Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona whose vigilance brought this matter to light. This project is opposed by those who are supposed to carry it out, the Army Corps of Engineers, the chief engineer of which, last August, said this project does not meet environmental standards. It does not meet the cost-benefit analysis standards that are applied to every other water diversion project across the country. So that North Dakota solution is, I am sorry to say: Well, let's waive the standards and waive the tests. So we would not have a cost- benefit analysis requirement. They do one, but it would not account for anything. And they pass this problem on to Minnesota and to Canada, both of which oppose this project. The Canadian Government is opposed, the State of Minnesota is opposed, the EPA is opposed, the Army Corps of Engineers is opposed, the major environmental groups in this area are opposed, everyone is opposed to this project, except for the State of North Dakota, which wants to pass this problem on to Minnesota. That is why I ask my colleagues to join in opposition. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I understand I have a minute remaining.

Mr. DAYTON. When I finish my thought. In terms of the two States, I cannot explain why, since we do share a common border, our departments of natural resources view it differently, although the interests are different. But I know for a fact that part of that is because of the severe flooding which we shared in 1997 in East Grand Forks and Grand Forks and Fargo and Moorhead. But also, as I indicated, in the last 2 years Minnesota farmers have been devastated in the northwestern part of the State and the cities there have been flooded after the river diverts from the North Dakota- Minnesota border. We have circumstances that are different; therefore, the interests of our States differ. That is exactly the reason why Minnesota and North Dakota and Canada should be working cooperatively on this and not have one State go off on its own trying to finagle something which I think undermines the trust and working relationship. I will yield for a question.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, then I will entertain questions from my colleagues from North Dakota in return. I will point out, I was not here in 1999, but my two colleagues from North Dakota were. I do not know the circumstances under which this language was adopted. That requires the Army Corps of Engineers to undertake exactly the same kind of cost-benefit analysis for this project as it does for others. If that was not applicable then, I do not know why that was not raised in 1999 or 2000 or 2001. Contrary to what the Senator implied, the language in this amendment does not set up a different standard. It weighs the standard. It simply says the Army Corps of Engineers will describe the cost benefit. It is not going to have any standard it has to meet whatsoever other than the fact that that analysis is done.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I object.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Missouri. I appreciate the Senator staying here to engage my colleague from Minnesota and myself in this colloquy. I accept as a matter of good faith the sincerity of the words expressed on the floor and also in conversation with the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens from Alaska, that this full funding will be sought in conference with the House. In a moment now of suspension of disbelief and cynicism, I will trust and believe that actually will occur. I must say, nothing I have seen so far in this process has persuaded me that this result is going to occur. Obviously, what happens here is decided by the actions of the 100 of us, and the House the same. Before my distinguished colleague from Minnesota was sworn in last November, Senator Wellstone's immediate successor, Senator Dean Barkley, in his 2 months as a Senator from Minnesota, distinguished himself in a number of ways. One of them was getting the support of the administration and the House-Senate Democratic and Republican caucuses and leaderships to a $10 million authorization for this center that will be named after and honor the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. Ten million dollars is certainly real money, but in the scheme of a $690 billion bill, it is a tiny speck. As we heard from Senator McCain earlier, there are projects of far less merit that have been funded at significantly higher amounts than this particular project. It is hard to listen to all of that and see how some of these projects that are not supported get in because a certain somebody is in favor of them. On a project such as this, which the entire Senate, only 2 months ago, voted unanimously to authorize at $10 million, I understand full well that is not an appropriation, but it was certainly the expectation when this vote was taken that $10 million was going to be needed and provided in a way that the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone could be recognized and acted upon and, in the spirit in which this project was passed, with unanimous, bipartisan support, that amount would be realized. Then we come back and hear at the beginning of this week that, in fact, only $3 million out of the $10 million was appropriated. Senator Coleman, to his credit, worked very hard this week within his caucus to raise that amount, I am told, to a commitment to $5 million. I know how difficult it is for a freshman Senator in the first 2 years to get $2 million in this process. So I give the Senator from Minnesota high praise for getting $2 million in his first month. Nevertheless, that is only half of the commitment. To me, it is shameful that we are quibbling over this kind of funding for something that the entire Senate ought to be doing because they said they would do it, because it is the right thing to do. Paul Wellstone was my friend of 22 years and colleague for the last 2 years. I would feel the same way if it were a member of the other caucus and if it were somebody whose ideological views were totally the opposite of mine. This man gave his life in the service of his country. His wife lost her life, and his daughter lost her life. There but for the grace of God go any one of us who get on these planes and fly around. For the Senate to have made a commitment and then failed to honor that commitment in full without any of this finagling is disgraceful. To pretend that 5 is really 10 and half is really whole and we will get it next time or the next round in the process when, with our own opportunity right here in front of us, we failed to do so--again, I will trust, but as President Reagan said: Trust, but verify. The State of Minnesota will be watching this process in conference to see if in fact we can count on the words that have been expressed here tonight. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, 19 Minnesota counties were declared disaster areas last year because of severe flooding. Many of those same counties were devastated the year before. In fact, many of the same farmers lost their entire crops in both of the last 2 years. That is real disaster. Whether it is a record drought in South Dakota or flooding in Minnesota, we know the vicissitudes of Mother Nature are ones that no farmer can predict and no farmer, in this case, can survive. Last year the Senate bill contained disaster assistance. We understood that it did not make sense to have a bill where if you suffered some loss--you were going to get a lower price--you were going to get a countercyclical payment, but if you suffered complete loss, you would get nothing at all. But the House would not agree to that because the administration was opposed to it. I was confused for a while about the administration talking about ``compassionate conservative'' because I thought they meant both the words together. But I have concluded they mean one or the other. If it is tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, then they are very compassionate. If they are talking about farmers who are on the brink of disaster, they are very conservative. For big corporations and, indeed, new tax shelters, they are very compassionate. For unemployed workers, they are very conservative. In this case, we need more compassion. And we can also be conservative because, in fact, this package is eminently affordable. The distinguished new chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee was quoted as saying that the figure he had received from the administration, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in terms of the savings in this year's farm bill, was $5 billion. That is almost the entire cost of Senator Daschle's amendment. Certainly, in the context of everything else that is being proposed by the administration, an additional $1 billion for farmers who are destitute would be very much affordable. I might also say this is economic stimulus. This is money that will go in the pockets of farmers who will go out literally the next day to pay for goods and services in their communities. Those dollars multiply four times through the communities in Minnesota, twice more through the State, and once more at the Federal level. This, along with extending unemployment benefits, is the kind of economic stimulus that really gets the country moving forward and helps people who need a helping hand. It does everything that the Government ought to be doing for the people who need it rather than the people who do not. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 80.

Mr. DAYTON. As the Senator knows, a lot of small- and medium-sized businesses don't have the options. Certainly the average American citizen paying taxes doesn't have the option to move to Bermuda or the Cayman Islands and not claim any tax liability whatsoever. It is shameful that those most profitable that can most easily afford to pay their share are avoiding them entirely and dumping that burden on everyone else. As the Senator said, this would be one small step in the right direction of returning to an ethic where those who are making profits pay their taxes. If we all do that in a fair way, then everybody's taxes go down. If somebody is avoiding taxes, then somebody else's taxes go up. I thank the Senator again for his support and assistance with this matter. I know in this matter that Senator Paul Wellstone could not have stood alone last year, and the Senator from Nevada was with him shoulder to shoulder every step of the way. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is absolutely correct about the price we pay when these companies avoid their share of taxes. The Tax Notes journal estimated over $100 billion in corporate profits now go untaxed because of these offshore tax evasions. Even 20 percent, the tax rate on that, which is below the corporate rate but after deductions and exclusions probably is close to what tax-paying corporations pay, that would cover the cost of the 40-percent funding for special education that Senator Dodd was discussing with Senator Gregg a few minutes ago. There it would be right there. We could keep that promise to Minnesota's schoolchildren, Nevada's schoolchildren, and all the schoolchildren in the school districts across this country. It would not require raising anybody's taxes by a single dollar, if those who were evading them would pay their share. I think it is shameful. I think it is un-American, unpatriotic, and it ought to be illegal. I particularly look forward to a discussion at some point, as I said, about legislation I intend to introduce that says if corporate executives and corporate boards are going to send these corporations overseas, they should go overseas themselves. If they think it is such an advantage to be in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda they should go live there themselves. If they are going to renounce their corporate citizenship, let them renounce their own citizenship as well, and they will suffer the consequences maybe then they will stop and think about how fortunate we are to live in this country and how it is only by all of us doing our fair share that this country keeps strong and secure.

Mr. DAYTON. If I may inquire of my friend, the Senator from Nevada, regarding the last statement, can the Senator think of anything that would be a better tribute to Senator Wellstone's memory than passing this amendment and insisting the Senate conferees uphold it and the President sign it into law?

Mr. DAYTON. I would, also.

Mr. DAYTON. They would be right back, as the Senator said, where they were before, headquartered in the United States of America, paying taxes on their U.S. profits rather than creating a sham. These are not real entities; these are fictions just for the sake of tax evasion.

Mr. DAYTON. Come home.

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is correct. The Senator was instrumental in working with Senator Wellstone on the floor and myself to craft this amendment. It is narrowly focused.

Mr. DAYTON. President Bush's announced tax proposal expressed concern over the double taxation of corporate profits. I wish he would express an equal concern about the nontaxation of corporate profits. It is estimated that currently less than half of corporate profits are taxed in this country. There are various tax and accounting gimmicks that have permitted very profitable companies to not only have no tax liabilities but even receive multimillion-dollar refunds from the American taxpayers. Take CSX, for example, which until recently has been headed by the President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow. In the last 4 years, CSX reported U.S. profits of $934 billion, and they paid zero in U.S. corporate taxes. In fact, they received rebates of $164 billion. I will repeat that. They made $934 billion in U.S. profits, paid no taxes, and received a $164 billion refund. That is certainly not double taxation. That is not even single taxation. That is no taxation, and it is a bigger winner on Wall Street to inflate corporate profits at the expense of the rest of American taxpayers. It is one of the reasons corporate income tax has been a declining share of Federal tax revenues in the last 40 years. In 1960, corporations paid 23 percent of all Federal tax revenues. Last year, that dropped to 9.5 percent, less than half of the share that corporations paid 40 years ago. It used to be the ethic that business, being an integral part of the communities in which they operated, drawing their lifeblood from the American people and from the democratic and capitalist structures which hallmark this country, had an obligation to give something back. Not any longer. An Ernst & Young partner recently noted: A lot of companies feel that the improvement on earnings is powerful enough that maybe the patriotism issue should take a back seat. One of the most outrageous and obscene tax avoidance schemes is many United States companies are setting up sham corporate headquarters offshore in places such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. These tax- free havens permit the total avoidance of U.S. taxes on foreign operations and, in some cases, on domestic operations as well. In the nonpartisan journal, Tax Notes, a recent calculation was made that from 1983 to 1999 the profits that the largest 10,000 U.S. corporations claimed to have earned in these tax havens increased by over 7 times. Today, that means well over $100 billion in corporate profits are shifted each year from the United States to these tax-free havens--no taxes paid on them and, as I have said before, sometimes even refunds. It is bad enough those companies can evade U.S. taxes but some even continue to secure very large and lucrative contracts with the Federal Government, even in the areas of national defense and homeland security. Evidently these corporations--the executives who run them, the boards that oversee them--see nothing wrong with profiting off of the U.S. Government and then avoiding paying taxes on even those profits in order to support our Government. That is why last summer my colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, had amended the 2002 Defense appropriations bill to bar such corporate tax dodgers from being awarded Government defense contracts. Then he successfully had amended the homeland security bill to bar those companies from getting contracts with the new Department of Homeland Security. Both of those amendments passed the Senate seemingly unanimously on voice votes. However, after the November election, and after Paul Wellstone's tragic death, the final version of the homeland security bill gutted the Wellstone amendment. Senator Wellstone's amendment, which he crafted with the cosponsorship of the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, provided a narrow exception to this prohibition. That was if the President of the United States certified to Congress that it would be necessary for our national security. When the bill came back this provision was gutted and the substitution made known to those who had to vote on it that day. They stuck in language that would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant waivers for national security or economic benefits. Just about any kind of economic benefit whatever could be waived and argued by the Secretary: preventing loss of Government, preventing the Government from incurring any additional costs, anything and everything that you could contrive, you could avoid if you could pay a high-priced Washington lobbyist $1,000 an hour or more, euphemistically called government relations. No doubt those waivers would be granted and the legacy of my colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, would be obliterated by waves of waivers, which is why we need more Paul Wellstones in Washington. To honor Senator Wellstone's memory, I proposed this amendment, which I called the Senator Paul Wellstone corporate patriotism amendment. It reinstates the Wellstone language to the Homeland Security Act. It says, once again, corporations that renounce their American citizenship and have moved offshore to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government will not get business contracts from the Government, at least not for homeland security projects. My language makes it as forceful and explicit as possible. It states that the President may waive subsection (A) of the prohibition if the President certifies the waiver is essential to national security. Frankly, I cannot see any reason there should be waivers granted in this section. That is the least we can do for the memory of Paul Wellstone. That is the least we can do for our country. Frankly, most U.S. corporations, as most American citizens, are law abiding, patriotic, responsible, and willing to do their job, including pay taxes, to keep this country strong. No one likes paying taxes. Americans have been antitaxation since colonial days, since the Boston Tea Party, since the rallying cry, ``taxation without representation is tyranny.'' But taxes are necessary for our country's survival. We have increased our military spending by 23 percent in the last 2 years, with bipartisan support regarding the President's request, and we have new efforts underway in homeland security costing an additional $37 million. Some Members last week thought we should be spending even more in that area. We have Operation Enduring Freedom still underway in Afghanistan and a military buildup now for possible war against Iraq. That has to be paid for with our tax dollars. It does not include highways and airports, sewer water systems, public education, student aid, health care, nursing homes. This always depends, again, on Americans paying taxes. It ought to depend on everyone paying their fair share of taxes--individuals and corporations. When someone avoids paying their fair share, then everyone else has to pay a higher share. When one corporation making profits can shift its profits overseas and avoid paying taxes, everyone else has to pick up that part. I wish we could establish again in this country the ethic that tax avoidance is unpatriotic. It is un-American, especially at a time such as this with national mobilization, especially in this country since September 11 of 2001, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. If the executives and board members of these expatriated companies can so shamelessly abandon their U.S. corporate citizenship, maybe they should forfeit their citizenship as well. I intend to introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would require just that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This tax cheating will destroy the great golden goose of America. We send our young men and women overseas to risk their lives or even give their lives for our country, while men--mostly men and a few women--send their corporations overseas to evade taxes. What a disgrace. What a shame that the greatness of this country is being undermined by placing profits and corporate and individual greed over the best interests of the United States of America. This amendment meant a lot to my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone. He was surprised but delighted that the Senate, on two occasions, passed this amendment by a voice vote. Had Paul lived, I would have enjoyed watching the fur fly that day in November when this bill came back to the Senate with this provision gutted. But Paul is not here, so it is incumbent upon all of us to take that stand for him and with him. If it was good enough last year to be passed by the Senate, I cannot imagine why anyone who supported it then would change their mind now. In fact, there is even more reason than before to stand behind America, stand behind the belief that we all contribute our share, do our share, and no one avoids their share. That is what makes us successful.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 15 minutes to make my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DAYTON. I share the view of the Senator. For someone making more than $1 million, if they can't live on what they are making, they should not come to the rest of taxpaying Americans and ask for these handouts. Most Minnesotans don't make as much in income as these tax breaks for these people who are making these amounts. The facts speak for themselves. The facts tell the American people who gets everything out of this bill and who gets very little.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator for bringing these facts to our attention. Regarding the last chart the Senator had, regarding the benefits for those making more than $1 million, as I recall, isn't that in addition to a tax cut that was about $45,000 per multimillionaire in 2001? So this $88,000 would be in addition to the $45,000 a year tax cut those individuals received 2 years ago?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.