an important role that we in Congress do not take lightly as we are accountable to the voters who pay those taxes. Three years ago, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which provides that when a major agency rule takes effect, Congress has 60 days to review it. During this time period, Congress has the option to pass a disapproval resolution. If no such resolution is passed, the rule then goes into effect. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will expand the definition of a major rule to include any IRS regulation which increases taxes. It is not the role of the IRS to make decisions that will result in increased taxes. For example, if the Office of Management and Budget finds that the implementation and enforcement of a rule would result in an increase of Federal revenues over current practices or revenues anticipated from the rule on the date of the enactment of the statute, the Stealth Tax Prevention Act would allow Congress to review the regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid raising taxes on hard working Americans, in most cases, small businesses. Bureaucrats are not directly accountable to taxpayers--I am. Under the bill introduced today, an IRS implemented stealth tax could not go into effect for at least 60 days following its publication in the Federal. Register. This window would allow Congress the opportunity to review the rule and vote on a resolution to disapprove the tax increase before it is applied to a single taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation to ensure that the IRS neither usurps the proper role of Congress--nor skirts its obligations to identify the impact of its proposed and final rules. When the Department of the Treasury issues a final IRS rule that increases taxes, Congress should have the ability to exercise its discretion to enact a resolution of disapproval before the rule is applicable to a single taxpayer. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs, to elected Members of the Congress, not unelected and unaccountable IRS bureaucrats. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of John Ashcroft. It will not take me long to make my point. Although I represent the State of Montana, I was raised in the State of Missouri on a small farm, and I understand some of the mindset that is in that State. My mother and father both were active in the Democratic Party. Mom was in the State Democratic Committee in that State and was county chairman. She often wondered what happened to me, but I tried to explain to her about it one time: When you see the outside world, maybe your philosophy changes just a little bit. I have heard nothing but those who would have reservations about John Ashcroft enforcing the law. It would seem to me, after two terms as attorney general in the State of Missouri, two terms as Governor, and 6 years in the U.S. Senate, it would surface somewhere that he would not. I thank Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions for the research they have done. I have talked to some of the law enforcement people in Missouri and have done some research in my own home State of Montana. What I have found is that we couldn't have chosen a better man to represent this country in the halls of the Attorney General. I shall support him--and support him wholeheartedly--because we have a man of substance and of fiber. I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding some of his time. I also thank my good friend, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, for yielding some of his time he has reserved and allowing me to go at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am very glad to stand today and voice my support for Gale Norton as this country's next Secretary of the Interior. After meeting with Ms. Norton and sitting in on her confirmation hearings, I am convinced she is the right person for the job. Not only am I impressed with her good ideas and her willingness to listen, but I am impressed with the balance of thought she will be bringing to the Department. She knows that the challenges in that Department are probably larger than any other department in Washington, DC. She also has an idea about how she wants to deal with them. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and also a member of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, I look forward to working with Ms. Norton. If confirmed as the next Secretary of the Interior, she will be called upon to appear in front of these committees, and she will ultimately be held responsible for the workings of the agencies under her supervision. When we have questions or concerns about the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, just to name a few, we will come to her. I am grateful for that because I think what we are looking for, more than anything else, is balance instead of activism. Like most Western States, Montana has a lot of public land, and we are affected every day by some of the decisions that are made regarding Federal land because they determine whether we will make a living or not in our State. Sometimes Government is a very good neighbor; sometimes it is not. I think Ms. Norton understands that, coming from a public lands State. One thing in particular: Last year, the year 2000, we know how the fires swept across the West. No State was more affected than New Mexico or the State of Montana. In fact, Congress appropriated $1.6 billion to help fix the damage from the summer of 2000 and also to make sure we will be prepared should another catastrophe such as that happen again. We would rather that not be repeated. In the year 2000, almost 1 million acres burned in Montana, some of it public. Plenty of the land was private, however, because private lands lay next to those forest lands--forest land, grassland, pasture land, homes, businesses, and everything in between. It was a dark, dark summer for us in Montana. We are approaching spring again, and the work is just beginning. We need to reseed the burned areas to keep the soil from eroding. We need to make sure the watersheds stay clean. One of the most important things we can do is to make sure the noxious weeds do not take our newly burned land. I know a lot of folks say everything has grown back. Nine times out of 10, it is a noxious weed. When they take hold, the native plants are crowded out, wildlife habitat is compromised, livestock-carrying capacity is reduced, and the condition of the land is jeopardized for years to come. So we need to get after it and get this land cleaned up, making sure those lands that are remaining now are protected because we are again looking at a very difficult time. Our snow pack is low again this year. We have not had moisture since before Christmas. Again, we are looking at another year that could be another drought year in Montana. We will need people who are not afraid to make decisions, make them quickly, and make the right decision that protects the land. You have to appreciate Ms. Norton for another area, too. Under the previous administration, we withdrew a lot of land from minerals management, resource management, and resource development. We have an energy crisis in this country. Maybe you are not affected by it now, but our friends from California are. The last time I looked around, California was still a part of this great country, which makes us concerned about what happens to our good friends in California. It is just not a California problem. If you come from the Northwest, where we produce an abundance of electrical power, you see that power sucked away from our area, going to California. I do not begrudge Californians the power. But I also have to be a little bit nervous about having power for the people in the Northwest. When they are in trouble, we are in trouble. We have built no new generating facilities. We just came from an administration that wanted to breach the dams that produce electricity for the West and the national grid. That is irresponsible. Conservation, yes. It is of vital importance to all our energy needs. But conservation will not do it alone. We were very successful the last time we faced an energy crisis, when, way back in 1976, we did a lot of good through conservation. And we are still doing a lot of good through conservation. But we failed to build any more facilities to produce power, electricity. I will tell you, electricity does not come Republican or Democrat. I will tell you where it comes from. The first time that finger hits that switch, and these lights do not go on, it becomes a national crisis. I think Ms. Norton will be able to play a vital role in resource management when it comes to solving some of the power problems and energy crises that we are facing today. When we look at public lands, energy development and access to public lands are vital issues. These things will be coming up again and again over the next few years because I truly believe the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources probably has his hands as full as he wants in trying to deal with the energy crisis for all Americans. Because there is no doubt in my mind, if you want to pick one thing that is slowing down our economy, it is the tremendous increase in the cost of our energy. Access to those lands is very important. But also another point that I think was brought up during the hearings is that, for the first time, we heard the Secretary of Energy say that he is not afraid to talk to the Secretary of Agriculture, and neither one of them are afraid to talk to the Secretary of the Interior to solve common problems. That is very important in this town because in this town we spend more time solving turf wars that we do anything else. But this time it is going to take an administration of Department heads and Secretaries working together, knowing what one is doing and the policy they are putting forward, and knowing how we can complete a national policy to deal with an energy crisis; the ability to work together. So I am here today to offer Ms. Norton my wholehearted support in her nomination as Secretary of the Interior. She is the right person for this job. I cannot imagine how we would find anybody more qualified. She has a great mind and is very intelligent, understanding her job, which touches so many of our lives every day. I heard some of the folks on the other side of the aisle saying she is too far to the right to go into the Department of the Interior. But I will tell you, when you look at those statements, they are just partisan arguments, and that is all because there is no other substance there. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee and yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will try my best to keep it under 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I join Senator Craig in sponsoring the Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001. This bill will require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land. In a state like Montana, where we depend heavily on the bounty of the land to support the lifestyle we enjoy, weed control has a very important place in land management. Noxious weeds attack the natural balance of the range and the entire ecosystem, along with threatening the health and productivity of public and private lands. When I visit with Montana ranchers, farmers, recreationists, and others who live close to the land, they continually mention their concern over noxious weeds. These folks are worried about how the weeds are changing the face of the land, and I am too. When these weeds take hold and native plants are crowded out, wildlife habitat is compromised, livestock carrying capacity is reduced, and the condition of the land is jeopardized. Over the last few years we have been able to secure appropriations to increase research efforts with respect to weeds management. I think this is a step in the right direction, but we also need our land management agencies and to work with private land owners. One thing is clear: this is not just a public lands problem, nor is it only a private landowner problem. Without cooperation from both sides, any efforts from the other group are compromised. This bill presents a great opportunity for cooperation, and a chance for the federal government to demonstrate a commitment to stewardship of our public lands. Sadly, this is a commitment we have not seen enough of lately. Aside from the ongoing battle against nonnative weeds in the West, this year we have an added urgency to do something real about the problem. When fires swept over millions of acres of public and private land last summer, that land was made especially vulnerable to weed infestation. Aside from repairing the immediate damage to structures and making sure we are able to control erosion and protect clean water, we have an obligation to fight the weeds that will otherwise take over these lands. As hard as we have worked in the Senate to create fire programs that repair last year's damage and keep it from happening again, it would be a step in the wrong direction to leave weed prevention by the wayside. Preventing non-native species from taking hold right now will be a much better investment than trying to control the invasion later. We cannot afford to stand by and do nothing. In some ways, the disease of weed infestation resembles the challenge of wildfire. Both are economically and environmentally devastating, and do not distinguish between public and private land. A recent study presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science estimates that non-native species cause $123 billion in damage annually. This figure is more than twice the annual economic damage caused by all natural disasters in the United States. There are no silver bullets here, and we won't be able to fix things overnight, but with hard work and a commitment to this cause, I know we can make a difference. It is time the federal government step up to its obligations to Americans, and take decisive action to fight nonnative weeds. This is a serious problem, and I am proud to be working with my colleagues in the Senate to fix it.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I join Senator Craig in sponsoring the Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001. This bill will require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land. In a state like Montana, where we depend heavily on the bounty of the land to support the lifestyle we enjoy, weed control has a very important place in land management. Noxious weeds attack the natural balance of the range and the entire ecosystem, along with threatening the health and productivity of public and private lands. When I visit with Montana ranchers, farmers, recreationists, and others who live close to the land, they continually mention their concern over noxious weeds. These folks are worried about how the weeds are changing the face of the land, and I am too. When these weeds take hold and native plants are crowded out, wildlife habitat is compromised, livestock carrying capacity is reduced, and the condition of the land is jeopardized. Over the last few years we have been able to secure appropriations to increase research efforts with respect to weeds management. I think this is a step in the right direction, but we also need our land management agencies and to work with private land owners. One thing is clear: this is not just a public lands problem, nor is it only a private landowner problem. Without cooperation from both sides, any efforts from the other group are compromised. This bill presents a great opportunity for cooperation, and a chance for the federal government to demonstrate a commitment to stewardship of our public lands. Sadly, this is a commitment we have not seen enough of lately. Aside from the ongoing battle against nonnative weeds in the West, this year we have an added urgency to do something real about the problem. When fires swept over millions of acres of public and private land last summer, that land was made especially vulnerable to weed infestation. Aside from repairing the immediate damage to structures and making sure we are able to control erosion and protect clean water, we have an obligation to fight the weeds that will otherwise take over these lands. As hard as we have worked in the Senate to create fire programs that repair last year's damage and keep it from happening again, it would be a step in the wrong direction to leave weed prevention by the wayside. Preventing non-native species from taking hold right now will be a much better investment than trying to control the invasion later. We cannot afford to stand by and do nothing. In some ways, the disease of weed infestation resembles the challenge of wildfire. Both are economically and environmentally devastating, and do not distinguish between public and private land. A recent study presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science estimates that non-native species cause $123 billion in damage annually. This figure is more than twice the annual economic damage caused by all natural disasters in the United States. There are no silver bullets here, and we won't be able to fix things overnight, but with hard work and a commitment to this cause, I know we can make a difference. It is time the federal government step up to its obligations to Americans, and take decisive action to fight nonnative weeds. This is a serious problem, and I am proud to be working with my colleagues in the Senate to fix it.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to the memory of a lady who lived in northeastern Montana who just passed away. She was a reliable adviser to me and a wonderful person, although not being born of the land or even in that part of the country. She was a native of England and had moved to northeastern Montana many years ago. Mary Nielsen was one of those unique persons, living in a very remote end of this country, the northeastern corner of Montana, isolated and 150 miles from the nearest major airport--which is not really major. And for those of us who enjoy pasta--affordable pasta, that is, nowadays--the main crop in that part of the world is durum wheat. She served in a group called WIFE, Women Involved In Farm Economics. She took those responsibilities very seriously and, of course, with great purpose. She became a valuable resource to me and my staff on transportation issues. When I first met her, I was a farm broadcaster. My programs were aired on the radio station in Plentywood, MT. This was at a time when the big railroads were in the business of abandonments, wanting to close the spur lines that were not very profitable to the big railroads. And that was the case on the Opheim spur up in that part of the country that was originally a part of the Great Northern Railway. We fought hard on that issue because we did not want to see that line abandoned, because up there rail transportation is very important in moving our crops to market. So she took it on. It was one of those unselfish things people do, leaders do. And you find out that in these small places, in some of these remote places, we have great minds and great leadership. She and others formed an organization called ABLE, the Association for Branch Line Equity, which became a model in this country for opposing abandonments of railway lines in agricultural country. She was also a shining star in the political arena. She was passionate and articulate. In fact, she received international recognition when she was elected to the office of Sheridan County Assessor. She ran on a campaign slogan of ``If elected, I will resign'' in an effort to save taxpayers the cost of paying for a county officer after the office was left on the ballot even though all duties had been absorbed by the State of Montana. She was elected and she resigned, and the office went with her. Mary was a great vocal advocate for agriculture. That is what she will be remembered as. She was politically informed and active. She was a mentor to all who knew her. She was one of those rare people who, as an activist, fought with grace and dignity for what she really believed in. It is with great sadness that we see her slip into history. Our prayers go out to her and her husband Ove and, of course, their family. She was a great lady, with grace, who represented a great, great industry. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation my colleague from Texas introduced today that will put an end to the ``marriage penalty'' tax. Mr. President, we've been fighting this tax inequity for several years now. The people of Montana have spoken to me either through letters or conversation--they think this tax is unfair. When we first started working to resolve this issue, I was contacted by Joshua and Jody Hayes of Billings, Montana. The Hayes paid $971 more in taxes because they were married than they would have paid if they remained single. In Montana, it is estimated that nearly 90,000 couples are penalized by this tax to the tune of $51.5 million--solely for being married. Making a living--supporting a family--is a difficult task in today's fast paced economy. A young couple married today is immediately subject to an additional financial burden because they want to share their lives together. The federal tax system penalizes these young couples. These are not wealthy people--this effort to provide tax relief does not discriminate--this effort does not single out a specific income group. It is a tax on families. I, along with my Republican colleagues, have made it clear that continued tax reform and tax relief is necessary, but I can think of no other tax that has such a dramatic impact on so many people. If ever there was a disincentive to be married, this penalty would be it. I believe this, along with the estate tax, is one of the most unfair taxes on Americans. It is not right for people to be penalized with higher taxes simply because they choose to get married. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), almost half of all married couples pay higher taxes due to their marital status. Cumulatively, the marriage penalty increases taxes on affected couples by $29 billion per year. Currently, this tax penalty imposes an average additional tax of $1400 on 21 million married couples nationwide. Mr. President, the marriage penalty can have significantly negative economic implications for the country as a whole as well. Not only does this penalty within the tax system stand as a likely obstacle to marriage, it can actually discourage a spouse from entering the workforce. By adding together husband and wife under the rate schedule, tax laws both encourage families to identify a primary and secondary worker and then place an extra burden on the secondary worker because his or her wages come on top of the primary earner's wages. As the American family realizes lower income levels, the nation realizes lower economic output. From a strictly economic perspective, the fact that potential workers would avoid the labor force as a result of a tax penalty is a clear sign of a failure to maximize true economic output. As a result, the nation as a whole fails to reach its economic potential, which is demonstrated by decreased earnings and international competitiveness. Whereas I am very disappointed President Clinton has vetoed this initiative in the past, I am confident our new President will support America's families. Congress has momentum considering this body has already passed this legislation to correct this inequity. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to repeal the marriage penalty.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill I supported last Congress along with over half of the members in this body. The bill, the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001, creates tax incentives for the deployment of broadband (high-speed) Internet services to rural, low-income, and residential areas. This bill will ensure that all Americans gain timely and equitable access to the Internet over current and future generations of broadband capability. The legislation provides graduated tax credits to companies that bring qualified telecommunication capabilities to targeted areas. It grants a 10-percent credit for expenditures on equipment that provide current generation bandwidth of 1.5 million bits per second (mbps) downstream and .2 mbps upstream to subscribers in rural and low-income areas, and a 20-percent credit for delivery of next generation 22 mbps downstream and 5 mbps upstream to these customers and other residential subscribers. This bill has been endorsed by a number of organizations, including Bell Atlantic, MCI/Worldcom, Corning Incorporated, the National Telephone Cooperative Association, the Association for Local Telecommunications Services, the United States Distance Learning Association, and the Imaging Science and Information Systems Center at Georgetown University Medical Center. Mr. President, in a few short years, the Internet has grown exponentially to become a mass medium used daily by over 100 million people worldwide. The explosion of information technology has created opportunities undreamed of by previous generations. In my home state of Montana, companies such as Healthdirectory.com and Vanns.com are taking advantage of the global markets made possible by the stunning reach of the Internet. The pace of broadband deployment to rural America must be accelerated for electronic commerce to meet its full potential however. Broadband access is as important to our small businesses in Montana as water is to agribusiness. I am aware of all of the recent discussion regarding the ``digital divide'' and I am very concerned that the pace of broadband deployment is greater in urban than rural areas. However, there is some positive and exciting news on this front as well. The reality on the ground shows that some of the ``gloom and doom'' scenarios are far from the case. By pooling their limited resources, Montana's independent and cooperative telephone companies are doing great things. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill I supported last Congress along with over half of the members in this body. The bill, the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001, creates tax incentives for the deployment of broadband (high-speed) Internet services to rural, low-income, and residential areas. This bill will ensure that all Americans gain timely and equitable access to the Internet over current and future generations of broadband capability. The legislation provides graduated tax credits to companies that bring qualified telecommunication capabilities to targeted areas. It grants a 10-percent credit for expenditures on equipment that provide current generation bandwidth of 1.5 million bits per second (mbps) downstream and .2 mbps upstream to subscribers in rural and low-income areas, and a 20-percent credit for delivery of next generation 22 mbps downstream and 5 mbps upstream to these customers and other residential subscribers. This bill has been endorsed by a number of organizations, including Bell Atlantic, MCI/Worldcom, Corning Incorporated, the National Telephone Cooperative Association, the Association for Local Telecommunications Services, the United States Distance Learning Association, and the Imaging Science and Information Systems Center at Georgetown University Medical Center. Mr. President, in a few short years, the Internet has grown exponentially to become a mass medium used daily by over 100 million people worldwide. The explosion of information technology has created opportunities undreamed of by previous generations. In my home state of Montana, companies such as Healthdirectory.com and Vanns.com are taking advantage of the global markets made possible by the stunning reach of the Internet. The pace of broadband deployment to rural America must be accelerated for electronic commerce to meet its full potential however. Broadband access is as important to our small businesses in Montana as water is to agribusiness. I am aware of all of the recent discussion regarding the ``digital divide'' and I am very concerned that the pace of broadband deployment is greater in urban than rural areas. However, there is some positive and exciting news on this front as well. The reality on the ground shows that some of the ``gloom and doom'' scenarios are far from the case. By pooling their limited resources, Montana's independent and cooperative telephone companies are doing great things. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation my colleague from Texas introduced today that will put an end to the ``marriage penalty'' tax. Mr. President, we've been fighting this tax inequity for several years now. The people of Montana have spoken to me either through letters or conversation--they think this tax is unfair. When we first started working to resolve this issue, I was contacted by Joshua and Jody Hayes of Billings, Montana. The Hayes paid $971 more in taxes because they were married than they would have paid if they remained single. In Montana, it is estimated that nearly 90,000 couples are penalized by this tax to the tune of $51.5 million--solely for being married. Making a living--supporting a family--is a difficult task in today's fast paced economy. A young couple married today is immediately subject to an additional financial burden because they want to share their lives together. The federal tax system penalizes these young couples. These are not wealthy people--this effort to provide tax relief does not discriminate--this effort does not single out a specific income group. It is a tax on families. I, along with my Republican colleagues, have made it clear that continued tax reform and tax relief is necessary, but I can think of no other tax that has such a dramatic impact on so many people. If ever there was a disincentive to be married, this penalty would be it. I believe this, along with the estate tax, is one of the most unfair taxes on Americans. It is not right for people to be penalized with higher taxes simply because they choose to get married. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), almost half of all married couples pay higher taxes due to their marital status. Cumulatively, the marriage penalty increases taxes on affected couples by $29 billion per year. Currently, this tax penalty imposes an average additional tax of $1400 on 21 million married couples nationwide. Mr. President, the marriage penalty can have significantly negative economic implications for the country as a whole as well. Not only does this penalty within the tax system stand as a likely obstacle to marriage, it can actually discourage a spouse from entering the workforce. By adding together husband and wife under the rate schedule, tax laws both encourage families to identify a primary and secondary worker and then place an extra burden on the secondary worker because his or her wages come on top of the primary earner's wages. As the American family realizes lower income levels, the nation realizes lower economic output. From a strictly economic perspective, the fact that potential workers would avoid the labor force as a result of a tax penalty is a clear sign of a failure to maximize true economic output. As a result, the nation as a whole fails to reach its economic potential, which is demonstrated by decreased earnings and international competitiveness. Whereas I am very disappointed President Clinton has vetoed this initiative in the past, I am confident our new President will support America's families. Congress has momentum considering this body has already passed this legislation to correct this inequity. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to repeal the marriage penalty.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Will the chairman yield for purposes of a colloquy?

Mr. BURNS. I understand that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, intends to request that the Department of Commerce transfer the Internet's authoritative root server to ICANN's control. The authoritative root server is the foundation of the Internet, which cannot function without it. Would the chairman agree that the Department of Commerce should retain control of the authoritative root server until the appropriate committees of Congress have reviewed the legality, appropriateness and implications of such a transfer?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I further ask consent that the Record remain open until 12 noon for the submission of statements.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Monday, December 11, at 5:30 p.m. The House is expected to vote on a continuing resolution on Monday evening. Therefore, the Senate will be in a period of morning business awaiting the receipt of the resolution from the House. Senators should be aware that the resolution is expected to be passed by voice vote, and therefore a rollcall vote is not expected on Monday.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 11. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until the hour of 6 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of H.R. 2903, which is at the desk.