Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have spoken to the subcommittee Chair who is managing the appropriations bill that is now on the floor and have asked him if it is all right if I speak in morning business for a few minutes. If someone comes to the floor with an amendment on this bill, if he will signal to me, I will certainly discontinue so he may continue making progress on the bill. I want to speak about the agriculture crisis briefly, and I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask consent I be recognized to speak as in morning business and that my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, be recognized following my brief remarks.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3523

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last Saturday morning at 12:01 a.m., labor negotiations between Northwest Airlines and its pilots broke down. There was a labor strike and, therefore, a shutdown of Northwest operations. The result of that shutdown of operations means that all jet airplane service to North Dakota is gone. The shutdown has a substantial impact on our entire region of the country, but on our State it has a profound impact because all jet service is now gone. There is not one jet flying in or out of North Dakota. I have talked to President Clinton. I have talked to Secretary of Transportation Slater. I have talked to Northwest Airlines and I have talked to the pilots. It is clear to me that this labor dispute is not going to be settled in the coming hours. We have waited now for several days following the shutdown, during which the Transportation Secretary called the parties together. But even from that, there is not a negotiation ongoing. None is scheduled tomorrow, and none is scheduled the next day, as I understand it. It is now clear to me this will not be settled quickly unless the President invokes his emergency powers. This dispute is about corporate profits and pilots' paychecks, and they have every right to have a dispute about that. But no one has a right to visit on our State the burden and the devastating consequences that occur when an essential part of our transportation system is withdrawn, when all jet service is withdrawn, and that is what has happened in North Dakota. Today, my colleagues, Senator Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy, and I have asked President Clinton to appoint a Presidential emergency board, and to call the parties back to work to restore service to our State. During the 60-day period, we want the President to help resolve a settlement in this dispute and to end this shutdown. We don't do this lightly. We understand that this is an important step. I don't know who is at fault, but I know who is hurt. In a State like ours, where all jet airplane service is gone, there are devastating consequences. Because the airline industry has now retreated into regional monopolies, a shutdown of service or a labor strike causes devastation to certain regions of the country. This can no longer be business as usual. We must ask this President to invoke his emergency powers and get airline service restored to our region of the country. Mr. President, one final point. We also ask that the regional carrier in North Dakota that has also discontinued service, Mesaba Airlines, of which Northwest is a minority shareholder, restore its service to our State as well. We are preparing a request to the president of Mesaba and to Northwest to do that. This is a very difficult step for me and my colleagues to take, but we have no choice. We cannot allow day after day after day to go by with our State suffering the impact and the burden of a dispute that has resulted in the discontinuation of all jet service in North Dakota. It is unfair to the citizens of North Dakota and our region, and I want the President to put a stop to it and restore air service in our region immediately. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I wanted to ask the Senator to yield for a question. This is a critically important issue that affects tens and tens of millions of Americans. It deals with the question of whether, when they show up and are ill and need health care treatment, they are going to be told by their attending physician who is working for a managed care organization all of their options for medical treatment or just the cheapest. We have talked day after day in this Chamber about how these issues deal with the life and death of patients. We had one story here about a managed care organization that evaluated a young boy and determined that because he had only a 50 percent chance of being able to walk by age 5, it was determined insignificant and he shall not therefore be eligible for the therapy--a 50 percent chance of walking by age 5 is insignificant so don't help him. These are important issues. Now, the question I ask the Senator from South Dakota, we have put together legislation, we have developed legislation that I think is very important and we have been working very hard to try to get it to the floor of the Senate. We spent days debating the renaming of an airport, but apparently we don't have time to deal with the issue of managed care reform and a Patients' Bill of Rights. How many months have we been trying to get a time to get this issue to the floor of the Senate so that we can debate it and deal with this issue? I ask the minority leader, how many months have we worked to try to get this issue to the floor of the Senate for debate?

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, just another point. I regret that there is opposition to the request. It seems to me the request is appropriate. Do the appropriations bills, do the conference reports, but make time at least to do this issue. We have talked about in this Chamber the stories of someone whose neck was broken, taken to an emergency room, and told you can't get this covered because you didn't have prior approval, brought to the emergency room with a broken neck, unconscious. So I mean these issues go on and on and on, the stories go on forever, and the question is, Is the Congress going to address it? Is Congress going to deal with it? Does the Congress think it is an important issue? If it thinks it is an important issue, then we ought to be debating it on the floor of the Senate; we ought to make time and allow for discussion. That is what the Senate is about. I hope, I say to the Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader, I hope very much that we continue to push and continue to press, and we will not take no for an answer. We want this piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate for full and open debate so we can resolve this issue on behalf of all Americans. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to join this tribute to Kent Hall, following on the remarks offered by Senator Harkin from Iowa and my colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota. I knew Kent Hall, who was Senator Conrad's chief of staff, for 12 years in the time that he had served North Dakota and served with Senator Conrad. I was shocked to learn Saturday morning that Kent had died Friday evening in his sleep. I know how difficult it is for his family right now. I know how difficult it is for Senator Conrad and his staff, the extended family that worked with Kent Hall and served with him in the Senate. We lead busy, fast-paced and challenging lives here. Kent Hall was a part of that. We, from time to time, I suppose, forget to tell people what an integral role people like Kent Hall play to make this system of ours work. Kent Hall was smart, was tough, and yet had a great sense of humor. He was a quick study. He worked very hard. He always had a twinkle in his eye. He was quite an extraordinary man. He always, to me, had a certain dignity about him as well. When Kent was around in a meeting or with a group of people, he was always the one who had that certain sense of dignity. Yes, he had the sense of humor, but he had a sense of dignity that was unusual as well. The last time I talked to Kent, I guess it was a couple of weeks ago before the August recess, and what we talked about then was what he talked about a lot--it was his children. We talked about our children. He leaves behind two young children. And we talked about them. I know how difficult this must be now for his widow and his children. Kent Hall was a young man with a young family. He had an enormous commitment to that family. He also had a commitment to our State and to our country. That commitment was a commitment that was manifested every day in every way in his public service to all of us. So today I express my sorrow and my sympathy for the passing of Kent Hall. Emily Dickinson wrote a poem called ``Because I could not stop for Death.'' I want to read two verses of it. Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me; The carriage held but just ourselves And Immortality. We slowly drove, he knew no haste, And I had put away My labor, and my leisure too, For his civility. It is very, very hard, for those of us who have seen too many at too young an age leave us, to understand any civility in a death like the death of Kent Hall. But I hope that his contributions, as a family man and as a public servant, will be known to his family and his children by these remarks and by other words that will be spoken in the coming days. His children, I believe, are age 4 and 2. And I hope they will someday understand that their daddy was a very special man. Their father contributed to their family and their country in a very important way. And those of us who were privileged to call him a friend will miss him dearly. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I want to make some remarks on the subject of the farm crisis that exists in North Dakota and other parts of the country. North Dakota is faced with a combination of collapsed grain prices and crop disease. This has produced a farm crisis that is very, very serious and to which this Congress must respond. In my home State of North Dakota, net farm income has dropped 98 percent in 1 year. That's right; a 98-percent drop in net farm income in 1 year. Ask yourself what would be the result for you, your neighbor, or your community, if you experienced a 98-percent drop in net income? Many third and fourth generation farmers have been unable to get an operating loan this season due to low grain prices. They have had so many auction sales on North Dakota farms that they have had to call retired auctioneers back from retirement to handle the auction sales. Every one of these auction sales represents a family farmer who has worked hard, and invested everything they have, to run a family farm. And then they discover they can't make it. I'd like to share it with you a poem written by Luella F. Hermanson of Hampden, North Dakota. She describes what the farm crisis has done to her community and what it will do to ours unless we take decisive action. When the Farmers All Shut Down (By Luella F. Hermanson of Hampden, North Dakota) They're selling out my neighbor It's his auction sale today Life's hard out in the country We can't farm the good old way Remember neighbor helping neighbor It's not like that anymore We're hanging on by just our boot straps Wondering what we have in store What will our city cousins do When the farm boys move to town Will there be jobs for all of them When our farms are all shut down Who'll buy that big machinery Standing idle on the lots And the gas and parts and fuel oil They might have to close their shops Who'll buy the fertilizer and the spray to kill the weeds They'll probably close the diner There'll be no one left to feed There'll be no grain to borrow on So the bank will close its door The insurance boys will duck and run When we can't pay them anymore Who'll buy the tractors, plows and trucks Or plant the barley, beans and wheat Who'll pick the rocks and mow the roads And smile in dark defeat Who'll spend forty bucks an hour To fix a combine in the fall And his last red cent to save his land When his back's against the wall Yes they're selling out my neighbor Heard he's moving into town What will happen to this land we love When farmers all shut down.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I indicated to the majority leader, it is my intent to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the bill which provides $500 million in agricultural indemnity payments which was agreed to as an amendment to the agricultural appropriations bill, and the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DORGAN. I simply wanted to make the point that the reason I asked the unanimous consent request really has nothing to do with the request by others to advance the Agriculture Marketing Assistance Act, or AMTA payments as they are called, under the Freedom to Farm bill. I didn't object to that. If that will help a producer here and there, that is good. Anything that helps gets assistance into the pockets of family farmers, I am for that. So I didn't object to that. I told folks this evening I wouldn't object to that. But, this is not new money at all. This is just a payment that they are supposed to get later on. Now, they might get this payment earlier or at least they will have the option to get it earlier. I was thinking about the farmer who testified yesterday at our farm policy hearing. This was young fellow from South Dakota who testified. When he talked about putting the crop in this spring, he could barely continue. His chin was quivering, and he had tears in his eyes. He talked about having to find something on his farm to sell in order to get the money together to put in his crop. Then things went bad for him and he was out of money again. He had to sell some of the feed for his cattle that he put aside for this winter. He didn't have any money. He talks about the need to feed his kids, the need to provide for his family. He could barely continue because he was talking about something that is much more than a business. It is a way of life. This was life, and his dream. I had a call from a guy in Sarles, ND. You could hear the pain in his voice. Everything that he has, everything that he owns, everything that he aspires to, everything that he has fought and worked for in his family is on the line. He said, ``You know, I'm going to harvest my barley and I'm going to have to take it right to the elevator. Prices have crashed, I am not going to get anything for it. I don't have a choice. I have to pay back my lender, and feed my family.'' The pain was so evident in his voice. He was asking, ``What can I do? Is there help someplace?'' The point of both of these producers is that they didn't cause these conditions. They didn't cause the Asian financial crisis that has caused our exports to start to slow down and prices collapse. They didn't cause the crop diseases that have devastated these crops. They didn't cause the price collapse of wheat and barley. It is not their fault. The question for this country is whether we are going to have any family farmers left. And, does anybody care about that? This Senate did something that I thought was the right thing to do. We passed an indemnity program of $500 million. Frankly, that is going to have to increase substantially. Since that time, in the last several weeks, we have learned that the Texas cotton crop is gone, with over $2 billion in damage. In Louisiana and Oklahoma, the agricultural economies are devastated. So the $500 million is going to have to be increased. The point is, while I think advancing the Freedom to Farm payments is fine, I think we can do more by deciding to take the $500 million we have already agreed upon and advance that and move that out. The earliest farmers are going to get these indemnity payments would be perhaps November or December. Tonight, we could have taken that $500 million and made it available. We could have sent it to the House, and let them pass it. Next week, or the week after, the Department of Agriculture could have begun to try to deal with this deepening farm crisis. This isn't an ordinary crisis. I have mentioned before that we have so many auction sales of family farms in North Dakota that they were calling auctioneers out of retirement to handle the sales. You can go to those sales and see these little tykes wearing their britches and cowboy hats with hair in their eyes, wondering why mom and dad have to sell the farm, and why their life is going to change. You can see the husband and wife with tears in their eyes, watching people bid on their machinery. Most of the equipment is old because they can't afford the new machinery. You can see the pain being suffered out in the great plains. I am disappointed tonight. I wish we could have done what we have already decided to do. We should make $500 million available now. We should do it sooner rather than later. We will come back in September and have another significant debate. Advancing the Freedom to Farm payment is fine. It may help some producers. If it does, I am for that. But we must do more. This Congress must decide that family farmers matter. This isn't just about dollars and cents, or about economic theory. With all that is going on in agriculture, including unfair trade, unfair competition, a choked market, monopolies up and down and sideways, and everywhere, we are losing something very important. We are losing family farmers. Then all the yard lights will be turned off on these farms. You will fly from California to Maine and you won't see family farms because agri-factories don't have yard lights. They plow as far as you can plow for 10 hours, and they plow back. There will be nobody living out in the country. That seed bed of family values that existed and that nurtures us from small towns to America's cities, and which has always refreshed this country will be gone. Then somebody will scratch their head and say: What happened to our country? What will have happened is that this Congress didn't understand, as some other countries do, that family farmers make a difference in our national life. It is not just dollars and cents. It is a lot more than some economic calculation made by those who give us a bunch of constipated theories about agriculture. This is everyday living by farm families that just ask for an even chance to make a decent living. Yet they are confronted in every direction by monopolies, price collapse, disease, and then by a Government that says they want to pull the rug out from under them on price supports. What if the Government tried to do that on the minimum wage? They would say, ``Let's reduce the minimum wage to $1 an hour and call it freedom to work.'' It's the same thing. The fact is, we must come back here in September and have a real debate about real policies that will give family farmers in this country a real opportunity to make a decent living. They are the economic all stars in this country. Make no mistake about it. This country will make a serious mistake if it turns its back to the economic opportunity that ought to be offered to the family farmers in this country. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. Almost a month ago.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a new and disastrous farm crisis is roaring through the Upper Midwest. Family farmers are under severe assault and many of them are simply not making it. It's not their fault. It's just that the combination of bad weather, crop disease, low yield, low prices and bad federal farm policy is too much to handle. Under the current federal farm law there is no price safety net. Farmers are--as they were in the 1930's --at the mercy of forces much bigger than they are. The exodus occurring from family farms in the Upper Midwest is heart- breaking and demands the immediate attention of this Congress. We need to address this problem both within the farm program and in other policy areas as well. For example, Mr. President, there's a fundamental flaw in the tax code that we need to fix. It adds insult to injury for many of these farmers. You see, too often, these family farmers are not able to take full advantage of the $500,000 capital gains tax break that city folks get when they sell their homes. Once family farmers have been beaten down and forced to sell the farm they've farmed for generations, they get a rude awakening. Many of them discover, as they leave the farm, that Uncle Sam is waiting for them at the end of the lane with a big tax bill. One of the most popular provisions included in last year's major tax bill permits families to exclude from federal income tax up to $500,000 of gain from the sale of their principal residences. That's a good deal, especially for most urban and suburban dwellers who have spent many years paying for their houses, and who regard their houses as both a home and a retirement account. For many middle income families, their home is their major financial asset, an asset the family can draw on in retirement. House prices in major growth markets such as Washington, D.C., New York, or California may start at hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a result, the urban dwellers who have owned their homes through many years of appreciation can often benefit from a large portion of this new $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion. Unfortunately this provision, as currently applied, is virtually useless to family farmers. For farm families, their farm is their major financial asset. Unfortunately, family farmers under current law receive little or no benefit from the new $500,000 exclusion because the IRS separates the value of their homes from the value of the farmland the homes sit on. As people from my state of North Dakota know, houses out on the farmsteads of rural America are more commonly sold for $5,000 to $40,000. Most farmers plow any profits they make into the whole farm rather than into a house that will hold little or no value when the farm is sold. It's not surprising that the IRS often judges that homes far out in the country have very little value and thus farmers receive much less benefit from this $500,000 exclusion than do their urban and suburban counterparts. As a result, the capital gain exclusion is little or no help to farmers who are being forced out of business. They may immediately face a hefty capital gains tax bill from the IRS. This is simply wrong, Mr. President. It is unfair. Federal farm policy helped create the hole that many of these farmers find themselves in. Federal tax policy shouldn't dig the hole deeper as they attempt to shovel their way out. The legislation that I'm introducing today recognizes the unique character and role of our family farmers and their important contributions to our economy. It expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of principal residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively engaged in farming prior to the sales. In this way, farmers may get some benefit from a tax break that would otherwise be unavailable to them. I fully understand that this legislation is not a cure-all for financial hardships that are ailing our farm communities. This legislation is just one of a number of policy initiatives we can use to ease the pain for family farmers as we pursue other initiatives to help turn around the crippled farm economy. Again, my legislation would expand the $500,000 tax exclusion for principle residences to cover the entire farm. Specifically, the provision will allow a family or individual who has actively engaged in farming prior to the farm sale to exclude the gain from the sale up to the $500,000 maximum. What does this relief mean to the thousands of farmers who are being forced to sell off the farm due to current economic conditions? Take, for example, a farmer who is forced to leave today because of crop disease and slumping grain prices and sells his farmstead that his family has operated for decades. If he must report a gain of $10,000 on the sale of farm house, that is all he can exclude under current law. But if, for example, he sold 1000 acres surrounding the farm house for $400,000, and the capital gain was $200,000, he would be subject to $40,000 tax on that gain. Again, my provision excludes from tax the gain on the farmhouse and land up to the $500,000 maximum that is otherwise available to a family on the sale of its residence. We must wage, on every federal and state policy front, the battle to stem the loss of family farmers. Tax provisions have grown increasingly important as our farm families deal with drought, floods, diseases and price swings. I believe that Congress should move quickly to pass this legislation and other meaningful measures to help get working capital into the hands of our family farmers in the Great Plains. Let's stop penalizing farmers who are forced out of agriculture. Let's allow farmers to benefit from the same kind of tax exclusion that most homeowners already receive. This is the right thing to do. And it's the fair thing to do.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a new and disastrous farm crisis is roaring through the Upper Midwest. Family farmers are under severe assault and many of them are simply not making it. It's not their fault. It's just that the combination of bad weather, crop disease, low yield, low prices and bad federal farm policy is too much to handle. Under the current federal farm law there is no price safety net. Farmers are--as they were in the 1930's --at the mercy of forces much bigger than they are. The exodus occurring from family farms in the Upper Midwest is heart- breaking and demands the immediate attention of this Congress. We need to address this problem both within the farm program and in other policy areas as well. For example, Mr. President, there's a fundamental flaw in the tax code that we need to fix. It adds insult to injury for many of these farmers. You see, too often, these family farmers are not able to take full advantage of the $500,000 capital gains tax break that city folks get when they sell their homes. Once family farmers have been beaten down and forced to sell the farm they've farmed for generations, they get a rude awakening. Many of them discover, as they leave the farm, that Uncle Sam is waiting for them at the end of the lane with a big tax bill. One of the most popular provisions included in last year's major tax bill permits families to exclude from federal income tax up to $500,000 of gain from the sale of their principal residences. That's a good deal, especially for most urban and suburban dwellers who have spent many years paying for their houses, and who regard their houses as both a home and a retirement account. For many middle income families, their home is their major financial asset, an asset the family can draw on in retirement. House prices in major growth markets such as Washington, D.C., New York, or California may start at hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a result, the urban dwellers who have owned their homes through many years of appreciation can often benefit from a large portion of this new $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion. Unfortunately this provision, as currently applied, is virtually useless to family farmers. For farm families, their farm is their major financial asset. Unfortunately, family farmers under current law receive little or no benefit from the new $500,000 exclusion because the IRS separates the value of their homes from the value of the farmland the homes sit on. As people from my state of North Dakota know, houses out on the farmsteads of rural America are more commonly sold for $5,000 to $40,000. Most farmers plow any profits they make into the whole farm rather than into a house that will hold little or no value when the farm is sold. It's not surprising that the IRS often judges that homes far out in the country have very little value and thus farmers receive much less benefit from this $500,000 exclusion than do their urban and suburban counterparts. As a result, the capital gain exclusion is little or no help to farmers who are being forced out of business. They may immediately face a hefty capital gains tax bill from the IRS. This is simply wrong, Mr. President. It is unfair. Federal farm policy helped create the hole that many of these farmers find themselves in. Federal tax policy shouldn't dig the hole deeper as they attempt to shovel their way out. The legislation that I'm introducing today recognizes the unique character and role of our family farmers and their important contributions to our economy. It expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of principal residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively engaged in farming prior to the sales. In this way, farmers may get some benefit from a tax break that would otherwise be unavailable to them. I fully understand that this legislation is not a cure-all for financial hardships that are ailing our farm communities. This legislation is just one of a number of policy initiatives we can use to ease the pain for family farmers as we pursue other initiatives to help turn around the crippled farm economy. Again, my legislation would expand the $500,000 tax exclusion for principle residences to cover the entire farm. Specifically, the provision will allow a family or individual who has actively engaged in farming prior to the farm sale to exclude the gain from the sale up to the $500,000 maximum. What does this relief mean to the thousands of farmers who are being forced to sell off the farm due to current economic conditions? Take, for example, a farmer who is forced to leave today because of crop disease and slumping grain prices and sells his farmstead that his family has operated for decades. If he must report a gain of $10,000 on the sale of farm house, that is all he can exclude under current law. But if, for example, he sold 1000 acres surrounding the farm house for $400,000, and the capital gain was $200,000, he would be subject to $40,000 tax on that gain. Again, my provision excludes from tax the gain on the farmhouse and land up to the $500,000 maximum that is otherwise available to a family on the sale of its residence. We must wage, on every federal and state policy front, the battle to stem the loss of family farmers. Tax provisions have grown increasingly important as our farm families deal with drought, floods, diseases and price swings. I believe that Congress should move quickly to pass this legislation and other meaningful measures to help get working capital into the hands of our family farmers in the Great Plains. Let's stop penalizing farmers who are forced out of agriculture. Let's allow farmers to benefit from the same kind of tax exclusion that most homeowners already receive. This is the right thing to do. And it's the fair thing to do.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. You did call within the last hour or so. I indicated to you there was no problem with this provision, and I do not object to this provision. But I do want to make the point that the Senate has debated and passed an emergency provision calling for $500 million of indemnity payments. That is the only new money available. It is the only new money around in the appropriations process. If it is completed by October 1, then perhaps we may get money into the pockets of some farmers. We have seen prices collapse even further in recent weeks. It may get money into the hands of some farmers, perhaps in October-- unlikely--perhaps November, maybe December. My proposition is that to the extent that we have already debated this subject, the Senate, by 99 to nothing, has said we have an emergency in farm country. They have already passed a $500 million indemnity payment program. It makes eminent good sense to me that we would be able to pass that indemnity program this evening and move it to the House. Does the House want to deal with it? I don't know. But they won't have an opportunity to deal with it in any timely way if we don't proceed. I have no objection at all to what the Senator is requesting. I simply ask that he consider, and we consider, taking the $500 million we have already decided upon and see if we can't move that to the hands of family farmers, many of whom are desperately strapped for cash. As soon as the Senator has completed getting his unanimous consent and as soon as I am able to get the floor, I intend to ask unanimous consent the Senate will proceed to the bill providing the $500 million of agriculture indemnity payments, which was agreed to as an amendment to the agricultural appropriations bill, and the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. If someone objects to that, fine. But I hope they would not object to it. We will not object to this. I think this may help. I hope you will not object to that, because I know it will help. It would help in a more timely way than will be the case if we wait until after recess, and farmers have to wait until November or December. Perhaps we can help farmers to get some help from that provision earlier.

Mr. DORGAN. I do not intend to object. I have no quarrel with this provision that is being proposed tonight.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to express my concern about the lack of funding within the Senate's Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 for schools that have been heavily impacted by their proximity to military installations. Fortunately, the House bill does include $35 million for this purpose, and I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be working through my position on the House-Senate conference committee to see that this funding is preserved. This extra assistance is needed by schools on or near our military bases because their tax base is eroded by the large amount of federal land taken off the tax rolls. In addition, military personnel often are not required to pay local taxes, which support the schools, even if they have children enrolled in those schools. The DOD funding would be aimed at those schools most in need of the extra aid--school districts whose student population is made up of at least 20 percent military children. This funding is sufficiently important to the quality of life of military personnel and their families that both the House and Senate fiscal year 1999 Defense Authorization bills authorize $35 million for this purpose. It is my strong hope that the Congress will see fit to include this funding in the final version of the Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the Managers of this bill, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for the fine job they have done on this important legislation. It has been my great pleasure to work with the Managers as a member of the Defense Subcommittee, and they do a masterful job of balancing many competing needs and interests in this bill. Mr. President, I would like to call the Chairman's attention to one key provision in the committee report. In the Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation section, the committee has included report language regarding the importance of anti-corrosion technologies to the Department of Defense. As the report says ``New anti-corrosion technologies are needed to prevent corrosion, reduce corrosion-related costs, and extend the life of aircraft in a manner compatible with environmental concerns.'' North Dakota State University has a long history of excellence and nationally-recognized expertise in polymers and coatings, and has received significant competitively-awarded funding to investigate new methods of fighting corrosion. Last year DoD awarded a $2 million competitive grant to NDSU for this purpose. Mr. President, given NDSU's expertise in this area and DoD's experience working with NDSU, does the Chairman believe NDSU would be well-qualified to compete for this work?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for one additional question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I inquire of the Senator from South Dakota, the representation was made by the author of the amendment, after the vote, ``We now have some expression of who in the Senate wants to abolish the marriage tax penalty.'' We have had other votes on that constructed in different ways, constructed in ways that don't use the Social Security trust funds in order to provide this kind of tax relief. But, could one also not make the point that those who voted against tabling were casting a vote to violate the Budget Act? If, in fact, the amendment as offered violated the Budget Act, could one not construe a vote in opposition to tabling to say, by those who cast that vote, we would like to violate the Budget Act here? I mean, there are all kinds of motives, I suppose. I don't want to ascribe motives to anyone. But it seems to me, to have a tabling vote here on the floor of the Senate and then decide by that tabling vote who cares or does not care about the marriage tax penalty, and then withdraw the amendment and then stand up and say, ``Now we know who cares and doesn't care,'' it seems to me you could also put different interpretations on that same vote. Perhaps the people who decided they didn't care whether it violated the Budget Act cast a vote to say we didn't care about the Budget Act. Would that be a fair construction?

Mr. DORGAN. I am trying to understand the difference. We voted on a tabling motion. We went actually to a recorded vote on a tabling motion on this amendment. Then, immediately after the tabling motion failed, the author of the amendment said he was going to withdraw it because apparently it would be blue-slipped and, therefore, inappropriate, and, second, violates the Budget Act. What is the difference between voting to table and then being the author and deciding it violates the Budget Act and it is also a blue- slip problem, and therefore I am going to withdraw it? Is there any distinction between a vote to table and a decision by the author to withdraw, in the Senator's opinion?

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Kansas makes a fair point. I think he makes his point with some credibility on the issue of the marriage tax penalty. I understand that. I think most people find most Members of the Senate agree with him. When, in the Tax Code, you have a penalty with respect to the income tax for certain married couples, we ought to do something to address that. I just observed, however, that the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Missouri offered an amendment that addresses it and then withdrew the amendment because it apparently violates the Budget Act and would be blue-slipped in any event because a revenue measure of this type must be advanced first in the House of Representatives by the Ways and Means Committee. The reason I stood, following the vote on tabling this amendment, was I did not want this to be interpreted as the Senator from Kansas was interpreting it, that this tabling motion was a description of who in the Senate cares about the marriage tax penalty. I think there are many Members of the Senate who agree with the Senator that the marriage tax penalty ought to be eliminated. It ought to be eliminated. We ought to find a way to do that. We ought to find the right way to do that. The question is, When you eliminate the marriage tax penalty, as the Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee indicated, where do you make up the revenue? Exactly how do you construct something that makes up the revenue you lose when you eliminate the marriage tax penalty? I think it is a worthy effort for this Congress and future Congresses to embark upon. But as we have discussed before, the proposition that was offered this morning would lose a substantial amount of revenue we now have. The proposal did not offer methods by which that would be made up. I think we have to do that. That is precisely why it violated the Budget Act. I have heard a great deal of debate by a number of Senators here on the floor--the Senator from Kansas, from Missouri, and others. As the Senator knows, there have been other proposals to address the marriage tax penalty on the floor of the Senate that have also gotten a number of votes, and I have voted for addressing that issue, because I think it is a worthy issue to address. So I just thought it was curious that we had a proposal that I think costs over $100 billion or so that had a blue slip problem and a problem of violating the Budget Act, that we debate it and then we have a tabling motion, and we allow people to vote not to table it, and then stand up and say those who voted not to table it care about dealing with the marriage penalty and, by inference, those who voted to table it do not care. Then the vote is over and it is not tabled, it is still prevailing here in the Senate, still pending as the Senate business, and then it is withdrawn precisely because it has the problems those who voted to table it allege that it had. I just want to make the point, you will find support and we will find support, I think, when you and a number of us together address the marriage tax penalty in a thoughtful way and in a way that does not bust the Budget Act and does not create a blue slip and does not propose solutions for which there are not revenues in order to make up the shortfall. I appreciate the attention of the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Missouri. Let me end by saying, again, it is a worthy subject for the Senate to consider, but we cannot consider it in ways that violate the Budget Act. Several Senators addressed the Chair.