Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, also, to add to the comments made by Senator Campbell, I believe we had something in the neighborhood of 20 amendments that were filed. The unanimous consent agreement required that amendments be filed by noon today. This subcommittee on appropriations has now, I believe, close to 20 amendments, perhaps 21 amendments, that have been filed. It is, I know, the intention and the interest of the leadership--the majority leader and Senator Daschle as well--to move ahead and finish this bill and finish some other business today. My hope is that Members who have offered amendments--in fact, all the amendments have been filed on behalf of other Senators by Senator Campbell and myself. I hope very much that those who asked us to file an amendment on their behalf will come now to the floor and offer those amendments so we can proceed to get through this piece of legislation. Of the 20 amendments, some likely will be worked out, some will perhaps need votes. Senator Campbell is absolutely correct, this is the right time for people on whose behalf we have offered these amendments to come to the floor and begin debating them.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will ask that a letter from Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, be printed in the Record. General McCaffrey has written to me and, I am sure, the chairman of the subcommittee because he is concerned about the funding level for the National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign. As we indicated yesterday, that campaign will be funded in the subcommittee mark at $145.5 million. That is about $49 million below the administration's request. General McCaffrey has a number of observations about that and makes the point in his letter that he hopes, in this process between the Senate and the House, somehow those funds might be restored to full funding at the President's request. I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. I think it is a good amendment. I have asked consent to be added as a cosponsor. I am happy to support the efforts of the Senator from Maine, and we have no objection.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I amend that to say that the Torricelli amendment, No. 1213, will be accepted as modified, and it is the same case with the Harkin amendment, No. 1209, as modified. That has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. My understanding, at the moment, is that Senator Schumer from New York is not able to clear the Torricelli sense-of-the-Senate amendment No. 1213. So we have cleared all of the remaining amendments that Senator Campbell and I have just described: No. 1209, a Harkin amendment, as modified; No. 1212 by Senator Wellstone; and No. 1198 by Senator Enzi. Amendments Nos. 1198, 1209, And 1212, En Bloc

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. The committee recognizes FLETC's important role in providing quality training to the nation's law enforcement personnel, and it is fully supportive of providing the funding necessary for the center to effectively carry out the mission for which it was created.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have visited with Senator Torricelli. He is willing to withdraw the amendment, provided that he is offered 5 minutes to discuss it. Senator Schumer would like 5 minutes as well. They are willing to do that when we finish the wrap-up. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 1213 on behalf of Senator Torricelli.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Lott, Daschle, Nickles, Reid, Murkowski, and twenty-one other distinguished colleagues in introducing the ``Main Street Business Incentive Act of 1999,'' which addresses a gap in the current law that is impeding the improvement of many of our small town Main Street businesses. Specifically, the bill would raise the income tax expensing provision for small businesses in current law from $19,000 to $25,000 this year. The bill also would expand the provision to cover investments in commercial buildings and structural improvements. Mr. President, small businesses are the economic anchors of Main Streets in small and large communities throughout our country. They provide jobs, sponsor local charities and little league teams, and enable people to purchase their daily necessities without driving long distances. Without small businesses, we wouldn't have communities, which is why Congress has adjusted the tax laws in numerous ways over the years to encourage investments that enable them to grow and thrive. For example, many businesses have to depreciate the cost of new equipment purchases--which is to say, they deduct these costs over a long period of years. Small businesses, by contrast, can ``expense'' up to $19,000 in purchases of such assets. They deduct the cost entirely in the first year. That maximum amount will increase to $25,000 in year 2003. This tax provision is helpful to many small businesses because it enables them to write off the investment immediately and so bolsters their cash flow. However, this expensing provision is not as helpful as it could be and needs to be. Specifically, it does not include investments that small businesses make in improving the store front or the building in which they conduct their business. In many small towns, the local drug store, shoe store or grocery store doesn't have much need of new equipment. But it does need to improve the store front or the interior, and generally spruce things up. Such investments are good for our Main Streets. They improve the appearance of both the business and the town. Yet under today's tax law, if a small business owner improves his storefront, he has to spread the cost of the investments for tax purposes over 39 years, which is the depreciation schedule for commercial real estate. The result is a large economic hurdle for many of these small businesses. There are Main Streets all across our country that were built or refurbished thirty, forty or fifty years ago and now need investment and improvement. The Tax Code should encourage this. A simple way to accomplish it is to allow the expensing of up to $25,000, not only for equipment and machinery, but also for small business investments in store fronts and business locations. The motel, the gas station, the hardware store or barber shop ought to be able to ``expense'' that amount of investment in their property. That's what my legislation provides. This would be a significant benefit to America's small business and I think would result in a significant improvement in America's communities and main streets. This legislation is supported by a number of small business-oriented trade groups including the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), NFIB-North Dakota, the Small Business Legislative Council, the North Dakota Association of Realtors and National Association of Realtors. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much-needed legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Lott, Daschle, Nickles, Reid, Murkowski, and twenty-one other distinguished colleagues in introducing the ``Main Street Business Incentive Act of 1999,'' which addresses a gap in the current law that is impeding the improvement of many of our small town Main Street businesses. Specifically, the bill would raise the income tax expensing provision for small businesses in current law from $19,000 to $25,000 this year. The bill also would expand the provision to cover investments in commercial buildings and structural improvements. Mr. President, small businesses are the economic anchors of Main Streets in small and large communities throughout our country. They provide jobs, sponsor local charities and little league teams, and enable people to purchase their daily necessities without driving long distances. Without small businesses, we wouldn't have communities, which is why Congress has adjusted the tax laws in numerous ways over the years to encourage investments that enable them to grow and thrive. For example, many businesses have to depreciate the cost of new equipment purchases--which is to say, they deduct these costs over a long period of years. Small businesses, by contrast, can ``expense'' up to $19,000 in purchases of such assets. They deduct the cost entirely in the first year. That maximum amount will increase to $25,000 in year 2003. This tax provision is helpful to many small businesses because it enables them to write off the investment immediately and so bolsters their cash flow. However, this expensing provision is not as helpful as it could be and needs to be. Specifically, it does not include investments that small businesses make in improving the store front or the building in which they conduct their business. In many small towns, the local drug store, shoe store or grocery store doesn't have much need of new equipment. But it does need to improve the store front or the interior, and generally spruce things up. Such investments are good for our Main Streets. They improve the appearance of both the business and the town. Yet under today's tax law, if a small business owner improves his storefront, he has to spread the cost of the investments for tax purposes over 39 years, which is the depreciation schedule for commercial real estate. The result is a large economic hurdle for many of these small businesses. There are Main Streets all across our country that were built or refurbished thirty, forty or fifty years ago and now need investment and improvement. The Tax Code should encourage this. A simple way to accomplish it is to allow the expensing of up to $25,000, not only for equipment and machinery, but also for small business investments in store fronts and business locations. The motel, the gas station, the hardware store or barber shop ought to be able to ``expense'' that amount of investment in their property. That's what my legislation provides. This would be a significant benefit to America's small business and I think would result in a significant improvement in America's communities and main streets. This legislation is supported by a number of small business-oriented trade groups including the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), NFIB-North Dakota, the Small Business Legislative Council, the North Dakota Association of Realtors and National Association of Realtors. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much-needed legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is the responsibility of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to consider treaties submitted by the President as soon as possible after their submission. Normally, most treaties are considered within a year of being submitted. The President of the United States transmitted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to the Senate on September 23, 1997. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not held a single hearing on this important Treaty in the 646 days since the President sent the CTBT to the Senate for its consideration. In comparison, the START I Treaty was ratified in 11 months, the SALT I Treaty in 3 months, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty in 4 months, and the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 3 weeks. As of today, 152 countries have signed the CTBT, including Russia and China, and 37 countries have ratified the Treaty. The world is waiting for the United States to lead on this issue. I hope my colleagues will urge for this Treaty's rapid consideration.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. And would the Senator also agree that the development of the Russian Far East is vital to the overall future development of Russia's market economy, and therefore it is critical that we support efforts to foster sustainable development and stability in this important region?

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Chairman for his comments and support. amendment no. 1145 (Purpose: To restrict United States assistance for reconstruction efforts in the Balkans to United States-produced articles and services) On page 128, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following new section: restriction on United States assistance for certain reconstruction efforts in the balkans region. Sec. . (a) Prohibition.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for United States assistance for reconstruction efforts in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or any contiguous country may be used for the procurement of any article produced outside the United States, the recipient country, or least developed countries, or any service provided by a foreign person. (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if-- (1) the provision of such assistance requires articles of a type that are produced in and services that are available for purchase in the United States, the recipient country, or least developed countries, or if the cost of articles and services produced in or available from the United States and such other countries is significantly more expensive, including the cost of transportation, than the cost from other sources; or (2) the President determines that the application of subsection (a) will impair the ability of the United States to maximize the use of United States articles and services in such reconstruction efforts of other donor countries, or if the President otherwise determines that subsection (a) will impair United States foreign assistance objectives. (c) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Article.--The term ``article'' means any agricultural commodity, steel, communications equipment, farm machinery, or petrochemical refinery equipment. (2) Federal republic of yugoslavia.--The term ``Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'' means the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and includes Kosovo. (3) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means any foreign national exclusive of any national of the recipient country or least developed countries including any foreign corporation, partnership, other legal entity, organization, or association that is beneficially owned by foreign persons controlled in fact by foreign persons. (4) Produced.--The term ``produced'', with respect to an item, includes any item mined, manufactured, made, assembled, grown, or extracted. (5) Service.--The term ``service'' means any engineering, construction or telecommunications. (6) Steel.--The term ``steel'' includes the following categories of steel products: semifinished, plates, sheets and strips, wire rods, wire and wire products, rail type products, bars, structural shapes and units, pipes and tubes, iron ore, and coke products.

Mr. DORGAN. REAP International's school linkage program with Buryatia, Russia focuses on economic development activities, vocational and entrepreneurial training, and the enhancement of civic institutions. These types of activities are important in stabilizing communities in the Russian Far East. Is this type of stability not vital if Russia is to move ahead with economic reforms?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, REAP International operates a school linkage program between North Dakota and the Russian Republic of Buryatia. In the past, this program has resulted not only in the establishment of close personal relationships, but also provided community based assistance and sustainable development to this important region of the Russian Far East. REAP International's school linkage program between North Dakota and Buryatia is all the more critical when one considers the setbacks that the U.S.-Russia relationship has suffered in the wake of NATO's actions against Serbia. In addition, the failure of the Russian economy has left many Russians disillusioned, and there are those in the Russian leadership who would take advantage of that disillusionment in order to reverse the free market reforms already underway in Russia. We must not let that happen. One way to prevent it is to help Russian youth to understand and reap the benefits of a stable, free market economy through student exchange programs. Student exchange programs often promote long-lasting relationships between institutions and communities. Does the Senator agree that these programs also play an important role in strengthening ties between countries?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in light of the hour and especially in light of the statement made by my colleague from Colorado, the chairman of this subcommittee, I will be mercifully brief. But I do want to say this bill, the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and general government bill, is one that we have worked hard to bring to the floor of the Senate in a manner that we think is fair and relates to the limits that were imposed upon us. The chairman and I believe the allocation level, obviously, could have been greater in order to allow us to have provided some additional funding to some areas of the bill, but we are restricted by budget rules and by the allocation that was given us. I would like to say working with Chairman Campbell has been a pleasure. He is easy to work with. His staff, Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards have worked hard to ensure this bill has been well crafted, as has been the work of Barbara Retzlaff and Chip Waldren, who have been working with me on this legislation. Senator Campbell has described the major highlights of this bill, so I will not repeat that at this hour of the evening, but I do want to address a couple of brief issues. One, the issue of courthouse construction. Members of the subcommittee are well aware of the judiciary's continuing need to have some court space available to conduct their business and to move cases to settlement. We know that. Regrettably, there was not enough money in the allocation to this subcommittee to provide for courthouse construction. The President did not request courthouse construction nor was it funded in this bill. Budgetary constraints were the major factor with respect to that but not the only factor. Another reason we believe it would be somewhat precipitous to approve funding for the design and construction of many new courthouses prior to the AOC's completion of its comprehensive review of judiciary space is we think that review ought to be done first. The committee was pleased to receive the Administrative Office of the Court's May 28 letter confirming the award of a contract to a consulting firm to analyze and evaluate the judiciary's long-range planning process, their courthouse design guidelines, their program policies and practices, and the funding mechanisms and responsibilities. But the committee is concerned that the completion date for that report will be well after the date by which the administration must complete action on their 2001 fiscal year budget request. We anticipate having that report before we would complete action on fiscal year 2001 budget decisions and appropriations decisions here in the Congress. I believe that is important because we have received information which indicates that 11 of the 16 courthouses for which the AOC requested funding in the year 2000 deviated from the Judicial Conference of the United States Court Design Guide. For example, magistrate and bankruptcy courtrooms were increased from 1,800 usable square feet to 2,400 usable square feet, a 33-percent increase. Total courthouse circulation space increased from 20 percent to 30 percent. Individual courtrooms were routinely being provided for individual senior district judges for more than 10 years, and the list goes on. I believe some of those excesses in the construction program resulted in some of the past funding delays. None of us believe a funding moratorium is the best way to maintain an important Federal asset program, so I hope the construction review will be completed and we can proceed in the future with a construction program. Second, I want to discuss very briefly the issue of the Office of National Drug Control Policy National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. That is a long way of talking about the media campaign that has been going on in this country on the issue of drugs. This is the third year of that funding, funding of over one-half of a billion dollars that has been provided for this initiative. I would like to say I support this initiative. I think the power of advertising is well recognized. Appropriate advertising and advertising that is well done dealing with a message to our young people in this country, ``do not take drugs,'' is an appropriate way to send that message. I worked with the subcommittee to ensure that adequate funds were provided this year for that campaign to be effective. I do not believe that halfway through the campaign it is time to dilute the message. I know there will perhaps be an amendment offered dealing with alcohol. No one is more concerned about the issue of alcohol consumption, drunk driving, and alcohol abuse in this country than I. But I do not want to dilute what we are doing on the antidrug campaign with this alcohol issue at this point. There are other venues, other ways, other programs with which we can confront the drunk driving and alcohol abuse issue, and we will. This year we were not able to fully fund the television campaign dealing with the antidrug message. We have had to cut that some. We would have liked to have funded all of these issues in a manner that fully funds the budget request, but we did not have the money to do that. There simply were not the available resources to accomplish that. We have been forced to make certain cuts. My hope is perhaps some of these can be in conference, perhaps some additional budget allocation will be made available as we proceed through this process. Again, the work done by Senator Campbell, his staff, and our staff has produced a good piece of legislation. I hope we can move through it rather quickly tomorrow and preserve the bulk of what we have done to fund these very important programs. Amendments Nos. 1189, 1190, And 1191

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, my understanding is that has been cleared with our side and Members of the Senate have been notified this evening that will be the case on this bill. I do not object.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Moynihan, I send three amendments to the desk.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Secretary of Defense has described our military action in Kosovo as the most accurate application of Air Power in history. The men and women of the 5th Bomb Wing, Minot, North Dakota, were critical to that effort, and the citizens of this state and our entire country are justifiably proud of their efforts. The B-52 bombing raids on Yugoslavian positions on June 7, 1999, undoubtedly hastened the decision by Yugoslavia to sign the NATO peace agreement ending the conflict. As the Washington Post reported on the significance of the strike, ``Two days later, Yugoslav generals formally agreed to withdraw all forces from Kosovo.'' The Washington Post Article entitled, ``NATO's Most Lethal Airstrike Ended a Battle, Perhaps a War,'' reported that the B-52 attack on Mount Pastrik was the turning point in the Kosovo conflict. Like the ``Linebacker'' operations in Vietnam, the unmatched striking power of the B-52 bomber convinced the enemy that negotiation was preferable to suffering the business end of over 70,000 pounds of munitions. The crews of the B-52 bombers that carried out their missions in Kosovo proved the anecdote again, ``That bomber pilots make history.'' In recognizing the efforts of the crews and support personnel of the 5th Bomb Wing, we cannot forget the sacrifices made by the families and loved ones left behind. Today's professional All-Volunteer Air Force is a different organization than the one that preceded it. More times than not, when an Air Force member deploys, he or she leaves behind a spouse and small children who depend on them, who miss them, and who pray for their safe return. We in the Senate owe a debt of gratitude to those brave families who lovingly support the men and women of our Armed Forces. Mr. President, in every conflict following the Korean War, the B-52 bomber has delivered the most debilitating blows to our enemies. As demonstrated in Yugoslavia, the B-52 is still capable of delivering the initial strikes in a conflict with stand-off weapons, and then executing decisive strikes on fielded forces with a range of munitions. The United States Air Force's plan to fly the B-52 bomber well into the next century is a tribute both to the aircraft and the innovative crews that continue to demonstrate the decisive capabilities of the aircraft. Most importantly, as long as the Air Force has men and women like those who serve in the 5th Bomb Wing, this nation sleeps well protected.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. That is exactly the case. It is the case that we are in the circumstance which now exists because there are some here in the Senate who simply do not want to have to vote on the issues we are talking about with respect to the Patients' Bill of Rights. They want to have a slogan so they can vote for something titled the Patients' Bill of Rights but one that will not have any strength; one that will really not have any provisions to provide people with the basic rights they ought to be provided with respect to this health care issue. We have talked at great length about the too many instances in this country where health care decisions are not made by a doctor in a patient's room in the hospital or by a doctor in a doctor's office at a clinic, but where the answer to what kind of patient care will be allowed is to often, in too many circumstances, made by an accountant making medical judgments somewhere in an insurance company office 1,000 miles away. That is what is wrong with the system.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is absolutely correct. Again, it is the difference between an approach that is toothless and an approach that has teeth; one that works, makes a difference, one that matters. So we have a couple of bills ricocheting around here for which the other side has adopted the same title--which is a nice thing to do, I guess: The Patients' Bill of Rights. The question is scope. How many Americans will it cover and what kind of coverage will it offer? Will it, in fact, help people like that young boy who was told a 50-percent chance to be able to walk by age 5 really doesn't cut it with us; we will not provide the therapy you need? Or will it, in fact, provide assurance to someone who is knocked unconscious in an accident, that if he or she goes into an emergency room unconscious nobody is going to say later: You should have gotten prior approval from the emergency room?

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.