Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I will not object. But my understanding of the UC was that the Senator from New York would be recognized to propound a unanimous consent request at which point the floor would be open. I guess I understand the Senator from New York intends to retain the floor until 11 and simply by consent allow others to speak for a certain amount of time.

Mr. DORGAN. He certainly has that right. Under the unanimous consent agreement he has the right of recognition. So I will not object.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my understanding is that the order by unanimous consent at 10 o'clock required that Senator D'Amato be recognized to propound a unanimous consent request; not that Senator D'Amato be recognized between 10 and 11 o'clock. I am wondering. Am I correct on that? Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Snowe, Senator Kerrey, and myself, Senator Dorgan, I send an amendment to the desk.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, did the Senator from Arizona note Senator Murray in his list of amendments?

Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me add my congratulations to Senator Collins on the work that she has done, and certainly to the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings. Senator Hollings has asked me to be present for him. He is tending to other Senate business at the moment. This is an important piece of legislation. We appreciate very much the bipartisan work that was done to bring it to the floor of the Senate. I would like to just, for a couple of moments, give an overview of where we are and then bring it to this piece of legislation--and I will be rather brief--after which I will be interested in hearing from the Senator from Maine as well. The breathtaking changes in telecommunications and in the telecommunications industry in recent years have been quite remarkable. No one could have anticipated what we would see in technology and in opportunities that exist from the changing technology. I, in a speech some while ago, held up a vacuum tube, a small vacuum tube that we are all familiar with, and then I held up next to it a little computer chip that was about one-half the size of my little fingernail, and I said, ``The little computer chip equals 5 million vacuum tubes.'' Sometimes we forget to equate what is happening in these little chips and in their power and in their capability, but it is really quite remarkable what has happened to speed, storage density, memory and all the other things that relate to these breakthroughs. The CEO of one of the large companies, IBM as a matter of fact, in a report to the annual meeting that I had read, I guess, about 6 or 8 months ago, talked about the research they are doing in the area of storage density, which kind of relates to all this technology. And I was struck by what he said. He said we were on the verge of a breakthrough with respect to storage density, such that the time was near, he thought, when we would be able to store all of the volumes of work at the Library of Congress, which represents the largest volume of recorded human history anywhere on Earth--we would be able to store all of that, 14 million volumes of work, on a wafer the size of a penny. Think of that--carrying around in your pocket to slip into a laptop a wafer the size of a penny that contains 14 million volumes of work. Unthinkable? No. It is where technology is heading. In my little high school, where I graduated in a class of nine, we had a library the size of a coat closet. That high school now has access to the largest libraries in the world through the Internet. All of this is made possible by the breakthroughs in technology and the telecommunications industry and the development of the information superhighway. Many of us are very concerned, as public policy develops in all of these areas, that we make certain that the benefits of all of this are available to all Americans, that the on-ramps and off-ramps for the information superhighway, yes, stop even in my hometown, in my small county. So as we develop legislation such as the Telecommunications Act, which Congress passed a couple years ago, and try to evaluate what kinds of policy guidance we can give as this industry grows, it is very important that we do this right. I might say, as I begin, that I am concerned about universal service, about the availability of universal service--especially in telephone service--in the years ahead, in the high-cost areas and rural areas of our country. I hope very much that the Federal Communications Commission will make a U-turn with respect to some of the policy decisions they have made which I think threaten universal service in the future. There is still time for them to make some recalculations and some different policy judgments. I have met with Chairman Kennard and others, and I hope very much that they will make some different judgments than what we saw from the previous Chairman of the FCC, which I think will implement the Telecommunications Act, which is very detrimental to high-cost areas and rural areas of the country. We are going to debate that more in the months and years ahead. Let me talk specifically about the telecommunications area that does work and works well. One of the areas that works and provides the fruits and benefits of competition to virtually every American is the competition in long-distance telephone service. This is an area--long- distance telephone service--in which there is robust, aggressive competition. Anywhere you look, you will find a telephone company engaged in selling long-distance service. If you don't think so, just sit down for dinner some night, and somebody will give you a cold call from an office somewhere in a State far away, and they will be trying to sell you their long-distance service. They apparently only dial at mealtime--at least into our home. But I think every American is familiar with these telephone calls--``Won't you take our long-distance service?'' As I indicated, up to 500 companies are robustly competing for the consumer dollar. What has happened to the cost of long-distance service? It has gone down, down, down. That represents the fruit and the benefit of good competition. But one other thing has happened with respect to this competition. As is the case where there is robust competition, there are also some bad actors. In this case, ``bad actors'' means that people get involved in this business of trying to sell a long-distance service to a customer that already has a long-distance provider but decides they are going to sell it the shortcut way--they are not even going to ask the consumer whether they want to change providers. Through sleight of hand, they are going to engage in a technological stealing of sorts; they are going to switch someone's long-distance service and not tell them about it. That is, in fact, stealing; that is, in fact, a criminal act. One might ask, is that happening a lot? Yes, it is happening a lot. Here is a story about the king of slammers. I was trying to evaluate where this word ``slammer'' came from. Frankly, nobody knows where the word ``slammer'' came from. But the definition of ``slammer,'' as it is used in this context, is someone who goes in and changes someone else's long-distance carrier without telling them and without authorization. It is stealing. It is criminal. The king of slammers is Daniel Fletcher. Let me cite him as an example. The head of the FCC, William Kennard, said, ``This is truly a bad actor. He is a felon who clearly had intent to violate the FCC's rules, and we're hitting him hard.'' But not too hard, because they haven't found him. He changed a half-million people's long-distance carrier, and he, apparently, made $20 million. Is that stealing? Yes. Is that petty cash? No; that is grand theft. The fact is, that goes on across the country all too often. Yesterday, Mr. President, on the floor, I held a clipping from the newspaper in North Dakota. It just so happened that, coincidentally, the North Dakota papers had a story that said that the North Dakota Attorney General had been the victim of slamming. Someone had decided to change the attorney general's long-distance carrier without asking her. Now, am I suggesting that slammers are stupid? Well, not always. They certainly seem to steal a lot of money. But is it a stupid slammer that decides they are going to change the long-distance service of an attorney general of a State without telling them? Yes, that is pretty stupid. But this is not about being stupid or funny, it is about stealing. The hearings that were held by Senator Collins, and others, and the work done has been to respond to a very real problem that is significant. Now, the FCC complaints about this slamming--the unauthorized change of a long-distance service--increased from 2,000 five years ago, to 20,000 last year. The FCC indicates that there is a substantial amount of slamming going on, evidenced by the complaints to the FCC. The GAO did a report that, in fact, was rather critical of the FCC's enforcement on these slamming issues, saying that the antislamming measures ``do little to protect the consumers from slamming.'' We have a problem; yet, we are not able to solve that problem with the regulatory agency, either because it is not doing what it ought to do, it doesn't exert enough energy, or perhaps it doesn't have enough authority. But whatever the reason--and it might be a combination of all of those reasons --this problem is not going away; it is growing much, much worse. In 1997, with 20,000 complaints, the FCC obtained only 9 consent decrees from companies nationwide that paid a total of $1.2 million in fines because of slamming. In the same year, California, by comparison, suspended one firm for 3 years because of slamming, and fined it $2 million, and ordered it to repay another $2 million to its customers. One State, the State of California, did far more than the FCC. I hope that this piece of legislation we will pass will give the FCC the authority, energy, and resources to join us and do what we must do to respond to this slamming. Now, let me read what the legislation does. It strengthens the antislamming laws and requires the FCC to establish the following consumer protections: One, it prohibits a carrier from changing a local subscriber's long- distance service, unless the carrier follows the minimum verification procedures prescribed by the FCC--sets up specific procedures that must be followed. Two, it requires carriers to keep an oral, written, or electronic record of a subscriber authorizing a change in their carrier. Three, it requires a carrier to send a written notification to the consumer informing them of the changed service within 15 days of the change in service. Four, it requires carriers to provide consumers with the information and procedures necessary to file a complaint at the FCC. Five, it requires carriers to provide slammed customers with any evidence that authorized that change. It allows the complaint process to impose stiff penalties, up to $150,000, and a range of other important issues that I think will give us much more enforcement against this slamming process and the slamming practice across the country. Once again, let me conclude by saying that this is not some minor nuisance issue; this is an issue in which some have taken advantage of consumers who are the victims. It is true that the company that has been changed is also a victim, a company that was serving a customer and is now not serving the customer. But the ultimate victim here are the consumers who only understand later after they have taken a look at a bill somewhere and discover they are the ones that have been victimized. This bill also, incidentally, would prohibit some other practices that are deceptive. There are a whole range of practices that have allowed people or persuaded people to sign a coupon in exchange for having an opportunity or a chance to get something, or get a free door prize, or get some sort of free gift. So you sign this little coupon. On the bottom in tiny little script it tells you that despite the fact that you have never read it, you have just signed away and changed your long-distance carrier. That is cheating. Where I come from, and I think where all of us come from, when you cheat and steal, somebody ought to be after you to get you. That is exactly what we want to have happen with respect to the enforcement against this kind of behavior and practice that is making victims of millions of Americans all across the country. This one fellow took one-half million households, changed their long- distance carrier, got $20 million into an income stream into shell corporations that he set up, and now he is gone. What does this mean? It means that one-half million Americans were cheated. This fellow stole from not only the companies but especially the Americans who expected to have a long-distance service they had contracted for and discovered someone else changed it. Let me again, as I began, say thank you to Senator Collins to Senator McCain, and to Senator Hollings and so many other. I am a cosponsor of this, as are a good number of our colleagues in the Senate, because it is good legislation and will do the right thing for consumers in this country. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I understand the minority leader, he is talking about the desire to bring to the floor of the Senate for a vote the patients' bill of rights. As the Senator knows, we have every day brought to the floor of the Senate a discussion about the specific problems that patients are encountering out in this country who have been hurt by managed care institutions or organizations and find that their health care decisions are all too frequently not made by the doctor in the doctor's office or in the hospital but by some insurance accountant someplace 500 or 1,000 miles away. And the result has been catastrophic for some of the patients in this country who have not been able to get the health care they need. As I understand it, this piece of legislation talks about the ability to get the health care you need from the doctor you choose, the ability to get to an emergency room when you need one, and a full range of similar concerns that affect patients. Is it the request of the minority leader that we have an opportunity to vote on that legislation this morning? And if not this morning, at least at a time certain at some point this year? As I understand it, there are some who don't ever want us to have an opportunity to deal with this issue, because the insurance industry and some others, who certainly don't want anybody tampering with the circumstances at all, prefer we not vote on this. But the American people understand we have a serious problem here that needs to be addressed. Is it the intention of the Senator to get a vote on this today or at some specific point in the future?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I certainly share the sentiment offered by the Senator from Arizona about the excitement of the Internet, the fascinating, remarkable growth of the telecommunications industry and all that it means for the future of our country and the world. Things are moving so quickly, and changing so rapidly, it is just breathtaking and very hard to keep up with. From a public policy standpoint, regarding the kind of legislation that will be brought to the floor of the Senate at some point--for example, such as the Internet Tax Freedom Act--it is very important that we understand exactly what we are doing and what the consequences of what we are doing might be now and in the future. I would say the increased commerce over the Internet, that is increasing at a very dramatic pace, illustrates that there is nothing at the moment, nothing anywhere that I am aware of at the moment, that impedes the transaction of commerce on the Internet. The very growth of that commerce suggests there are no impediments. One way to do commerce in this country is to set up a web page and advertise and sell books, automobiles, travel services, or whatever it is you want to advertise over the Internet. That is one way to do business. Another way to do business is to rent a storefront someplace to get some inventory moved in, hire some people, open the door and put ``Open for Business'' and invite customers to come in and look at your merchandise and sell merchandise that way. Still another way is to have your merchandise in a warehouse somewhere and send a catalog through the mail and do business through mail-order catalogs. If the Congress decides to change the state and local Tax Codes related to all of those different ways of doing business, it is very important that we not create a circumstance where one way of doing business has preference over another way. I certainly hope that whatever we do to those involved in Internet transactions, we will say, ``To whatever extent you are advantaged by this new legislation, the Main Street businesses will be similarly advantaged.'' The Internet Tax Freedom Act is very controversial in my judgment. The concerns Governors and many others have about what impact it might or might not have on the State and local revenue bases are serious. The Internet Tax Freedom Act is a very significant piece of legislation and it is very controversial. Another issue that the Senator from Arizona mentioned is the slamming issue. For those who are not familiar with slamming, it refers to the unauthorized practice of a company changing a consumer's telephone exchange service or telephone toll service. In other words, a company says if you are using one long distance service, we are going to change that and your new long distance carrier is XYZ, and all of a sudden you begin getting bills from XYZ when, in fact, you never authorized changing your long-distance carrier. That is called slamming, and it is a growing, continual problem in this country. The FCC had about 20,000 complaints of slamming in the last year. We understand the ``king of slammers'' identified by Chairman Kennard of the FCC is a man named Daniel Fletcher. GAO investigators allege that Fletcher switched at least a half million customers' long-distance service without their knowledge or consent. I noticed a story in the paper this past weekend in North Dakota that one of the victims of slamming was the attorney general of North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp. ``Heitkamp Victim of Phone Billing Scam'' reads one headline. This company that was slamming would have been well-advised to stay away from the attorney general of that State. I am confident that the North Dakota attorney general is on the case. She is aggressive and tough and will get to the bottom of who is involved in this slamming. To all the slammers out there I will say, ``Senator McCain, I and others will bring a piece of legislation to the floor that will attempt to shut the door on slamming. But, slammers might want to stay away from attorneys general and law enforcement officers, because it is against the law. We hope, prior to the legislation being passed, we can count on State authorities and the FCC to take appropriate action to levy fines and other penalties against those who are involved in this kind of activity. There are a number of other issues we will discuss when we talk about slamming. I expect the U.S. Senate will pass this legislation by a wide, wide majority. It is a good piece of legislation. I compliment Senator McCain for bringing it to the floor. Only because the majority leader and minority leader have not talked and reached agreement on the question of procedure we are not able to proceed at this point. But I expect in the coming hours, when Senator Lott and Senator Daschle will find a mechanism by which we are able to consider this legislation. I just received a note from someone else, from another Senator in the Chamber that says, ``I've been slammed twice.'' I don't know if that Senator wishes to be identified. In any event, it is not something that only relates to attorneys general. I have not been slammed once, and I am not looking forward to the first slam. Hopefully, before that happens, this kind of legislation can pass. Those who have been victims will be victims no more, and those who have been involved in slamming will begin to pay a significant price for criminal behavior. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I feel very comforted knowing that the Senator from Utah is a cochair of the task force along with Senator Dodd. I compliment the majority leader, Senator Lott, and Senator Daschle for putting together a commission of the type they have established. I know, serving as ranking member of the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee of which Senator Bennett is chairman, that he has, in every circumstance, at every hearing, gone through in some detail this Y2K problem. He knows it well and is very concerned about it. As he properly indicates here in the Senate, this doesn't just deal with Federal agencies. In fact, that is only a very small fraction of what can be affected, unless this problem is dealt with as a nationwide priority. But I wanted to just say, as I have said before on the floor, I think Senator Bennett is one of the finest people serving in this body. He has devoted a lot of attention to this issue. If this is not handled properly all across this country in both the public and private sector, this could have catastrophic consequences. If handled properly, we probably won't even know that this situation came and went. But I just want to tell you that I feel comforted by his leadership. I thank him very much for all of the attention and time he has devoted to this. He and Senator Dodd will spend a substantial amount of time between now and the year 2000 on this very significant issue.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I do not think the question here is about the particular issues the Senator proposes to bring to the floor. In fact, most of them will have rather wide support. The question deals with the conditions under which they will be brought to the floor and on the restriction on amendments. As the Senator knows, that is a product of having to consult with other members of the caucus and the consultation between the majority leader and the minority leader. I know they are visiting, and I would expect and hope that that is resolved. But until it is resolved we must object, and I appreciate very much the understanding of the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DORGAN. And I shall object, but under my reservation let me point out, as I think the Senator from Arizona pointed out, no such agreement has been reached between the majority and minority leaders on these pieces of legislation dealing with the procedures under which they will be considered. All of the unanimous consent requests provide a limited time and limited amendments. I think in most cases only the managers' amendment would be allowed, which would then preclude amendments from other Members of the Senate. It is my hope that some kind of an agreement will be reached by the majority and minority leaders, but until such an agreement is reached, I am constrained to object, so I do object.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Yes. Certainly.

Mr. DORGAN. I would respond to the Senator by saying that I think, and have always thought, that our foreign policy must always have a human rights component to it. That is, it seems to me, what we owe to others around the world who struggle for freedom. And I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Minnesota in this matter. He is once again today calling the Senate's attention to the importance of human rights.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much what the Senator from Minnesota had to say about the dissidents in Indonesia who, at their own peril and at the risk of their lives, are saying that they would like the right of self-determination and they would like freedom. I was in China the day Wang Dan was sentenced to 11 years, I believe, in prison in China for criticizing his Government. And I saw Tiananmen Square, I say to the Senator, and I thought about that young man in the white shirt. You remember the picture during the demonstration in Tiananmen Square when the tanks came to break up the demonstrators and this young man in a white shirt walked out and stood in front of this column of tanks in front of the first tank and forced the tank to change course. Then he moved over again in front of the tank. I watched that. I thought, What on Earth must be inside of this young man? What kind of courage must it take to say, ``I am going to stand in front of a tank and risk my life for freedom''? That is what the Senator from Minnesota is talking about with respect to the price that is paid by, in many cases, young people, and older people as well, who demonstrate to resist regimes that are oppressive and regimes that tend to try to squelch freedom of speech. So I think this country should always be vigilant about the need to stand up for those around the world who do that at their own peril. They are asking for only what we understand in this country makes a good society. That is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of movement.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak first about the Congressional Budget Office, which last week released its monthly budget projection. And I noticed that this projection, this estimate, received prominent coverage in the Washington Post and in other major daily newspapers around the country last week. Actually, those papers may have mentioned this CBO report twice. First there were news stories saying says that the Congressional Budget Office now predicts that in this fiscal year --1998--we will have a budget surplus, they say, of anywhere from $43 billion to $63 billion. And in the next 24 and 48 hours, there was a spate of stories about a group of people telling us what they would like done with this alleged surplus. Just as quick as you can light a candle around here, any discussion about a surplus brings people who want to spend it or give it back in tax breaks. And very quickly they clustered around that flame of the surplus and told us what they thought should be done about this. I would like to simply say that the Congressional Budget Office does us no service when it gives us half the story. The Congressional Budget Office is a fine organization, and I mean no disrespect to the work of CBO or the people who do that work. And CBO is right to say that we have made substantial progress dealing with fiscal policy, and especially the Federal budget deficit in recent years. For a number of reasons, our deficits have shrunk dramatically. We have made remarkable progress. But we are not there yet, and we will not have and do not have a surplus this year. We will continue to have a deficit this year, albeit a much smaller deficit--shrunk dramatically from its previous size. We are continuing to make great progress, and we will have a surplus soon, but we will not have a surplus this year. Let me explain why. On April 2d of this year, this Senate passed a budget. I might add that this House still has not yet figured out what it wants to do on a budget. But in the Senate budget resolution, which billed itself as providing a budget surplus, on the fourth page, I believe, it admits that the actual deficit for fiscal year 1998 is going to be $95.6 billion. That is very much at odds with the Congressional Budget Office, which says, ``Gee, things are rosy, and they are getting better. In fact, we will have a very significant surplus.'' And we have people slicing up this estimate of a surplus, figuring out how to give it back or what to do with it when, in fact, our budget resolution says we are going to have a deficit this year of $95.6 billion. The key to the difference is in the Budget Act. The Budget Act says-- this is law--``The concurrent resolution''--that is, the budget resolution--``shall not include the outlays and revenue totals'' of the Social Security system. In other words, we have enshrined in the law the principle that the revenue of the Social Security system is dedicated tax revenue going into a trust fund to be used only for Social Security. And the revenue will be used for Social Security--because it will be needed in the long term. We all understand that. But this provision of law says that you can't use that revenue, you can't bring it out of that trust fund over here to the budget and say, ``By the way, we have all of this revenue we are using over here and the budget looks great.'' The law says you cannot do that. But the Congressional Budget Office report just ignores that law. They don't admit they re using the Social Security trust fund, but they, in fact, do it because that is the way they report. They say, well, we are going to have a $43 billion to $63 billion surplus in this year. How do they get that? By taking the Social Security trust fund money, adding it in as other revenues and saying, wow, we have a surplus. And so we have folks who are going to spend this alleged surplus, or create some new tax breaks to give back the supposed surplus before a surplus really exists. Now, my own vote on the surplus, if one develops, is to say let us begin to reduce the Federal debt just a bit. If for 30 consecutive years you increase the Federal debt, it seems to me that when times are good and you begin to have some significant progress in fiscal policy and you begin to run a real surplus, the prudent thing would be to begin to reduce the Federal debt. So that would be my vote. But we are not there yet. And I certainly do not support those who rush to this flame now and say, well, if CBO says there is a surplus, here is how we ought to deal with it: Let's provide some more tax breaks. Let's provide some more spending. What about let's do some honest accounting? What about let's say that the CBO, when it reports, if it reports, it must follow budget law and report to the American people the facts, not just half the story? So I come to the floor not to say there is not a parade going on--I guess there is a parade--but they are celebrating the wrong thing. Let us celebrate some success. We have had some major progress in fiscal policy. That progress is due in no small part, in my judgment, to the President's 1993 recommendations on a new fiscal policy. That plan required some effort to vote for it, but we did, and things are better. I would also say some restraint on spending by the Republicans and Democrats here in the Congress and also a growing economy have also helped our budget picture. All of that contributes to a better story on fiscal policy. But we are not at a real surplus yet. And the Congressional Budget Office knows better, as do the newspapers that print this. In fact, I sat with a reporter last Thursday just briefly just to say hello. We happened to see each other accidentally, and I said I read the story about the supposed budget surplus. I said, ``You know that's not in surplus.'' Well, that reporter understood about unified budget surpluses and on- budget deficits. But the fact is that CBO was reporting half the story last week, and the press dutifully reports it the way CBO says it, and CBO and everybody here knows they are wrong. So I hope those who began last week to talk about what they want to do with all this alleged surplus, and who will likely waste this week trying to figure it out, I hope they will take a look at page 32-33 of The Economic and Budget Outlook produced by CBO in January. There--not in the monthly review, but in the annual January report--CBO has a line that describes what the real deficit is. But that line is nowhere to be found on their monthly reports that they put on the Internet that resulted in last week's press statements. I hope CBO will change that, and put the information about the real state of our budget in its monthly reviews. And I hope the press picks up on that information and starts reporting it. That information will add enormously to our budget discussions this summer. Then we might have an honest debate on whether there really is going to be a surplus at the end of this fiscal year, a surplus that can be used for purposes other than Social Security. I don t think there will be, and I look forward to making that point. A Return-Free Tax System Mr. President, one additional point. Last week we passed a major IRS reform bill. I voted for the bill because I think it has many provisions that ought to be very helpful for taxpayers dealing with the IRS. I have some continuing concerns about other parts of the bill. For example, I m concerned about the method used to pay for it. It was a sleight-of-hand kind of method and needs to be changed in conference. Having said all that, in this Chamber last week I complimented Senators Roth, Moynihan and others for their leadership in writing some of these provisions. I want to point out a significant provision in the bill that requires the Treasury Department to study and develop procedures for implementing a return-free tax system beginning after the year 2007. I have described to my colleagues a piece of legislation that I have worked on for many months that could provide a return-free tax system for up to 70 million Americans. While I am very encouraged by what Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan have done and fully support it--and think they have advanced this issue some, I have also visited with both, encouraging them to work with us in conference to move up this 2007 date. The fact is we could much more quickly go to a return-free income tax filing system for anywhere from 50 to 70 million Americans. It is not a very complicated thing to do. It would be relatively easy to say to most Americans with incomes mostly from wages and salaries--and who have only a modest amount of non-wage income such as interests, dividends and capital gains--that they could decide never to file a federal income tax return again. These taxpayers would make a few simple adjustments on their W-4 form at work, and their employers would withhold their precise tax liability over the year using a table provided by the IRS. This withholding now becomes their exact tax liability for the year. No return needs to be filed. They don't have to go looking for records. They don't have to rush to the post office on the night of April 15 to get a postmark. It becomes the exact tax liability. And, in most cases, these taxpayers won't have to worry about an audit. Two additional adjustments would be put on the W-4, which all employees now file with their employer, to capture the per child tax credit that Congress adopted last year and a tax deduction for home ownership. These adjustments are provided by the IRS on a table. These adjustments would be no more difficult for the employer. But from that process, I believe that 50 to 70 million people could be relieved of the obligation to file an income tax return. Some 365 million hours of work now done by taxpayers to prepare returns and get them filed could be eliminated. How much paper for 70 million tax returns and supporting materials gone? And we could do this in the next year or so. I rise today only to say I am very pleased that Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan included this return-free approach in the Senate s IRS restructuring bill. I would just commend to them that a piece of legislation I have written would advance that very quickly. We could do it in a year or so. More than thirty countries around the world use some form of return-free filing system--no paper. Employees do not have to file a return. Some of the countries, incidentally, have a reconciliation by the taxing agency, while others mirror my approach where you simply retool the W-4 form to make it slightly more accurate. It isn't much longer and is no more difficulty for the employer, but my plan relieves probably 50 to 70 million people from having to file an income tax return. I think if we did that, it would be a giant step towards real tax simplification for millions and millions of Americans. There are others in Congress who say, well, what we want to do is get rid of the entire tax system, which is fine. If one believes we should do that, then with what do you replace it? They say, well, a flat tax so that Donald Trump pays the same tax rate as the barber in my hometown. I don't happen to share the belief that would be a fair system. I think maybe Donald--maybe I shouldn't use his name, but he seems to have his name on everything. He probably would not mind my using it. I think Donald might want to pay a slightly higher rate than the barber in my hometown; or others say, well, let's have a national sales tax. A study by a tax expert at the Brookings Institution says if you have a national sales tax, the rates would probably be over 30 percent, and then add the State and local taxes, and that would be on almost everything. So say you would like to buy a house and here is the price we have agreed on, and then have someone tell you, oh, yes, you have a 37-percent sales tax applied to that price, 30 percent Federal, 7 percent State and local. Others say a value-added tax. There are all kinds of ideas for how to change the tax system. I would say it is unlikely that we are going to see the current income tax system completely obliterated. I expect that in some form it will be around for some while, and if it is, I would very much like to see it radically simplified for most of the American people. It is hard to have a one-size-fits-all. I understand that some people have very complicated income situations; they have a lot of income from different areas and a lot of expenses from other areas. I think in some cases those are very complicated; it is very hard to simplify that. But for the vast majority of the American people, working families whose main income comes from a wage or salary and who have very little other income, this income tax system need not be a headache. It could be radically simplified. It could be done very quickly. We could move to a return-free system, as I indicated, for up to 70 million Americans and we could do it in a year. I very much hope--with the cooperation of my friend, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, and Senator Moynihan--we can make some progress on that. As I close, let me also say, as I did last week, they have provided significant leadership, I think, to pass the legislation we did through the Senate last week. I once again commend both of them for that leadership. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I make a point of order a quorum is not present.