Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is a great deal of discussion and debate going on right now about cutting taxes. Everyone, it seems, supports a tax cut although there is great disagreement over how big it should be, when it should take effect and who it should benefit. The American people deserve and need a tax cut, and I hope they will get one. But there is another part to this discussion that's not getting much attention. The American people also deserve and need tax simplification. There is broad agreement on this question, much broader and much deeper than any consensus on the need for a tax cut. I think we ought to act to provide it. Just a few months ago, the press reported several independent studies showing that American families and business will spend at least $115 billion trying to comply with federal tax laws this year. That is an enormous amount of money. It represents an enormous amount of time, an enormous amount of effort, and I'm pretty certain, it represents an enormous amount of frustration for tens of millions of American taxpayers. Lately there has been a lot of talk about lifting tax burdens, and we should be talking about that, but let's also talk about one of the biggest tax burdens of all: the tax compliance burden, the colossal hassle taxpayers face to file their tax returns each year. I think it is simply inexcusable that it is so complex, so difficult, and so expensive for Americans to fulfill this basic civic duty. I find it even more unacceptable that we should do nothing to lift this burden, even as the nation is focused on lifting the tax burden when it comes to what is owed. We must do both. As I mentioned, taxpayers will spend somewhere around $115 billion and more than 3 billion hours this year in the effort to meet their federal income tax obligations. At this very moment, millions of taxpayers are probably just beginning the gut-wrenching process of wading through complex forms and instruction books so they can meet this year's fast-approaching filing deadline. After completing this annual ritual, they will once again start barraging congressional offices with letters imploring us to simplify the tax code. I don't blame them for doing so. They are right. Each little provision in the tax code has a justification, but together they add up to a big headache for the American taxpayer. We can't blame the IRS for the misery endured this year or in the years ahead. There's no way to truly simplify tax day unless Congress changes the underlying law. Nevertheless, the President and Congress appear ready to move forward with tax relief of possibly historic proportions without addressing the tax compliance burden that most Americans urgently want fixed. That's why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gregg and Durbin in re-introducing a tax reform proposal that we call the ``Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax'', FASST plan. Our plan would give most taxpayers the opportunity to pay their federal income taxes without having to prepare a tax return if they so choose. More than thirty countries already enable their citizens to pay their federal taxes in this way. We believe tax simplification along these lines can work in this country, too. Our bill is based on a principle that both sides of the aisle generally are eager to espouse, namely, choice. The bill would allow taxpayers to choose to pay their taxes without complexity, paperwork and hassle. Those who prefer to use the current system, with its complexity and expenses, could do so if they wanted. But if they want something simpler, they could choose our approach instead. Under FASST, most taxpayers could forget about filing a federal tax return on April 15th. Instead, their entire income tax liability would be withheld at work. There would be no more deciphering statements from mutual funds, no more frantic search for records and receipts, and no last minute dash to the Post Office in order to meet the midnight deadline. According to Treasury Department officials who have studied it, the FASST plan could give at least 70 million Americans the opportunity to elect the no-return option. Specifically, under the FASST plan, most taxpayers could choose the no-filing option by filling out a slightly modified W- 4 form at work. Using tables prepared by the IRS, their employers would determine the employee's exact tax obligation at a single rate of 15 percent on wages, after several major adjustments, and withhold that amount. This amount would satisfy the taxpayer's entire federal income tax obligation for the year, absent some unforeseeable changes in circumstances. The FASST plan would be available for couples earning up to $100,000 in wages and no more than $5,000 in other income such as interest, dividends or capital gains. In the case of individual taxpayers, the wage and non-wage income limits would be $50,000 and $2,500, respectively. Popular deductions would continue under this plan: the standard deduction, personal exemptions, the child credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, along with a deduction for home mortgage interest expenses and property taxes. Our bill would include critical savings incentives for average Americans by exempting up to $5,000 of all interest, dividends and capital gains income from taxation for couples, $2,500 for singles. Moreover, savings contributions made through employers would be excluded from the wage calculations in the beginning. Consider some of the advantages of this hassle-free plan: No taxpayers would lose. If a taxpayer prefers to file an ordinary return, he or she would still have that choice, and no one would be forced to lose a tax deduction that he or she wants to keep. Wages would be taxed at a single, low rate of 15 percent. A deduction for home mortgage interest expenses, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and other popular parts of our current tax code would be preserved. Other major tax reform plans would eliminate those deductions, which many people count on. The alternative minimum tax, AMT, and the marriage penalty would be eliminated. Compliance costs for taxpayers and government alike would fall. If 70 million Americans chose the FASST option, hundreds of millions of dollars now spent on paper pushing could be used in more productive ways. Those taxpayers who continued to file under the old system would get relief too. The plan would reduce the marriage penalty by making the standard deduction for married couples double the amount available for single filers. Also, it would virtually eliminate the complicated AMT for most sole proprietors, farmers and other small businesses by exempting the first $1 million in self-employment income from the AMT calculations. This legislation also would provide a 50 percent credit for up to $1,000 in expenses that businesses might incur implementing the FASST plan. In addition, it would grant taxpayers who continue to use the current system a 50 percent tax credit for up to $200 in tax preparer expenses, provided they file their returns electronically. Finally, the bill would offer individuals a substantial incentive for savings and investment by exempting up to $500 of dividend and interest income, $1,000 for couples. Our bill is both simple and fair, and it gives most taxpayers the choice to avoid the annual tax filing nightmare that they have come to dread. In testimony before a Senate subcommittee last year, IRS Commissioner Rossotti testified that it's ``unquestionable that this bill provides significant tax simplification.'' Imagine how much better life would be if April 15th were just another day. Under the FASST plan, for millions of Americans, that could be true. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the National Recreation Lakes Act which is being introduced today by Senator Blanche Lincoln and others. This bill will give recreation interests a seat at the table when decisions are made about the use of Federal lakes. I think that this bill in an important part of recognizing the great benefits that our Federal lakes provide to communities all across the country. This bill creates a pilot program that will encompass 25 national recreation demonstration lakes. These lakes will ensure that recreational interests get a voice in the decision making process. We rely on these lakes for so many different things: irrigation, hydro- power, navigation. In many cases, recreational interests are an afterthought. This bill will give recreation the priority that it deserves. Lake Sakakawea is located in my home state of North Dakota. I have worked with the community leaders there to try and make the importance of recreational interests a part of the discussion regarding the level of the lake and the use of the water in the lake. This is a perfect example of a lake that would benefit from this legislation. I commend Senator Lincoln for the hard work that she has done on this legislation and I look forward to working with her to move this bill through the legislative process.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Baucus, Burns, Daschle, Johnson, and Conrad, I am introducing legislation that would provide equitable treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of agricultural pesticides. This legislation would allow a state, a person, or a farm organization or cooperative/farm supply company to serve as a registrant for a Canadian pesticide which is identical or substantially similar to a U.S. registered pesticide. This bill is identical to the legislation I introduced last September. The need for this legislation is as great as ever. We are about to start spring planting, and U.S. farmers are once again going to be required to pay more--in some cases almost twice as much--than their Canadian counterparts for crop protection products that are virtually identical in substance. I have pointed out in the past that when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement came into effect, part of the understanding on agriculture was that our two nations were going to move rapidly toward the harmonization of pesticide regulations. Howsever, we have entered a new decade, and century, no less, and relatively little progress in harmonization has been accomplished that is meaningful to family farmers. Since this trade agreement took effect, the pace of Canadian spring and durum wheat, and barley exports to the United States have grown from a barely noticeable trickle into annual floods of imported grain into our markets. Over the years, I have described many factors that have produced this unfair trade relationship and un-level playing field between farmers of our two nations. The failure to achieve harmonization in pesticides between the United States and Canada compounds this ongoing trade problem. Our farmers are concerned that agricultural pesticides that are not available in the United States are being utilized by farmers in Canada to produce wheat, barley, and other agricultural commodities that are subsequently imported and consumed in the United States. They rightfully believe that it is unfair to import commodities produced with agricultural pesticides that are not available to U.S. producers. However, it is not just a difference of availability of agricultural pesticides between our two countries, but also in the pricing of these chemicals. A year ago, our farmers were denied the right to bring a pesticide across the border that was cleared for use in our country, but was not available locally because the company who manufacturers this product chose not to sell it here. They were selling a more expensive version of the product here. The simple fact is, this company was using our environmental protection laws as a means to extract a higher price from our farmers. This simply is not right. I have pointed out, time and time again, the fact that there are significant differences in prices being paid for essentially the same pesticide by farmers in our two countries. In fact, in a recent survey, farmers in the United States were paying between 117 percent and 193 percent higher prices than Canadian farmers for a number of pesticides. This was after adjusting for differences in currency exchange rates at that time. The farmers in my state are simply fed up with what is going on. They see grain flooding across the border, while they are unable to access the more inexpensive production inputs available in our ``free trade'' environment. And I might add, this grain coming into our country has been treated with these products which our farmers are denied access to. This simply must end. As I stated earlier, today, my colleagues and I are reintroducing legislation that would take an important step in providing equitable treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of agricultural pesticides. This bill would only deal with agricultural chemicals that are identical or substantially similar. It only deals with pesticides that have already undergone rigorous review processes and whose formulations have been registered and approved for use in both countries by the respective regulatory agencies. The bill would establish a procedure by which states may apply for and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the United States. The need for this bill is created by pesticide companies which use chemical labeling laws to protect their marketing and pricing structures, rather than the public interest. In their selective labeling of identical or substantially similar products across the border they are able to extract unjustified profits from farmers, and create un-level pricing fields between our two countries. This bill is one legislative step in the process of full harmonization of pesticides between our two nations. It is designed specifically to address the problem of pricing differentials on chemicals that are currently available in both countries. We need to take this step, so that we can begin the process of creating a level playing field between farmers of our two countries. This bill would make harmonization a reality for those pesticides in which their actual selling price is the only real difference. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the National Recreation Lakes Act which is being introduced today by Senator Blanche Lincoln and others. This bill will give recreation interests a seat at the table when decisions are made about the use of Federal lakes. I think that this bill in an important part of recognizing the great benefits that our Federal lakes provide to communities all across the country. This bill creates a pilot program that will encompass 25 national recreation demonstration lakes. These lakes will ensure that recreational interests get a voice in the decision making process. We rely on these lakes for so many different things: irrigation, hydro- power, navigation. In many cases, recreational interests are an afterthought. This bill will give recreation the priority that it deserves. Lake Sakakawea is located in my home state of North Dakota. I have worked with the community leaders there to try and make the importance of recreational interests a part of the discussion regarding the level of the lake and the use of the water in the lake. This is a perfect example of a lake that would benefit from this legislation. I commend Senator Lincoln for the hard work that she has done on this legislation and I look forward to working with her to move this bill through the legislative process.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Baucus, Burns, Daschle, Johnson, and Conrad, I am introducing legislation that would provide equitable treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of agricultural pesticides. This legislation would allow a state, a person, or a farm organization or cooperative/farm supply company to serve as a registrant for a Canadian pesticide which is identical or substantially similar to a U.S. registered pesticide. This bill is identical to the legislation I introduced last September. The need for this legislation is as great as ever. We are about to start spring planting, and U.S. farmers are once again going to be required to pay more--in some cases almost twice as much--than their Canadian counterparts for crop protection products that are virtually identical in substance. I have pointed out in the past that when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement came into effect, part of the understanding on agriculture was that our two nations were going to move rapidly toward the harmonization of pesticide regulations. Howsever, we have entered a new decade, and century, no less, and relatively little progress in harmonization has been accomplished that is meaningful to family farmers. Since this trade agreement took effect, the pace of Canadian spring and durum wheat, and barley exports to the United States have grown from a barely noticeable trickle into annual floods of imported grain into our markets. Over the years, I have described many factors that have produced this unfair trade relationship and un-level playing field between farmers of our two nations. The failure to achieve harmonization in pesticides between the United States and Canada compounds this ongoing trade problem. Our farmers are concerned that agricultural pesticides that are not available in the United States are being utilized by farmers in Canada to produce wheat, barley, and other agricultural commodities that are subsequently imported and consumed in the United States. They rightfully believe that it is unfair to import commodities produced with agricultural pesticides that are not available to U.S. producers. However, it is not just a difference of availability of agricultural pesticides between our two countries, but also in the pricing of these chemicals. A year ago, our farmers were denied the right to bring a pesticide across the border that was cleared for use in our country, but was not available locally because the company who manufacturers this product chose not to sell it here. They were selling a more expensive version of the product here. The simple fact is, this company was using our environmental protection laws as a means to extract a higher price from our farmers. This simply is not right. I have pointed out, time and time again, the fact that there are significant differences in prices being paid for essentially the same pesticide by farmers in our two countries. In fact, in a recent survey, farmers in the United States were paying between 117 percent and 193 percent higher prices than Canadian farmers for a number of pesticides. This was after adjusting for differences in currency exchange rates at that time. The farmers in my state are simply fed up with what is going on. They see grain flooding across the border, while they are unable to access the more inexpensive production inputs available in our ``free trade'' environment. And I might add, this grain coming into our country has been treated with these products which our farmers are denied access to. This simply must end. As I stated earlier, today, my colleagues and I are reintroducing legislation that would take an important step in providing equitable treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of agricultural pesticides. This bill would only deal with agricultural chemicals that are identical or substantially similar. It only deals with pesticides that have already undergone rigorous review processes and whose formulations have been registered and approved for use in both countries by the respective regulatory agencies. The bill would establish a procedure by which states may apply for and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the United States. The need for this bill is created by pesticide companies which use chemical labeling laws to protect their marketing and pricing structures, rather than the public interest. In their selective labeling of identical or substantially similar products across the border they are able to extract unjustified profits from farmers, and create un-level pricing fields between our two countries. This bill is one legislative step in the process of full harmonization of pesticides between our two nations. It is designed specifically to address the problem of pricing differentials on chemicals that are currently available in both countries. We need to take this step, so that we can begin the process of creating a level playing field between farmers of our two countries. This bill would make harmonization a reality for those pesticides in which their actual selling price is the only real difference. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue that is of great concern to many of my constituents and to me. That is the issue of unchecked monopoly power of the nation's freight railroad industry. Since the supposed deregulation of the rail industry in 1980, the number of major Class I railroads has declined from approximately 42 to only four major U.S. railroads today. Rather than achieving the competitive framework intended by deregulation, today's freight railroad industry can be best described as a handful of regional monopolies that rely on bottlenecks to exert maximum market power. Four mega-railroads overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 percent of the gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues, controlling 90 percent of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all grain movement and 88 percent of all originated chemical movement. This drastic level of consolidation has left rail customers with only two major carriers operating in the East and two in the West, and has far exceeded the industry's need to minimize unit operating costs. But consolidation alone has not produced these regional monopolies. Over the years, regulators have systematically adopted policies that so narrowly interpret the procompetitive provisions of the 1980 statute that railroads are essentially protected from ever having to compete with each other. In my state, it costs $2,300 to move one rail car of wheat from North Dakota to Minneapolis, approx. 400 miles. Yet for a similar 400 mile move, between Minneapolis and Chicago, it costs only $238 to deliver that car. Move that same car another 600 miles to St. Louis, Missouri and it costs only $356 per car. Since the deregulation of the railroad industry, the Interstate Commerce Commission, now the Surface Transportation Board, has been charged with the responsibility to make sure that the pro-competitive intent of that law was being carried out, so that those rail users without access to true market based competition would be protected by ``regulated competition.'' That clearly hasn't happened. Competition among rail carriers is virtually nonexistent in part because the ICC and the STB have consistently chosen to protect railroads from such competition, and have done little to protect rail customers that have no alternatives. It is time for Congress to make it very clear that true market competition among railroads is what we originally intended then and what we require now. This is the same approach we have taken with telecommunications and natural gas pipelines, and it is the center of our deliberations regarding the future of the airline industry. Competition among railroads is critical for large sectors of our national economy. That is why today, along with Senator Jay Rockefeller, I am introducing the Rail Competition Enforcement Act to reinstate the Justice Department's review of proposed railroad mergers under antitrust laws. The bill would require both the Surface Transportation Board and the Justice Department to approve new mergers. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this most important matter. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue that is of great concern to many of my constituents and to me. That is the issue of unchecked monopoly power of the nation's freight railroad industry. Since the supposed deregulation of the rail industry in 1980, the number of major Class I railroads has declined from approximately 42 to only four major U.S. railroads today. Rather than achieving the competitive framework intended by deregulation, today's freight railroad industry can be best described as a handful of regional monopolies that rely on bottlenecks to exert maximum market power. Four mega-railroads overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 percent of the gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues, controlling 90 percent of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all grain movement and 88 percent of all originated chemical movement. This drastic level of consolidation has left rail customers with only two major carriers operating in the East and two in the West, and has far exceeded the industry's need to minimize unit operating costs. But consolidation alone has not produced these regional monopolies. Over the years, regulators have systematically adopted policies that so narrowly interpret the procompetitive provisions of the 1980 statute that railroads are essentially protected from ever having to compete with each other. In my state, it costs $2,300 to move one rail car of wheat from North Dakota to Minneapolis, approx. 400 miles. Yet for a similar 400 mile move, between Minneapolis and Chicago, it costs only $238 to deliver that car. Move that same car another 600 miles to St. Louis, Missouri and it costs only $356 per car. Since the deregulation of the railroad industry, the Interstate Commerce Commission, now the Surface Transportation Board, has been charged with the responsibility to make sure that the pro-competitive intent of that law was being carried out, so that those rail users without access to true market based competition would be protected by ``regulated competition.'' That clearly hasn't happened. Competition among rail carriers is virtually nonexistent in part because the ICC and the STB have consistently chosen to protect railroads from such competition, and have done little to protect rail customers that have no alternatives. It is time for Congress to make it very clear that true market competition among railroads is what we originally intended then and what we require now. This is the same approach we have taken with telecommunications and natural gas pipelines, and it is the center of our deliberations regarding the future of the airline industry. Competition among railroads is critical for large sectors of our national economy. That is why today, along with Senator Jay Rockefeller, I am introducing the Rail Competition Enforcement Act to reinstate the Justice Department's review of proposed railroad mergers under antitrust laws. The bill would require both the Surface Transportation Board and the Justice Department to approve new mergers. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this most important matter. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Vermont yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I have not been involved in this discussion out here except to understand that today, yesterday, and Friday there was a great deal of complaining about this bill moving too slowly, it is not moving along, people are concerned and frustrated about it. My understanding is that the Senator from New York offered his amendment, was committed to having a record vote on his amendment, and now we see delay, delay, delay on getting him a record vote on his amendment. I ask the Senator from Vermont, is it his understanding the Senator from New York has a commitment that he will get a vote on his amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. Is it the case if the Senator from New York does not get a vote and there is a cloture vote that prevails, the Senator from New York will not ever get a vote on his amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, earlier today I voted to table an amendment that had been offered by Senator Feinstein regarding credit cards for young adults. This amendment would have required a $2,500 cap on credit card limits to anyone under the age of 21 unless they have a signature from their parent or can provide financial documents that establish their independent means of repaying their bills. I opposed this amendment because I am concerned that the age limit is arbitrary and could be unfair to many hard working Americans. I understand the concern that has been raised by many regarding credit card companies that blanket college campuses with brochures and solicitations. I agree that credit card companies have some responsibility in limiting credit to those who have no income. But I believe that the amendment that was offered today was not a good way to solve that problem. There are many people who are still in school at age 21. But there are many more who are holding down full time jobs, working to start a family, and deserve to have financial tools available to them, including credit cards without artificial credit limits. A 19-year-old North Dakotan can vote, serve in the military, and is considered an adult under state and federal laws. This amendment would create new hoops for that young person to access a credit card with a limit over $2,500. This is not a fair approach and is not an appropriate solution to the problem that the amendment's supporters are trying to solve. Credit card companies have a role to play as we reform bankruptcy laws. They should be held accountable for offering credit responsibly. But this amendment missed its mark. A person under the age of 21 should be able to have and use credit cards if they are working and have an income. For this reason, I opposed the amendment and supported the motion to table.

Mr. DORGAN. I object.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Enzi, Graham, Voinovich, Breaux, and a number of our colleagues in re-introducing the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation we sponsored in the last Congress. We believe that it is absolutely imperative that Congress move quickly this year to consider this legislation and the difficult tax issues relating to Internet sales that it seeks to address. First, most everyone who is familiar with this issue knows that the current expiration date for the moratorium on Internet access and discriminatory taxes is fast approaching. We believe the moratorium should be extended. Also, this legislation moves toward a solution to the growing web of tax compliance problems that faces virtually everyone who would do business across State lines, sellers and customers alike. Despite some setbacks, Internet technology and commerce will continue to be a real growth engine for our economy. The past holiday season, retail sales over the Internet jumped 76 percent from the same period a year earlier. A recent University of Texas study estimated that $830 billion in revenues were generated by the Internet economy in 2000, up 58 percent from 1999 levels. Together, this information suggests that Internet sales are not going to be either temporary or insignificant, and neither are the compliance problems. We believe that the approach embraced in our bill would help create a climate in which Web-based firms and Main Street businesses can co- exist and compete on fair and even terms. Any new form of commerce presents a challenge to the rules and structures that have grown up around the old. The automobile required the reform of traffic-control rules designed for the horse-and-buggy era. And the Internet is no exception. The Internet has raised vexing questions about privacy and property rights. It has raised similarly vexing questions regarding the revenue systems of the States and localities of this nation. Clearly, the Internet does not fit neatly into these systems as they have evolved over the last two hundred years. This disconnect has created tensions on all sides. On one side are the vital new businesses, Internet service providers, Web-based businesses and the rest, worried that they will be singled out as cash cows and subjected to new and unfair taxes. On the other side are State and local governments worried about the erosion of their tax bases and their ability to pay for the schools, police, garbage collection and more that their taxpayers need and expect. In between are Main Street merchants who collect sales taxes from their customers and worry about unfair competition from Web-based business that do not have to collect these taxes. And we shouldn't overlook the citizens and taxpayers, who appreciate the convenience and opportunities of the Web but who also care about their Main Street merchants, and about their schools and other local services. All of these concerns are understandable and valid. Our job in Congress is to try to address the problem in a fair and constructive way. The solution begins with a recognition of the problem. Collecting a sales tax in a face-to-face transaction on Main Street or at the mall is a relatively simple process. The seller collects the tax and remits it to the State or local government. But with remote sales--such as catalog and Internet sales, it's more difficult. States cannot require a seller to collect a sales tax unless the business has an actual location or sales people in the State. So most States, and many localities, have laws that require the local buyer to send an equivalent ``use tax'' to the State or local government when he or she did not pay taxes at the time of purchase. The reality, of course, is that customers almost never do that. It would be a major inconvenience, and people are not accustomed to paying sales taxes in that way. So, despite the requirement in the law, most simply don't do it. This tax, which is already owed, is not paid. For years, State and local governments could accept this loss because catalog sales were a relatively minor portion of overall commerce. The rapid growth of Internet sales is changing all that. Internet and catalog sellers correctly argue that collecting sales taxes would be a significant burden for them. Understandably, they contend that it would be difficult for them to have to comply with tax laws from thousands of different jurisdictions, 46 States and thousands of local governments have sales taxes, with different tax rates and all of the idiosyncracies regarding what is taxable and what is non- taxable. They have a point. However, there are some remote sellers who know they enjoy an advantage over Main Street businesses and simply do not want to lose it. They can sell a product without collecting the tax, whereas Main Street businesses must collect the local sales tax. Main Street businesses claim that is unfair, and they have a point, too. As I have said before, all sides in this debate have valid points, and that is the premise of the bill we introduce today. There are three basic principles underlying the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. First, we believe that this new Internet technology will remain a real growth engine for our economy, and the solution must begin by putting the worries of Web-based entrepreneurs to rest. They should not be concerned about new and discriminatory tax burdens, and they should not be singled out as cash cows. Congress should make this clear. That's why our bill would extend the existing moratorium, which is set to expire on October 21st, through December 31, 2005. That will help remove some of the anxiety about the approaching expiration date, while giving all stakeholders--State and local governments, Internet sellers, and the bricks and mortar retail community, time to work together to develop a real solution for the sales and use tax compliance problems now facing many businesses and their customers. Second, State and local governments should be encouraged to simplify their sales tax systems as they apply to remote sellers. And third, once States have reduced the burden on sellers by simplifying their sales and use tax systems, then it is only fair that remote sellers do their part and collect any use tax that is owed, just as local merchants collect sales taxes. This simple step would free the consumer from the burden of having to report such taxes individually. It would level the playing field for local retailers and others that already collect and remit such taxes, and it would protect the ability of State and local governments to provide necessary services for their residents in the future. Specifically, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act would do the following: Extend the existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple and discriminatory taxes through December 31, 2005. Put Congress on record as urging States and localities to streamline their sales and use tax systems. Among other things, a dramatically simplified sales and use tax system would allow remote sellers to use information provided by the States to easily identify the single applicable rate for each sale, as well as provide sellers relief from liability for relying on such information. Require such a simplified tax system to include: uniform definitions for goods and services, uniform procedures for the treatment of exempt purchasers, and uniform rules for attributing transactions to particular tax jurisdictions, as well as uniform audit procedures and a seller's option for a single audit. Authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which member States would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a Compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. Authorize States that adopt the Compact to require remote sellers with more than $5 million in annual gross sales to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales, once twenty States have adopted such a Compact, unless Congress has acted to disapprove the Compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. Prohibit States that have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales. In my judgment, it would be a serious mistake for Congress to adopt a lengthy extension of the current Internet tax moratorium without addressing these underlying problems. If we don't address the problems, then the growth of the Internet, which should be a benefit to Americans, will instead mean a major erosion of funds available to build and maintain schools and roads, finance police departments and garbage collection, and all the other services that citizens in this country want and need. Moreover, the competitive crisis facing local retailers is also growing more urgent. In testimony before the Commerce Committee in the last Congress, a representative from a large retailer testified that his company is incorporating a separate business to put the business on the Internet. It will do so in a manner that will enable them to avoid sales and use taxes. Even though the retailer has locations in every State and therefore would be required to collect such taxes on Internet sales, it believes that such avoidance is needed to compete with other large competitors that will be making those sales tax-free. This scenario could play out over and over again unless we act quickly and decisively. If we don't act, the large retailers will survive, the small Main Street businesses will continue to struggle, and there will be a massive loss of revenues to fund schools and other basic services. Let me conclude by reiterating that this is an issue that Congress must address now. It is important for Congress to begin the process of finding a long-term solution to the problem this year before the moratorium expires. We believe that our legislation strikes a proper balance between the interests of the Internet industry, State and local governments, local retailers and remote sellers. It is workable and fair, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much-needed bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have the following two statements put in the Record, one from a group of organizations representing States and localities, and the other from the E-Fairness Coalition.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Enzi, Graham, Voinovich, Breaux, and a number of our colleagues in re-introducing the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation we sponsored in the last Congress. We believe that it is absolutely imperative that Congress move quickly this year to consider this legislation and the difficult tax issues relating to Internet sales that it seeks to address. First, most everyone who is familiar with this issue knows that the current expiration date for the moratorium on Internet access and discriminatory taxes is fast approaching. We believe the moratorium should be extended. Also, this legislation moves toward a solution to the growing web of tax compliance problems that faces virtually everyone who would do business across State lines, sellers and customers alike. Despite some setbacks, Internet technology and commerce will continue to be a real growth engine for our economy. The past holiday season, retail sales over the Internet jumped 76 percent from the same period a year earlier. A recent University of Texas study estimated that $830 billion in revenues were generated by the Internet economy in 2000, up 58 percent from 1999 levels. Together, this information suggests that Internet sales are not going to be either temporary or insignificant, and neither are the compliance problems. We believe that the approach embraced in our bill would help create a climate in which Web-based firms and Main Street businesses can co- exist and compete on fair and even terms. Any new form of commerce presents a challenge to the rules and structures that have grown up around the old. The automobile required the reform of traffic-control rules designed for the horse-and-buggy era. And the Internet is no exception. The Internet has raised vexing questions about privacy and property rights. It has raised similarly vexing questions regarding the revenue systems of the States and localities of this nation. Clearly, the Internet does not fit neatly into these systems as they have evolved over the last two hundred years. This disconnect has created tensions on all sides. On one side are the vital new businesses, Internet service providers, Web-based businesses and the rest, worried that they will be singled out as cash cows and subjected to new and unfair taxes. On the other side are State and local governments worried about the erosion of their tax bases and their ability to pay for the schools, police, garbage collection and more that their taxpayers need and expect. In between are Main Street merchants who collect sales taxes from their customers and worry about unfair competition from Web-based business that do not have to collect these taxes. And we shouldn't overlook the citizens and taxpayers, who appreciate the convenience and opportunities of the Web but who also care about their Main Street merchants, and about their schools and other local services. All of these concerns are understandable and valid. Our job in Congress is to try to address the problem in a fair and constructive way. The solution begins with a recognition of the problem. Collecting a sales tax in a face-to-face transaction on Main Street or at the mall is a relatively simple process. The seller collects the tax and remits it to the State or local government. But with remote sales--such as catalog and Internet sales, it's more difficult. States cannot require a seller to collect a sales tax unless the business has an actual location or sales people in the State. So most States, and many localities, have laws that require the local buyer to send an equivalent ``use tax'' to the State or local government when he or she did not pay taxes at the time of purchase. The reality, of course, is that customers almost never do that. It would be a major inconvenience, and people are not accustomed to paying sales taxes in that way. So, despite the requirement in the law, most simply don't do it. This tax, which is already owed, is not paid. For years, State and local governments could accept this loss because catalog sales were a relatively minor portion of overall commerce. The rapid growth of Internet sales is changing all that. Internet and catalog sellers correctly argue that collecting sales taxes would be a significant burden for them. Understandably, they contend that it would be difficult for them to have to comply with tax laws from thousands of different jurisdictions, 46 States and thousands of local governments have sales taxes, with different tax rates and all of the idiosyncracies regarding what is taxable and what is non- taxable. They have a point. However, there are some remote sellers who know they enjoy an advantage over Main Street businesses and simply do not want to lose it. They can sell a product without collecting the tax, whereas Main Street businesses must collect the local sales tax. Main Street businesses claim that is unfair, and they have a point, too. As I have said before, all sides in this debate have valid points, and that is the premise of the bill we introduce today. There are three basic principles underlying the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. First, we believe that this new Internet technology will remain a real growth engine for our economy, and the solution must begin by putting the worries of Web-based entrepreneurs to rest. They should not be concerned about new and discriminatory tax burdens, and they should not be singled out as cash cows. Congress should make this clear. That's why our bill would extend the existing moratorium, which is set to expire on October 21st, through December 31, 2005. That will help remove some of the anxiety about the approaching expiration date, while giving all stakeholders--State and local governments, Internet sellers, and the bricks and mortar retail community, time to work together to develop a real solution for the sales and use tax compliance problems now facing many businesses and their customers. Second, State and local governments should be encouraged to simplify their sales tax systems as they apply to remote sellers. And third, once States have reduced the burden on sellers by simplifying their sales and use tax systems, then it is only fair that remote sellers do their part and collect any use tax that is owed, just as local merchants collect sales taxes. This simple step would free the consumer from the burden of having to report such taxes individually. It would level the playing field for local retailers and others that already collect and remit such taxes, and it would protect the ability of State and local governments to provide necessary services for their residents in the future. Specifically, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act would do the following: Extend the existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple and discriminatory taxes through December 31, 2005. Put Congress on record as urging States and localities to streamline their sales and use tax systems. Among other things, a dramatically simplified sales and use tax system would allow remote sellers to use information provided by the States to easily identify the single applicable rate for each sale, as well as provide sellers relief from liability for relying on such information. Require such a simplified tax system to include: uniform definitions for goods and services, uniform procedures for the treatment of exempt purchasers, and uniform rules for attributing transactions to particular tax jurisdictions, as well as uniform audit procedures and a seller's option for a single audit. Authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which member States would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a Compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. Authorize States that adopt the Compact to require remote sellers with more than $5 million in annual gross sales to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales, once twenty States have adopted such a Compact, unless Congress has acted to disapprove the Compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. Prohibit States that have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales. In my judgment, it would be a serious mistake for Congress to adopt a lengthy extension of the current Internet tax moratorium without addressing these underlying problems. If we don't address the problems, then the growth of the Internet, which should be a benefit to Americans, will instead mean a major erosion of funds available to build and maintain schools and roads, finance police departments and garbage collection, and all the other services that citizens in this country want and need. Moreover, the competitive crisis facing local retailers is also growing more urgent. In testimony before the Commerce Committee in the last Congress, a representative from a large retailer testified that his company is incorporating a separate business to put the business on the Internet. It will do so in a manner that will enable them to avoid sales and use taxes. Even though the retailer has locations in every State and therefore would be required to collect such taxes on Internet sales, it believes that such avoidance is needed to compete with other large competitors that will be making those sales tax-free. This scenario could play out over and over again unless we act quickly and decisively. If we don't act, the large retailers will survive, the small Main Street businesses will continue to struggle, and there will be a massive loss of revenues to fund schools and other basic services. Let me conclude by reiterating that this is an issue that Congress must address now. It is important for Congress to begin the process of finding a long-term solution to the problem this year before the moratorium expires. We believe that our legislation strikes a proper balance between the interests of the Internet industry, State and local governments, local retailers and remote sellers. It is workable and fair, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much-needed bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have the following two statements put in the Record, one from a group of organizations representing States and localities, and the other from the E-Fairness Coalition.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 28. This amendment will increase the authorization of appropriations for LIHEAP assistance, weatherization programs, and State conservation grants. It also will expand the Federal energy efficiency program to include water, as well as energy, conservation. This provision is critical. In my part of the country, and elsewhere around the Nation, we have experienced record cold temperatures, and record-high natural gas prices. I have received letters from people who have to choose between heating their homes and eating, because they can't afford both. I also heard from a couple that can't afford to keep their retirement home, because the heating bills have been so high. We must do something to rectify this terrible situation now. Under current law, States have the flexibility to establish, or raise, the threshold for LIHEAP eligibility at 60 percent of the State's median income level. Because of limited resources, States rarely reach that threshold. Specifically, \2/3\ of LIHEAP funds currently go to individuals who earn $8,000 per year or less. One-third goes to those who earn approximately $15,000 per year. That is, only 19 percent of people that could qualify for eligibility to receive LIHEAP funds actually receive such funds. Eighty-one percent of those eligible, therefore, do not receive LIHEAP funding. This amendment would expand the LIHEAP program to attempt to reach the 81 percent not currently receiving LIHEAP assistance. This amendment also is critical because it would increase the eligible income levels, so that LIHEAP assistance would be provided to a broader group of people, who cannot pay their exorbitant energy bills. This amendment would enable States to provide LIHEAP assistance to households with incomes up to and including 200 percent of the poverty level for each State. We also need to place a greater emphasis on conservation, and on renewable energy. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts these critical program elements. As yesterday's Washington Post reported, ``The Bush plan calls for a $700 million reduction from this year's $19.7 billion Energy Department spending.'' Nearly half ``of those proposed cuts were aimed at the efficiency and renewable-energy programs. They are currently budgeted at $1.18 billion. The research is focused on a range of programs, from high-mileage, hybrid motor-engines and more energy-efficient industrial processes to new building designs that conserve energy.'' I hope the Bush administration will realize the impracticality of cutting alternative energy and energy conservation programs at a time when we have a shortage of domestic energy supply sources and are overly reliant on foreign energy supplies. Beyond the short-term, emergency measures we are working to pass today, we need to develop a broader, long-term energy policy that will attempt to address the multiple energy problems we are facing. I will work with my colleagues to develop such legislation, legislation that must include renewable energy and conservation measures, including improved vehicle efficiency, as well as efforts to diversify our fuel supply sources in an environmentally sustainable manner. This would include advancing clean coal technologies, for example. I have introduced legislation to provide a 5-year extension of the wind energy production tax credit. This will help develop a non-fossil infrastructure to relieve burden on other fuel sources and help bring overall energy prices down. I understand that President Bush has announced his support for this type of incentive. I also am considering legislation to pursue exploration not of the Arctic Refuge, but of Alaska's North Slope, where 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have already been identified as readily available. Such legislation would include provisions to develop the pipeline infrastructure to bring that natural gas to the lower 48 States. We must pursue exploration and development, but must do so in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments on the bill. I will mention the amendment offered by Senator Durbin. I wanted to come over yesterday, but I was not able to find the time to do that, given the debate occurring on the floor. I want to talk on the subject of bankruptcy. I have supported bankruptcy reforms in the Congress. I voted for them. I felt the pendulum on bankruptcy issues had swung a little too far to one side. I still feel that way, and I hope I will be able to support the legislation as it leaves the Senate. I suspect I will. I hope to support the legislation coming out of conference again this year. It is my hope to continue to support bankruptcy reform. We no longer have debtor prisons in this country. We do not mark people who go into debt and cannot get out of debt with some indelible mark. We provide mechanisms by which people can get some relief for themselves and their families in circumstances where, beyond their control, they run into some financial trouble. That is as it should be. As I said, the pendulum has swung too far. We have people now using the access of bankruptcy legislation and the laws we put on the books in some circumstances for convenience and in other circumstances in ways that injure others in a significant way. There are clearly people who have been subject to substantial medical bills and other unforeseen circumstances well beyond their control who access bankruptcy laws in a way they are intended to be accessed. There are others who abuse them. I think all of us agree with that. Some load up with credit and find ways to stick others with the debt they incur and then rush to bankruptcy to say: Let me shed myself of this burden, and I will let others hold the bag. Many of them are small business men and women. What happens in those circumstances is unfair. There is another side to this debate that I want to talk about for a moment. While I support bankruptcy reform and believe it is necessary and sound for this Congress to proceed in this direction, there is also, with the extension of credit in this country, a fair amount of greed and a substantial amount of unsound business practices. The other day I was on the way to the Capitol in my car and had the radio on, and I heard another advertisement from a lending company. The advertisement said the following: Bad credit? No income? No documentation? Come see us for a loan. I will say that again because it is worth remembering. This is a company that is advertising on the radio saying if you have bad credit, if you do not have any income and you do not have any documentation, come and get a loan from us. We have all seen the ads and heard the ads. Bad credit? No problem. Come our direction. We would like to give you a loan. Our kids who begin college now find in their mailbox on the college campus a preapproved credit card from many companies. They just wallpaper the college campuses, offering credit cards to kids who have no job and no income and then wonder why, when some of them use those credit cards and get in trouble, they cannot pay the bill. Companies that say if you have bad credit, we will give you credit, if you have no job, we will give you a credit card, if you have no income, we will give you a credit card--they do it by the millions--and then they get into some difficulty and say to the Congress: Relieve us, will you, of these bad business practices; we have wallpapered America with credit cards and now some of them don't pay, so please help us--I have no sympathy for those companies and do not want to do anything that gives them comfort. My 10-year-old son about 3 years ago--he is now 13, going to turn 14 next month--received a preapproved Diners Club card in the mail. I have spoken about that on the floor previously in a discussion about bankruptcy--a 10-year-old gets a solicitation from Diners Club for a preapproved credit card. He is now living in Paris under an assumed name. Not really. When he saw that, he said: Dad, what does this mean? I said: It means somebody is really stupid. You do not have a job, you are 10 years old, and they did not mean you ought to have a credit card. It does not matter to them. You are a bunch of letters. They send them to everybody. It does not matter the circumstance. Diners Club, when they heard me speak about this on the floor because I read the letter and read the name of the person who signed the letter, actually contacted me and said: Oh, this was a mistake. Yes, I am sure it was a mistake. There are mistakes all over the country: People getting credit card applications, preapproved credit card solicitations without any thought to who they are, where they are, how old they are, how much their income is, or even if they have an income. It is evidence of something gone wrong. It is unsound business practices. In addition, if I had taken the time--and I did not on that particular preapproved credit card application--to read the terms and the conditions--and, indeed, you need glasses to do so because it is always on the back side--what I would have found, I am sure, in that circumstance with that company, and virtually every other, is they are imposing terms and conditions for the cost of credit that are outrageous. It should be called loansharking at the interest rates they charge. Incidentally, on the front of most of these envelopes--and I get a lot of them, and I suspect most of my colleagues do and most Americans do. You open your mailbox and every day you find a piece of mail that says: We have a preapproved credit card waiting for you, and a big circle on the front of the envelope, 1.9-percent interest rate or 2.9- percent interest rate, and you open it up and read the fine print. What you discover is, yes, there is a period of 3 months or 6 months where they are going to charge a 1.9-percent interest rate, and then it goes to 18 percent or 22 percent or whatever their percentage is. The small type takes away what the big type gives. My point is this: I am not interested in anybody crying crocodile tears for companies that exhibit that kind of unsound business practice and for companies that are so greedy for profits that they want to load everybody up with debt by sending them plastic cards, even those who have no income and no job. Now people say, but you need to be responsible; it is your fault if you use those cards. Sure, there is fault on both sides. My point is we are headed in the wrong direction. Those who engage in these practices need no relief, in my judgment, from this Congress. My colleague, Senator Durbin, is offering an amendment that is fairly simple. The credit card companies are resisting this aggressively. His amendment simply says, on the statement where it states their minimum payment, creditors must have a box that says if they make this minimum payment, here is how long it will take to pay off the bill. Often, it will be an eye-popping number. Make this minimum payment, they won't pay this off for 8 or 10 years. My colleague from Illinois is saying it makes sense to provide a little more information, truth in lending. I will support that amendment. There is an amendment that tightens up on the homestead exemption. Frankly, we need to plug the loophole that deals with the homestead exemptions. We don't want people filing for bankruptcy ending up with $1 million or $2 million in a home that cannot be touched. There is an old saying: The water ain't going to clear up until you get the hogs out of the creek. The hogs in this circumstance are the very companies that are asking for relief because they have ``blizzarded'' this country with credit card applications, and they should have known better. As I indicated when I started, I intend to support bankruptcy legislation. I also intend to support amendments to perfect this legislation. When we send it to conference, as I believe we will, it is my fervent hope the conference will send back a conference report that has some balance, that recommends, I hope, that people not abuse bankruptcy legislation, that bankruptcy ought not be convenient or easy, that there is a burden with bankruptcy, but recognizes that some need bankruptcy. Some who have suffered unforeseen circumstances, perhaps devastating medical bills, through no fault of their own, need to have some relief from imposing burdens. I have met people like that with tears in their eyes and their chins quiver as they talk about the $150,000 medical bill for a child with whom they are saddled. And every month, in every way, they are besieged by bill collectors saying they must make good on this debt, a debt that had to do with their child's cancer treatment. Should we find a way to help those people? Yes, there should be bankruptcy proceedings that allow those people to be able to shed themselves of part of that burden and to start anew. But there are other stories that represent the abuse of bankruptcy and that stick Main Street retailers and others with burdens they should not have to bear. As we adjust this pendulum on bankruptcy, we need to do it the right way. Today, I wanted to come, as I did a year and a half ago, to say there are those in my judgment who promote financial problems for some Americans by what I think is irresponsible behavior in the development of credit instruments that they then ``wallpaper'' America with. Frankly, I don't think they deserve much relief. They don't deserve any relief. What they deserve to know is that many of us believe they ought to change their business practices and start sending credit cards to people who can pay the bill, who have income. I know my colleague from New Jersey wants to speak. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see if we can perfect this bill. It is my intention to want to support this going out of the Senate and also out of the conference. I hope we can, coming out of conference, keep a couple of the key provisions the Senate has already expressed its will on with respect to homestead exemptions and predatory practices and more. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we will begin, following the President's State of the Union Address, hopefully a thoughtful and aggressive debate about this country's fiscal policy including tax cuts, the budget, and related matters. These are very important issues. I wish to speak about some of them today, not from the standpoint of politics or polls, but more from the standpoint of what I think the choices ought to be for this country's future. I know there is a heavy dose of politics surrounding all of this. That is not my interest. I am much more interested in trying to think through what would be good for this country, what is going to keep us on track for the next 5 and 10 years to provide an economy that expands and provides jobs and opportunities for our children and their children. Having said that, I want to make a couple of comments to set the stage for where we are. There are a lot of people who continually complain about this country, and it is hard to complain about this country with a straight face. This is the most remarkable place on the face of the Earth. We are the country that created a system of public education, saying to every child in this country: You can go to school and be whatever you want to be. We are not going to move you off in one direction or the other. Universal education. It is us, our country, that has spawned an educational system that has created the scientists, engineers, and the thinkers. We split the atom and spliced genes. We have cloned animals. We invented the silicon chip and radar. We built television sets, the telephone, and computers. We built airplanes and learned to fly them. We built rockets and flew them all the way to the Moon. We cured small pox and polio. That is us; that is what we have done in this country. What a remarkable place in which to live. We are also a country that in all of my adult lifetime, and the adult lifetime of most of the people who serve in this Congress, have had two enduring truths underlining everything else we have done. One of those truths is we were involved in a cold war with the Soviet Union, and that affected virtually everything we did, including the choices we made in this country in fiscal policy. The second enduring truth is we had a budget that seemed to produce deficits that every year grew larger and larger. Those two truths which underlined virtually everything else we did in our lifetimes are now gone. There is no Soviet Union, there is no cold war, and there are no budget deficits. Everything has changed, and the result is a different kind of economy in this country in which we have surpluses. The question is what to do with these surpluses. My great concern as a policymaker, not from the standpoint of someone who represents a political party, is that we not make the mistake we made before. Twenty years ago this country embarked on a fiscal policy advocated by a President who said we can do the following: We can double our spending on defense, because then we were in the middle of a cold war with the Soviets; we can double our spending on defense; and we can have a very substantial tax cut, and it will all add up to a balanced budget. In fact, it did not. It added up to trillions of dollars of Federal debt that then marched toward $5.7 trillion of Federal indebtedness in this country. Let us not make that same mistake again. The author Russell Hoban said: If the past cannot teach the present, if a father cannot teach the son, then history need not have bothered to go on, and the world has wasted a great deal of time. Let us learn from the past. Let us learn the lessons of the past in fiscal policy. What does that mean for us with respect to these surpluses and with respect to proposed tax cuts and budgets? Let me speak first about uncertainty. Nine months ago, Alan Greenspan--who is canonized in a new book, the American soothsayer, the economist who knows all and sees all--said our economy was growing way too fast and he needed to slow it down. Think of that. Nine months ago our economy was growing too rapidly, according to Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board. Nine months later, we are wondering whether we might be nearing a recession. Certainly, the economic growth rate has now dropped to near zero. My point is this: If we can't see 9 months in advance, and the Federal Reserve Board could not, how can we then believe we can see 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, or 10 years ahead in terms of economic prosperity that would allow us to say there is enough surplus available to provide a very large permanent tax cut without providing substantial risk that will put this country right back in the same deficit ditch we were in for so long? The answer is, we cannot provide that assurance. This is faith-based economic forecasting, nothing more, nothing less. No one knows what will happen in this country's future. We hope what happens is continued prosperity, economic growth without a recession. That is what we hope happens. But having both studied economics and taught economics, I understand no one has repealed the business cycle. There is inevitably an expansion and a contraction. We provide the stabilizers that tend to even those out just a bit, but no one has been able to repeal the business cycle. The uncertainty with respect to economic forecasting ought to lead us to be cautious. Now the President proposes a $1.6 trillion tax cut. The actual numbers are closer to $2.6 trillion when you add up what needs to be done in order to implement his tax cut. It is not a difficult proposition to say to the American people: What I would like to provide for you is a tax cut. That is not difficult. Most people feel they are overtaxed. Most people want a tax cut. I also feel most people want a country that produces an expanding economy with the jobs and opportunity that comes with it. Let me describe what I believe makes this economy work. It is not like the engine room of a ship of state where there are dials and knobs and levers and you have a bunch of folks with green hats who are down there dialing these things up just right--tax cuts here, M1b over here, velocity buddy over here, spending over here--and you get all the knobs and dials adjusted just right and the ship of state moves along effortlessly. That is not what moves the ship of state. It is confidence. When the American people have confidence in the future, they make decisions and do things that represent that confidence. They buy cars, homes, and they do things that move the economy forward, producing jobs and opportunity. When they are not confident, they withhold those judgments. They decide they can't afford to buy a car, they can't afford to buy a home, they will defer this purchase and the economy contracts. It is as simple as that, nothing more than a mattress of confidence upon which the economy rests. The reason it turned around in 1992 and 1993, after the 1993 economic proposal that passed by one vote in the House and the Senate, was because people finally felt the Congress was serious about putting this country on track and getting rid of the budget deficits that became the growing tumor in this country's annual budget. So people had confidence about that and confidence in the future and we had this unprecedented lengthy economic expansion. My fear is if we lock in place a tax cut that is enormously uncertain in terms of its consequences with respect to future deficits, that we will lose the confidence of the American people. Let me be clear, I believe there is room for a tax cut. That is not what is at debate here. Republicans and Democrats both believe there can and should be a tax cut with this surplus. I also believe, however, the tax cut ought not be of such a size that it threatens our economic expansion. And I believe that a tax cut is part of a series of things that represents priorities in this country's economy. We should, with a surplus, not only provide a tax cut, but we should as a priority also begin to pay down the Federal debt in a significant way. If during tough times you run up the Federal debt, during good times you have a responsibility to pay it down. So reducing the Federal debt, $5.7 trillion to be exact, that was run up during tougher times and during periods when fiscal policy was not working, that ought to be paid down with part of that surplus. That ought to be a priority. Then let's have a tax cut. Especially let's have a tax cut that is fair. Some say when you criticize the proposed tax cut offered to us by the present administration as being unfair, you are engaged in class warfare. Nonsense. It is well within our right to talk about what kind of tax cut ought to be proposed that is fair to all Americans. Let me give an example. We have a range of taxes that are paid by the American people every year. Roughly $1 trillion in individual income taxes is paid by individual workers across this country. Roughly $650 billion in payroll taxes is paid by people who are working on jobs every day and every night across this country. The top 1 percent of the American income earners pay 21 percent of the total federal taxes. But the President has sent us a proposed tax cut that says the top 1 percent should get 43 percent of the tax cut. Let me say that again: The top 1 percent of the income earners pay 21 percent of the taxes, and the President proposes they should get 43 percent of the tax cut. I say that doesn't make any sense. That is not fair. And others say, well, gee you are involved in class warfare. Nonsense. Sigmund Freud's grandson had something to say about this. He said: When you hit someone over the head with a book and get a hollow sound, it doesn't mean the book is empty. Facts are facts. Facts are sometimes stubborn. The proposed tax cut will have an overwhelming advantage for the highest income earners in the country and provide far too little for working families. That is just a fact. There is kind of a breathless quality to those who advocate this tax cut of $1.6 trillion or actually $2.6 trillion. There is an old saying: Never buy something from somebody who is out of breath. We should do a tax cut. But it should be part of a set of priorities of paying down the Federal debt; providing a tax cut that is fair to all Americans, especially working families in this country; and, third, also recognizing there are other things we need to do that represent priorities. What are those priorities? Among those priorities are to provide a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program. We all know we need to do that. There isn't any question that if we had a Medicare program being created today, we would have a prescription drug benefit in that program. All of us have had the experience of someone coming up to us at a town meeting. I recall a meeting one evening in northern North Dakota. A woman came up to me, probably close to 80 years old, and grabbed me by the arm and said: Senator Dorgan and her eyes began to fill with tears and her chin began to quiver--I take several kinds of medicine for heart disease and diabetes, and I can't afford them. I can't pay the bills anymore. Yet I need that medicine to extend my life. What do I do? All of us have had that experience. We know we need to put a prescription drug program in the Medicare program. We know that ought to be a priority as well. Education is a priority. We know what has made this country great, in part, is a public education system available to all children to become the best they can be, wherever they are, no matter their circumstance in life. We know that has contributed to the significance of this country's growth and opportunity. How do we do that if it is not a priority to say we want to fix schools that are in serious disrepair? We can help do that. We want to reduce class size. We know it is easier to teach children in a class size of 15 kids than a class size of 32 kids. We know kids learn better in well-equipped classrooms rather than in some adjunct trailer in which you have stuck 30 kids with an inch between desks and a teacher trying to deal with all of them. That is a priority, as well. Another priority for me is family farmers. We have a great many family farmers in North Dakota struggling mightily to try to stay on the farm. That is a priority. Grain prices have collapsed. Our farmers are told by the grain market that the food they produce has no value. What on Earth can we be thinking of? Has no value? Five hundred million people will go to bed with an ache in their belly in this world because it hurts to be hungry, and a farmer harvests grain and hauls it to the elevator to be told, ``your food has no value.'' There is something dreadfully wrong with that. This country would want, it seems to me, to create and maintain a network of family farmers for this country's security interests, if for no other reason, but from my own view, we want to do that because it enriches our country to have a broad network of food production all across our country. Yet families are discovering they are losing their heritage on the family farm. A friend of mine is an auctioneer. He said he was doing an auction sale one day, and a little boy came up at the end of the auction sale, and he had tears in his eyes. He was about 10 years old. He grabbed my friend by the leg. He was very distraught. The auctioneer tried to comfort him, and this little boy said to him: You sold my father's tractor. He patted him on the shoulder, and he tried to comfort him some more, and the little boy said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big. So that is a priority for me, family farmers. My point is this. When we talk about having a budget policy, we cannot just have one central piece that says, here is what we want to do, to the exclusion of every other thing. That is not what made this country a great country in which to live. Those of us who believe strongly that we ought to have a balanced fiscal policy believe we should avoid the mistake we made in the past, and that is believing that numbers that inherently don't add up do add up. We know better than that. We all took math and algebra. We understand what adds up. This proposal that has come to this Congress with a budget and a tax plan is well over $1 trillion short. It does not take a genius to see that. It is well over $1 trillion short of adding up. Yet everyone will walk around here, pretending this adds up. You would fail fourth-grade math believing that. So first, it ought to add up--not for the purposes of helping one political party or another. That doesn't matter so much to me. It ought to add up for the benefit of this country's future. We need to keep this country on track. We need to continue an economy that provides jobs and opportunity ahead. How will we do that? By encouraging and maintaining the confidence of the American people that we are doing the right thing. Most of the American people, I think, believe the right thing is, during good times, help pay down the Federal debt with some of that surplus: You ran it up in tougher times; pay it down in better times. Second, yes, have a tax cut and make it fair to everybody. Third, yes, there are other priorities as well. Pay some attention to them. If you want to talk about education, then pay attention to education and make some investments that will make our schools better schools. If you want to talk about prescription drug prices and helping senior citizens, then if both parties say let's do a prescription drug plan in Medicare, do it, and have the money to pay for it. If you want to talk about the family farm and say it is important and is not just some little old diner that got left behind when the interstate came through, if you really believe family farmers are important, then decide you want to do something for them and help them during tough times. Those are priorities as well. Simply put, my point is we have a lot to be thankful for in this country. Nobody lives in a better place on the face of this Earth. It is not an accident that we are here. As stewards of this country's legacy and its future, we as policymakers need to come together and engage in some cooperation on these things. I am not someone who believes if we break out into full-scale debate, that is a bad thing for the country. People ask me from time to time, how are you getting along with 50 Senators on the Democratic side and 50 Senators on the Republican side? It is as if they are afraid we are going to have a debate. Look, a debate is what this country is about. There is the old saying, when everyone in the room is thinking the same thing, nobody is thinking very much. This entire body is about debate. There is nothing wrong with aggressive, robust debate. In fact, that is the only way we get the best of what everyone has to offer. So we are going to have some significant, aggressive debates. And we should. I hope at the end of this debate good thinkers on all sides, from both political parties represented here in the Senate, will agree with me that it doesn't matter what the polls say, it doesn't matter what the politics are; what matters is that we do the right thing to keep this country on track, that we do the right thing to keep this country growing and to have this country provide the opportunities we want it to provide for our children and their children. What we have inherited is not accidental. Those who came before us have struggled mightily to do the right thing. In some cases, it wasn't the popular thing but it was the right thing. We have a responsibility to accept this opportunity given to us to do the right thing as well. I say to our new President, his Address to Congress, I think, dealt with a number of significant and important issues. On some of them, I will be supportive. On others, I will be a fierce opponent. But I hope, as we think through all of these issues, we can understand what the public interest is--not the party interest. The decisions we make in this Chamber could well affect this country 5, 10, and 25 years from now. If we put this country on the wrong course and throw this economy back into growing, choking, heavy deficits year after year after year, it will once again be one of the enduring truths of the political life and the public life of everyone who comes after us in this Chamber; it will be one of the enduring truths that serves as a backdrop for every other decision that is made for the next 5, 10, and 25 years. We were able, as I said when we started, to shed the yoke of those two enduring truths that cost us so much. The cold war? The Soviet Union is gone. That was a backdrop for virtually everything we did for many years. That is behind us. The growing budget deficits that represented a cancer in this country's budget--they are gone. They affected virtually everything we did in this Chamber for many years. That is a blessing. Those enduring truths have changed. So let us make decisions now that do not re-create those liabilities for those who follow us. Let's make decisions that put this country on track to a much better and brighter future that is sustained for the long term. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is there an existing order with respect to morning business?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to comment about the situation in this country with respect to energy. Last evening I was signing letters, as is so often the case for those of us who serve in public life. We receive a great deal of mail, many phone calls, hundreds of e-mails every day, and then, of course, the old-fashioned way--we get letters actually written and stuck in an envelope and mailed to us. It is among the most important things we do, to try to respond to constituents. Last evening, as is the case with most of my colleagues, I was spending time late in the evening reading mail and signing mail that has come from North Dakota. I came across a couple of letters I want to read to my colleagues and then describe what it is we need to be doing to respond to some of these issues. I received a letter from a man named John. I have not contacted him, so I will not use his last name. John, from Fargo, ND, wrote the following: Dear Senator Dorgan, I am in complete shock after receiving my natural gas bill yesterday. I live in a modern house that is well insulated, I am careful about closing doors and ensuring that all the windows are sealed, I set my thermostat at 68 degrees (now even lower), and yet I receive a bill for natural gas alone, for over $726 for a one month period. How is that possible? Please tell me, Senator, how it is that we can live in the most technologically advanced country in the world, yet we can't maintain adequate stocks of natural gas to get us through the winter. Are we being gouged by producers? He then asks a series of additional questions. I will not read the entire letter. I will only say that he asks a question he could ask on behalf of millions and millions of Americans who are opening their bills now to heat their homes and discovering, after 2 of the coldest first 2 months of the winter in a century in this country, it is costing a fortune to pay for natural gas bills, propane bills, home heating fuel bills. John writes a letter saying: I am doing all the right things. I have a home that is well insulated. I seal it. I keep the thermostat at 68, and my heating bill for natural gas last month is $726, and I can't afford it. I have a second letter from another fellow also named John from North Dakota. He described what happened to him. He and his wife had purchased an older building that had been subdivided into several apartments. They took an apartment in their retirement years and were renting the others. He said he had been paying $300 a month for heat. When his February bill arrived, it was $1,091. He went to the office of the gas provider to talk to them. He said: I left the office wondering what to do. I didn't want to tell my wife the truth about this. She doesn't know about it yet. Today is her birthday, and tomorrow is our 53rd wedding anniversary. We have been making it okay in our retirement years, nothing to spare with the $1600 monthly income from our five apartments. This is our retirement home. We have no choice now but to sell it. Our $1,000 monthly bill would be impossible and yet they say it is going to go up even more. We don't want to move, but there is not much else we can do. I am sure all of us are getting identical letters from around the country. What is happening? What on Earth has happened that has caused fuel bills to double, triple, and, in some cases, even quadruple? When people get fuel bills for $600, $700, $800 a month--and in North Dakota we have had a bitterly cold winter, the first 2 months especially, and especially the last few weeks again--it is sticker shock to get bills like that. Now I want to mention a couple of additional points. I will be very brief. First of all, we need to take some emergency action. We need more money in LIHEAP. We are out of money. We have to do a supplemental at some point, and there has to be money for the low-income energy assistance program. No. 2, I have suggested, in legislation I have joined others in introducing, a tax credit, an income tax credit to offset about 50 percent of the increase in home heating fuel bills of this year versus last year. That is a way, it seems to me, to use a tax credit to put some money into people's pockets to offset about 50 percent of these increased bills. That would also be helpful. Legislation will be introduced today that would deal with weatherization, LIHEAP, conservation grants to States, and increased energy efficiency in the Federal Government. Senator Bingaman has been working on that along with others, and I have been working with him, as well. We have a lot of things to do, both in the short term on an emergency basis, and in the long term. We also are investigating potential causes for the natural gas price increases. But we also need, at the same time, to understand that we have the requirement to not only find more natural gas and oil--we stopped looking when it went to $10 a barrel--and now it is at $30 a barrel and there is a great deal of exploration again. I think all the evidence indicates that there is a record amount of drilling, and we will have more natural gas and oil coming on line within 6 months, 12 months, 24 months; but that is not going to solve the problem for the next 3 months, or even 6 months, or a year. So we are doing all of that. At the same time, we need to be more concerned about the development of both renewable energy and also about conservation. Renewable energy, such as wind and biomass, can contribute a significant amount to this country's energy future. Any energy program that makes sense also must include an element of conservation. That is why I talk about weatherization and other issues. Most important, I think, this ought to lead us to the question of the deregulation in areas of essential service. We need to be sure we have an adequate supply and demand relationship in areas of essential services for the American people. I don't suggest we reregulate natural gas supplies, but we ought to have a safe harbor somewhere with respect to production and consumption, so we don't get into a situation where people's natural gas bills spring up two, three, four, five times over what they were previously, for causes to which they didn't contribute. So I wanted to bring attention to these two letters from two fellows named John who wrote me lengthy letters about their respective experiences. It is painful and difficult and, in some cases perhaps impossible, for some people to pay these kinds of home heating bills. They don't have the money. We need to do something on an emergency basis to try to be helpful to them. More importantly, this country needs a long-term energy strategy that works. Under both Republicans and Democrats, we have not had an energy strategy. We are far too dependent on the Middle East and on foreign sources of oil. If, God forbid, something should happen to interrupt the pipeline of foreign oil coming into this country, and all industrial countries, we would have an emergency on our hands. We must do something to try to escape the excessive dependence that now exists on foreign energy, notwithstanding all of the current problems we have with respect to the dislocation between supply and demand. Energy issues are critical, and we must do something about them. It is time to have a national energy policy that works, No. 1, and, No. 2, it is time this Congress understands there is an emergency in parts of this country this winter, with respect to the need for some help to pay home heating fuel bills that are exceeding the ability of some people to pay them. That emergency includes the need to provide more money for low-income energy assistance, weatherization, and other related issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Carnahan just gave her first speech in the Senate. I listened to her speech. Our country has been blessed with men and women who have stepped forward to serve over many years. Some have stepped forward during times of great difficulty, none in more difficult circumstances than Senator Carnahan. Her husband, a candidate for the Senate, was tragically killed in an airplane crash, and she subsequently was appointed to the Senate. I listened to her speech this morning. She will make a significant contribution to this country and to the debate on important issues such as education in the Senate. I know her late husband would be so proud today of the legacy for which she continues fighting--progress in our country's education system. I thank her for what she is doing and for her service to our country and congratulate her this morning on her statement to the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm reintroducing several bills that are needed to fix glaring problems in our Internal Revenue Code. Clearly, the issue of tax cuts will be the subject of extensive debate in the coming months. I think a responsible new tax relief plan could be crafted to ease the tax burden on working families and others who need it. I also believe that if the expected surpluses materialize, a significant part should be used to pay down the federal debt. But, as we move forward with this debate about new tax breaks, I think Congress needs to remember that there are a number of tax fairness matters pending from previous years that we must address without any further delay. First, when Congress enacted a new $500,000 capital gains exclusion for home sales in 1997, it offered a good deal to those families who live in urban areas affected by rising home and land prices. Unfortunately, this provision offers little or no benefits for family farmers because their farm homes are part of the larger farmstead. By itself, the farmhouse often has little value in relation to the surrounding farmland and buildings. This means that farmers who are selling the whole farm because they are retiring or who are being forced out of business because of the downturn in the farm economy may face a hefty tax bill at a time they can least afford it. Legislation that Senator Hagel and I are introducing today recognizes the economic realities of farming and extends the benefit of the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion to farm families. Specifically, our legislation would expand the $500,000 capital gains exclusion for home sales to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively farming prior to the sales. We have introduced virtually identical legislation in the past. Our approach has garnered substantial bipartisan support from most of our colleagues. If we enact a major tax bill this year, we believe it ought to include language to correct this capital gains tax problem that many of our nation's farmers urgently need fixed. Second, I'm introducing legislation along with Senators Johnson, Daschle and others to immediately eliminate the disparity between sole proprietors and their large corporate competitors in the tax treatment of their health insurance costs. Under current federal tax law, we tell our biggest corporations that they can deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs, while we say to our nation's sole proprietors that they can deduct only 60 percent of these same costs. Almost everyone agrees that this circumstance is indefensible and needs to be remedied. Current law fixes this problem by 2003, but small business owners should not have to wait. Congress should act now to give them the full deduction. This legislation addresses this inequity facing family farmers, ranchers, and other self-employed individuals by permitting them to deduct 100-percent of their health insurance costs beginning this year. The health of a family farmer or small business owner is just as important as the health of an officer of a large corporation and our tax laws should reflect that simple fact now. The third bill I'm introducing today addresses what I believe is a major flaw in the current federal income tax expensing provision that hinders many small businesses from making needed building improvements. Under current law, small businesses generally can deduct immediately up to $24,000 in qualifying purchases of equipment and machinery. But they must depreciate over 39 years the costs of any storefront or other structural building improvements, even if those improvements are crucial to the business or to the maintenance of a Main Street. This legislation tells the local drug store, shoe store or barber shop, which doesn't have much need for equipment purchases but does need to improve the storefront or interior, that it should be able to deduct the costs of such improvements, rather than be forced to depreciate them over nearly four decades. Specifically, my bill expands the current $24,000 expensing provision to cover investments in depreciable real property. The bill also increases the expensing amount to $25,000, which is currently scheduled to occur by the year 2003. There are Main Streets across this country that were built or refurbished decades ago and now need investments and improvements. Our federal tax laws ought to assist small businesses to make such improvements, and my legislation is a simple way to accomplish that. The Senate unanimously agreed to an amendment I offered to a larger tax bill last summer that would have made the changes I have proposed in the three bills I introduce today. Unfortunately, none of these provisions was included in the final version of that tax bill or other legislation before the Congress adjourned last year. Therefore, I would urge my Senate colleagues to cosponsor each of these bills and work with me to get them added to any tax package passed by the Congress this year.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm reintroducing several bills that are needed to fix glaring problems in our Internal Revenue Code. Clearly, the issue of tax cuts will be the subject of extensive debate in the coming months. I think a responsible new tax relief plan could be crafted to ease the tax burden on working families and others who need it. I also believe that if the expected surpluses materialize, a significant part should be used to pay down the federal debt. But, as we move forward with this debate about new tax breaks, I think Congress needs to remember that there are a number of tax fairness matters pending from previous years that we must address without any further delay. First, when Congress enacted a new $500,000 capital gains exclusion for home sales in 1997, it offered a good deal to those families who live in urban areas affected by rising home and land prices. Unfortunately, this provision offers little or no benefits for family farmers because their farm homes are part of the larger farmstead. By itself, the farmhouse often has little value in relation to the surrounding farmland and buildings. This means that farmers who are selling the whole farm because they are retiring or who are being forced out of business because of the downturn in the farm economy may face a hefty tax bill at a time they can least afford it. Legislation that Senator Hagel and I are introducing today recognizes the economic realities of farming and extends the benefit of the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion to farm families. Specifically, our legislation would expand the $500,000 capital gains exclusion for home sales to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively farming prior to the sales. We have introduced virtually identical legislation in the past. Our approach has garnered substantial bipartisan support from most of our colleagues. If we enact a major tax bill this year, we believe it ought to include language to correct this capital gains tax problem that many of our nation's farmers urgently need fixed. Second, I'm introducing legislation along with Senators Johnson, Daschle and others to immediately eliminate the disparity between sole proprietors and their large corporate competitors in the tax treatment of their health insurance costs. Under current federal tax law, we tell our biggest corporations that they can deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs, while we say to our nation's sole proprietors that they can deduct only 60 percent of these same costs. Almost everyone agrees that this circumstance is indefensible and needs to be remedied. Current law fixes this problem by 2003, but small business owners should not have to wait. Congress should act now to give them the full deduction. This legislation addresses this inequity facing family farmers, ranchers, and other self-employed individuals by permitting them to deduct 100-percent of their health insurance costs beginning this year. The health of a family farmer or small business owner is just as important as the health of an officer of a large corporation and our tax laws should reflect that simple fact now. The third bill I'm introducing today addresses what I believe is a major flaw in the current federal income tax expensing provision that hinders many small businesses from making needed building improvements. Under current law, small businesses generally can deduct immediately up to $24,000 in qualifying purchases of equipment and machinery. But they must depreciate over 39 years the costs of any storefront or other structural building improvements, even if those improvements are crucial to the business or to the maintenance of a Main Street. This legislation tells the local drug store, shoe store or barber shop, which doesn't have much need for equipment purchases but does need to improve the storefront or interior, that it should be able to deduct the costs of such improvements, rather than be forced to depreciate them over nearly four decades. Specifically, my bill expands the current $24,000 expensing provision to cover investments in depreciable real property. The bill also increases the expensing amount to $25,000, which is currently scheduled to occur by the year 2003. There are Main Streets across this country that were built or refurbished decades ago and now need investments and improvements. Our federal tax laws ought to assist small businesses to make such improvements, and my legislation is a simple way to accomplish that. The Senate unanimously agreed to an amendment I offered to a larger tax bill last summer that would have made the changes I have proposed in the three bills I introduce today. Unfortunately, none of these provisions was included in the final version of that tax bill or other legislation before the Congress adjourned last year. Therefore, I would urge my Senate colleagues to cosponsor each of these bills and work with me to get them added to any tax package passed by the Congress this year.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, are we in morning business?