Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
September 26, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 8560 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY TAX CODE AND THE HIGH-TECH ECONOMY
TESTIMONY-BY: JOSEPH MIKRUT , TREASURY TAX LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL JOSEPH MIKRUT
BODY:
September 26, 2000
TREASURY TAX LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL J00MUZUKRUT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE WAYS AND
MEANS SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT Mr. Chairman, W. Coyne, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss
with you today the tax rules governing depreciation, research
and experimentation, and workforce training in the context of the "new economy."
Over the past 20 years, the U.S. economy has changed significantly. New
industries have emerged, such as cellular communications and the Internet, and
the use of computers has revolutionized production techniques
and improved efficiency in more traditional industries, such as manufacturing.
In many industries these developments have increased the demand for more
highly-skilled workers who are more productive and better able to adapt to the
requirements of technological advances. In addition, access to
computers and the Internet has increased significantly,
creating opportunities to participate in the new digital economy. In view of
these economic changes, this hearing appropriately focuses on whether Federal
tax laws are keeping pace with the new economy. My comments today will focus on
the results of the Treasury Department's recent analysis of cost recovery
provisions in Report to the Congress on Depreciation Recovery
Periods and Methods. I will also review the tax treatment of research and
experimentation expenses and the tax treatment of the cost of maintaining a
skilled workforce. The Administration recognizes the importance of the research
credit for encouraging technological development and has supported its
extension. The Administration's FY 2001 Budget includes proposals that would
encourage individuals and businesses to undertake more education and training.
In addition, the Administration recognizes the need to ensure that residents of
inner cities and less affluent rural communities have full access to the
opportunities that symbolize the promise of the new economy. In that regard, the
Budget includes several proposals that will help bridge the digital divide. The
Treasury Depreciation Study The Tax and Trade Relief Extension
Act of 1998 directed the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a comprehensive
study of the recovery periods and depreciation methods under
section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code, and to provide recommendations for
determining those periods and methods in a more rational manner. The explanation
of the directive in the 1998 Act indicates that the Congress was concerned that
the present depreciation rules may measure income improperly,
thereby creating competitive disadvantages and an inefficient allocation of
investment capital. The Congress believed that the rules should be examined to
determine if improvements could be made. In developing its study, the Treasury
Department solicited and received comments from numerous interested parties. In
July, 2000 the Treasury Department issued its Report to the Congress on
Depreciation Recovery Periods and Methods. The Report
emphasizes that an analysis of the, current U.S. depreciation
system involves several issues, including those relating to proper income
measurement, savings and investment incentives, and administrability of the tax
system. The history of the U.S. tax depreciation system has
shown that provisions intended to achieve certain of these goals (for example,
attempting to measure income accurately by basing depreciation
on facts and circumstances) may come at the cost of other worthwhile goals (for
example, reducing compliance and raising administrative burdens). Accordingly,
the Report identifies issues relating to the design of a workable and relatively
efficient depreciation system, and reviews options for possible
improvements to the current system with these competing goals in mind.
Resolution of the issue of how well the current recovery periods and methods
reflect useful lives and economic depreciation rates would
involve detailed empirical studies and years of analysis. The data required for
this analysis would be costly and difficult to obtain. Thus, the Report does not
contain legislative recommendations concerning specific recovery periods or
depreciation methods. Rather, the Report is intended to serve
as a starting point for a public discussion of possible general improvements to
the U.S. cost recovery system. We look forward to working with the tax-writing
Committees in this important endeavor. Current Law The Internal Revenue Code
allows, as a current expense, a depreciation deduction that
represents a "reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear (including
a reasonable allowance for obsolescence) -(I) of property used in a trade or
business, or (2) of property held for the production of income. " Since 198 1,
the depreciation deduction for most tangible property has been
determined under rules specified in section 168 of the Code. The Modified
Accelerated Cost Recovery System, or MACRS, specified under section 168 applies
to most new investment in tangible property. MACRS tax
depreciation allowances are computed by determining a recovery
period and an applicable recovery method for each asset. The recovery period
establishes the length of time over which capital costs are to be recovered,
while the recovery method establishes how capital costs are to be allocated over
that time period. All tax depreciation is based on the
original, historical cost of the asset and is not indexed for inflation. The tax
code assigns equipment (and certain non-building real property) to one of seven
recovery periods that range in length from three years to 25 years. This
assignment typically is based on the investment's class life. Class lives for
most assets are listed in Rev. Proc. 87-56; others are designated by statute.
Generally, assets with longer class lives are assigned longer recovery periods.
For equipment, the MACRS recovery period depends either on the type of asset or
the employing industry. Certain assets, such as computers,
office furniture, and cars and trucks are assigned the same recovery period in
all industries. To a large extent, however, the current
depreciation system is industry based rather than asset based,
so that assets are assigned recovery periods determined by the employing
industry. The applicable method of depreciation depends on the
asset's recovery period. Assets with a recovery period of three, five, seven or
ten years generally use the double declining balance method. Assets with a
fifteen or a twenty-year recovery period generally use the 150 percent declining
balance method. Assets with a twenty-five year recovery period use the
straight-line method. Non-residential buildings generally are depreciated over a
39- year recovery period using the straight-line method. Nonresidential
buildings include commercial buildings, such as office buildings and shopping
malls, as well as industrial buildings such as factories. Residential buildings
(e.g., apartment complexes) are depreciated over a 27.5-year period using the
straight- line method. The recovery period for buildings is the same regardless
of industry. For tax purposes, a building includes all of its structural
components. The cost of these components is not recovered separately from the
building; rather these costs are recovered using the life and method appropriate
for the building as a whole. Principal Issues and Findings Based on available
estimates of economic depreciation, cost recovery allowances
for .most assets are more generous at current inflation rates, on average, than
those implied by economic depreciation. This conclusion,
however, is based on estimates of economic depreciation that
may be dated. The findings are discussed more fully in the Report. The
relationship between tax and economic depreciation changes with
the rate of inflation because current law depreciation
allowances are not indexed for inflation. Furthermore, the relationship between
tax depreciation and economic depreciation
varies substantially among assets. In general, accelerated cost recovery
allowances generate relatively low tax costs for investments in equipment,
public utility property and intangibles, while decelerated cost recovery
allowances generate high tax costs for investments in other nonresidential
buildings. These differences in tax costs, standing alone, may distort
investment decisions, discouraging investment in projects with high-tax costs,
even though they may earn higher pre-tax returns. The current
depreciation system is dated. The asset class lives that serve
as the primary basis for the assignment of recovery periods have remained
largely unchanged since 198 1, and most class lives date back at least to 1962.
Entirely new industries have developed in the interim, and manufacturing
processes in traditional industries have changed. These developments are not
reflected in the current cost recovery system, which does not provide for
updating depreciation rules to reflect new assets, new
activities, and new production technologies. As a consequence, income may be
mismeasured for these assets, relative to the measurement of the income
generated by properly classified assets. However, this does not mean that
depreciation allowances for assets used in newer industries or
for new types of assets in older industries are necessarily more mismeasured
than other assets. Current class lives have been assigned to property over a
period of decades, under a number of different depreciation
regimes serving dissimilar purposes, and with changed definitions of class
lives. The ambiguous meaning of certain current class lives contributes to
administrative problems and taxpayer controversies. The current system also
makes difficult the rational inclusion of new assets and activities into the
system, and inhibits rational changes in class lives for existing categories of
investments. Policy Options The replacement of the existing tax
depreciation structure with a system more closely related to
economic depreciation is sometimes advocated as the ideal
reform. While perhaps theoretically desirable, such a reform faces serious
practical problems. An approach based on empirical estimates of economic
depreciation is hampered by inexact and dated estimates of
economic depreciation, and by measurement problems that will
plague new estimates. Economic depreciation also requires
indexing allowances for inflation. Indexing raises several concerns, because it
would be complex and may lead to undesirable tax shelter activity. Another
concern is its revenue cost; indexing could be expensive at high inflation
rates. Because of other inefficiencies in the tax code, it is unclear that
switching to a system based on economic depreciation would
necessarily improve investment decisions. Switching to economic
depreciation could exacerbate some tax distortions at the same
time that it alleviated others. At current inflation rates, switching to
economic depreciation would raise the tax cost of most business
investment. Thus, it would reduce overall incentives to save and invest.
However, because current depreciation allowances are not
indexed for inflation, at higher inflation rates switching to economic
depreciation would prornote both lower and more uniform taxes
on capital income. Comprehensively updating and rationalizing the existing asset
classification system would address several income measurement and
administrative problems. For example, it would allow the proper classification
of new assets and assets that have changed significantly. Comprehensive reform
of MACRS recovery periods and methods would be possible once the class-life
system has been rationalized. These changes might move the system closer to one
based on economic depreciation, or perhaps provide a more
uniform investment incentive. A systematic overhaul, however, would be an
ambitious project. It would involve a significant (and costly) effort to collect
and analyze data in order to determine the class lives of new and existing
assets and activities. This would place a large burden on taxpayers required to
provide these data. It also may require granting Treasury the resources and the
authority to change class lives. Less comprehensive changes could improve the
functioning of the current depreciation system. These changes
might address narrower issues, such as the determination of the appropriate
recovery period for real estate, the possible recognition of losses on the
retirement of building components, or the reduction of MACRS recovery period
cliffs and plateaus. These and other issues are discussed in more detail in the
Report. For many industries, technological obsolescence may be a more important
factor in determining asset depreciation than physical wear and
tear. The decline in value of certain assets may be associated with the
introduction of newer, more technologically superior assets that may cause a
rapid disposition of assets of earlier vintage. Moreover, with increased
computerization, technological changes may be occurring more frequently than in
the past. In such circumstances the determination of appropriate tax
depreciation may raise the concern that current recovery
periods do not adequately reflect the rapid decline in value due to more
frequent replacement or to other factors. In particular, the development of
computers and the integration of computers
into the production process raises the concern that the current recovery period
is too long for computers and for production equipment that
increasingly relies on computer technology. Current law creates
a distinction between stand-alone computers and computers used
as an integrated part of technology. Stand- alone computers are
given a five-year recovery period. Computers used as an
integral part of other equipment are depreciated on a composite basis as part of
the underlying asset. Consequently, their costs generally are recovered over 5,
7, 1 0 or more years. Some commentators have suggested that, at least in their
initial applications, computers do not generally last for five
years. This suggests rapid obsolescence, which some commentators use to support
their argument that the five-year recovery period for computers
is too long. However, the useful economic life of a computer
does not end with its initial application. We are aware of no careful empirical
study that clearly substantiates the claim that computers have
a sufficiently short useful economic life to merit a shorter recovery period.
Some industry representatives also argue that computerized equipment may be
depreciated over too long a recovery period. Most class lives for equipment
pre-date the computer revolution. Thus, the class lives may
fail to reflect the relatively large cost share currently accounted for by
relatively short-lived computer components. A possible solution
to this problem would be to depreciate assets that encompass integrated circuits
or "computers" using the same 5-year recovery period available
to stand-alone computers. While eliminating the tax distinction
between integrated and stand-alone computers has merit, it also
raises two serious concerns. First, integrated circuits are widely used.
Consequently, depreciating over the same 5- year period all equipment that
contains a computer would effectively restore ACRS in that
virtually all equipment would receive the same (short)
depreciation write-off. Such a depreciation
system would not be neutral if, in fact, the equipment has different economic
lives- it would favor those industries whose equipment lasts longer than 5
years. Second, restricting the 5-year recovery period to the cost component
represented by computer technology would raise difficult
problems in tax administration. Separating the cost of the integrated
computer from the cost of remainder of the property would be
very difficult. Another issue arises out of the general difficulty the current
system has in establishing and modifying class lives. Because establishing and
changing class lives and recovery periods generally requires Congressional
action, it has proven difficult to keep the tax depreciation
system current. One possible solution would give Treasury the authority to
establish and modify class lives. To be effective, Treasury also would need the
additional authority to require taxpayers to collect, maintain, and submit the
data necessary to measure economic depreciation or useful
economic lives. The collection, maintenance and provision of these data,
however, would impose a heavy cost on taxpayers, and the data's analysis would
require significant Treasury resources. In addition, a piecemeal approach to
modifying class lives may not improve overall neutrality, because
depreciation rules would be established or modified only for a
subset of assets. Tax Treatment of Research and Experimentation Technological
development is an important component of economic growth and our ability to
compete in the global marketplace. However, firms may underinvest in research
because it is difficult to capture the full benefits from their research and to
prevent their costly scientific and technological advances from being copied by
competitors. Because other firms and society at large frequently benefit from
the spillover of research conducted by individual firms, the private return to
research often is' lower than the total return. In this situation, government
action can improve the allocation of resources by increasing research activity.
The tax rules provide a number of incentives for research and experimentation.
To encourage taxpayers to undertake research, and to simplify the administration
of the tax laws, special flexible tax accounting rules are provided for
investments in the research and experimentation. This treatment may be applied
to the costs of wages and supplies incurred directly by a taxpayer, to contract
research expenses for research undertaken on behalf of a taxpayer by another,
and to cost sharing research expenses resulting from technology sharing
arrangements with related foreign parties. Taxpayers may elect to deduct
currently the amount of research and experimental expenditures incurred in
connection with a trade or business, notwithstanding the general rule that
business expenses to develop or create an asset with a useful life extending
beyond the current year must be capitalized. Expensing of research and
experimentation expenditures provides a tax incentive for such activities and is
simple. To encourage investments by start-up companies in research, this
election to deduct research expenses may be applied prior to the time a taxpayer
becomes actively engaged in a trade or business. Under these rules, taxpayers
have the option to elect to defer and amortize research and experimental
expenditures over five years, and this election may be applied for all of a
taxpayer's research expenses or on a project by project basis. Pursuant to a
long- standing revenue procedure, the tax accounting rules applicable to
research and experimental expenditures also extend to software development
costs. As a further inducement to the conduct of research, a special five-year
depreciation life is provided for tangible personal property
used in connection with research and experimentation. The research credit
fosters new technology by encouraging private- sector investment in research
that can help improve U.S. productivity and economic competitiveness. For that
reason, the Administration has supported an extension of the research credit.
Under present law, the research credit is equal to 20 percent of the amount by
which a taxpayer's qualified research expenditures exceed a base amount. The
base amount for the taxable year is computed by multiplying a taxpayer's
"fixed-base percentage" by the average amount of the taxpayer's gross receipts
for the four preceding years. Except in the case of certain start-up firms, the
taxpayer's fixed-base percentage generally is the ratio of its total qualified
research expenditures for 1984 through 1988 to its gross receipts for those
years. The base amount cannot be less than 50 percent of the qualified research
expenses for the year. Taxpayers are allowed to elect an alternative research
credit regime. Taxpayers that elect this regime are assigned a three- tiered
fixed base percentage (that is lower than that under the regular research
credit) and a lower credit rate. A credit rate of 2.65 percent applies to the
extent that a taxpayer's research expenses exceed a base amount computed using a
fixed-base percentage of I percent but do not exceed a base amount computed
using a fixed-base percentage of 1.5 percent. A credit rate of 3.2 percent
applies to the extent that a taxpayer's research expenses exceed a base amount
computed using a fixed-base percentage of 1.5 percent but do not exceed a base
amount computed using a fixed-base percentage of 2.0 percent. A credit rate of
3.75 percent applies to the extent that a taxpayer's research expenses exceed a
base amount computed using a fixed- base percentage of 2.0 percent. Qualified
research expenditures consist of "in house" expenses of the taxpayer for
research wages and supplies used in research, and 65 percent of amounts paid by
the taxpayer for contract research conducted on the taxpayer's behalf (75
percent for amounts paid to research consortia). Certain types of research are
specifically excluded, such as research conducted outside the United States,
research in the social sciences, arts, or humanities, and research funded by
another person or governmental entity. A 20-percent research credit also is
allowed for corporate expenditures for basic research conducted by universities
and certain nonprofit scientific research organizations to the extent that those
amounts exceed the greater of two prescribed floor amounts plus an amount
reflecting any decrease in non-research donations. The deduction for research
expenses is reduced by the amount of research credit claimed by the taxpayer for
the taxable year. The credit is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2004. Tax
Treatment of the Cost of Maintaining a Skilled Workforce The skill of America's
labor force is crucial to maintaining the U.S. role in the world economy.
Well-educated workers are essential to an economy experiencing technological
change and facing global competition. Not only are better-educated workers more
productive, they are more adaptable to the changing demands of new technologies.
A highly skilled labor force makes possible technological change and its spread
throughout the economy. Current tax law encourages employers to invest in worker
training and individuals to invest in their own skills. Administration proposals
would create additional incentives. Under present law, employers deduct from
current income the costs of training and educating their workers, whether the
expenses are paid to third-party providers or to the firms' own employees who
provide formal or informal training. Education and training is deductible either
as a necessary business expense (section 162) if it is related to the employee's
current job position, or as employee compensation if it is unrelated. Although
education and training often contributes to a worker's human capital and
provides both the individual and the firm a return for years to come, such
expenses generally are deducted currently rather than capitalized and
depreciated over time as the benefit is produced. This expensing of education
and training treats investment in human capital more generously than most
investments in physical capital, which generally are capitalized and depreciated
over time. An investment in human capital would therefore be more attractive
after-tax than an investment in physical capital which produced the same pre-tax
return. For workers, employer-provided education and training is excluded from
their taxable income,andisthereforetax-
free,ifitmaintainsorimprovestheirskillsfortheircurrentjobs. Even if it does not
relate to their current jobs, the cost of education (but not graduate-level
courses) up to $5,250 per year provided by an employer under a section 127
education plan may be excluded from workers' taxable earnings. Educational
expenses paid by an employer outside of a section 127 plan are included in the
employee's gross income if the education (1) relates to certain minimum
educational requirements, (2) enables the employee to work in a new trade or
business, or (3) is unrelated to the current job altogether. Section 127, which
is scheduled to expire for courses beginning after December 31, 2001 lowers the
cost to the employee of education and training (relative to paying for it out of
after-tax income) and thereby encourages the worker to undertake more investment
in human capital. Education and training expenses incurred by a student (or by a
family on his/her behalf) generally are not provided special tax treatment.
However, an employee's education expenses needed to maintain or improve a skill
required for the taxpayer's current job and not reimbursed by an employer are
deductible to the extent that the expenses, along with other miscellaneous
deductions, exceed two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. In
addition, individuals may claim a nonrefundable Hope Scholarship credit of up to
$1,500 per eligible student for qualified tuition and related expenses incurred
during the first two years of post-secondary education. Finally, taxpayers may
claim a nonrefundable Lifetime Learning credit for post- secondary or graduate
education tuition and related expenses, up to a maximum credit of $ 1, 000 per
family ($2,000 after 2002). These education credits phase out for certain
higher-income taxpayers. The Administration's Budget for FY 2001 includes
several proposals to further encourage individuals and employers to undertake
more education and training. (1)The College Opportunity Tax Cut would expand the
current-law Lifetime Learning credit by increasing the credit rate (from 20
percent to 28 percent) and by raising the income range over which the credit
would be phased out (by $10,000 for singles and by $20,000 for joint returns).
It would also allow taxpayers to elect to take an above-the-line deduction for
qualified tuition and expenses in lieu of the Lifetime Learning credit. By
lowering the after- tax cost of post-secondary education, the College
Opportunity Tax Cut would encourage families and workers to invest in the
training and education they most need to prepare for and keep up with the
demands of the new economy. (2)The Administration would expand the section 127
exclusion for employer-provided education to include graduate courses beginning
after July 1, 2000 and before January 1, 2002. As the economy becomes more
technologically advanced, cutting-edge skills and information necessary for
continued growth are increasingly disseminated in graduate-level courses.
Graduate education is an important contributor to the human capital of the labor
force. The Administration also wishes to continue working with Congress to
extend section 127 for both undergraduate and graduate courses beginning after
200 1. (3)The Administration has proposed a tax credit for employer- provided
education programs in workplace literacy and basic computer
skills. This would allow employers who provide certain workplace literacy,
English literacy, basic education and basic computer training
programs to educationally needy employees to claim a 20-percent credit, up to a
maximum of $1,050 per participating employee per year. With the increasing
technological level of the workplace of the 2 1 " century, workers with low
levels of education will fall farther behind their more educated co-workers and
run greater risks of unemployment. Lower-skilled workers are less likely to
undertake needed education themselves, and employers may hesitate to provide
general education because the benefits of basic skills and literacy education
are more difficult for employers to capture than the benefits of job-specific
education. The proposed credit will serve those most in need of help in getting
on the first rung of the technological ladder. The Administration strongly
supports these three proposals as part of its overall efforts to maintain and
enhance the skill of the workforce. These proposals would encourage investment
in human capital so that workers, wherever they fall on the education spectrum
and wherever they are in their working years, can obtain and hone the skills
necessary for the economy now and in the future. Tax Proposals to Bridge the
Digital Divide Access to computers and the Internet and the
ability to use this technology effectively are becoming increasingly important
for full participation in America's economic, political, and social life.
Unfortunately, unequal access to technology by income, educational level, race,
and geography could deepen and reinforce the divisions that exist within
American Society. The Administration believes that we must make access to
computers and the Internet as universal as the telephone is
today - in our schools, libraries, communities, and homes. In recognition of the
importance of technology in the new economy, the President's FY 2001 Budget
includes a series of tax incentives to ensure that residents of disadvantaged
communities are able to develop the skills that will be essential for labor
market success in the coming years. This initiative, to help "bridge the digital
divide," consists of three components. The first initiative, discussed above, is
a credit to employers who provide training in literacy, basic education, and
basic computer skills to educationally disadvantaged workers.
The second measure, designed to encourage corporate donations of
computer equipment, builds upon and extends a similar provision
of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Under the 1997 legislation, a taxpayer is
allowed an enhanced deduction, equal to the taxpayer's basis in the donated
property plus one-half of the amount of ordinary income that would have been
realized if the property had been sold. This enhanced deduction, limited to
twice the taxpayer's basis, was made available to donors for a limited
three-year period. Without this provision, the deduction for charitable
contributions of such property is generally limited to the lesser of the
taxpayer's cost basis or the fair market value. To qualify for the enhanced
deduction, the contribution must be made to an elementary or secondary school.
The Administration proposal would extend this special treatment through 2004, as
well as expand the provision to apply to contributions of
computer equipment to a public library or community technology
center located in a disadvantaged community. The third component is a 50 percent
tax credit for corporate sponsorship payments made to a qualified zone academy,
public library, or community technology center located in an Empowerment Zone or
Enterprise Community. The proposed tax credit would provide a substantial
incentive that would encourage corporations to sponsor such institutions. Up to
$16 million in corporate sponsorship payments could be designated as eligible
for the 50 percent credit in each of the existing 31 Empowerment Zones (and each
of the 10 additional Empowerment Zones proposed in the Administration's FY 2001
Budget). In addition, up to $4 million of sponsorship payments would be eligible
for the credit in each Enterprise Community. This credit could induce over $1
billion in sponsorship payments to schools, libraries and technology centers,
providing innovative educational programs to disadvantaged communities. The
proposed initiatives for employer-provided education programs in workplace
literacy and basic computer skills, corporate sponsorship of
qualified zone academies and technology centers, and corporate donations of
computers will help bridge the digital divide. This proposal
will help to ensure that low-skilled workers receive the training they need to
improve their job skills, and that disadvantaged communities have access to
innovative educational programs and computer technology.
Conclusion The Treasury Department's recent depreciation report
raised issues that would need to be addressed in modifying the present cost
recovery system and provided possible options for modifications in the system.
We intended that the report would serve as a starting point for a public
discussion of improvements to the cost recovery system. We applaud your efforts,
Mr. Chairman, to begin that discussion with this hearing, and look forward to
working with the Congress on this matter. The Administration supports the
extension of the research tax credit. The Administration recognizes the
importance of technology to our national ability to compete in the global
marketplace, and the research credit fosters new technology. The credit provides
incentive for private-sector investment in research and innovation that can help
improve U.S. productivity and economic competitiveness. The Administration
proposals for education and training - the College Opportunity Tax Cut, the
expansion of employer-provided education assistance to include graduate courses,
and the new tax credit for workplace literacy and basic
computer skills - can help develop the skills necessary for the
economy of the 2l"century. The additional proposed initiatives to address the
digital divide - the enhanced deduction for corporate donations of
computers and the credit for corporate sponsorship payments to
qualified zone academies and technology centers - will help to ensure that
low-income communities have access to innovative educational programs and
computer technology. This concludes my prepared remarks. I
would be pleased to respond to your questions.
LOAD-DATE: September 28, 2000, Thursday
