[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3168-S3169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUESTS--S. 522

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today is April 15, tax day. There has been a 
good effort underway between Senator Coverdell and Senator Glenn and 
Senator Roth and others to bring before the Senate very important 
legislation, S. 522, regarding the unauthorized access of tax returns. 
They have come to a bipartisan agreement. I think on this day it is 
very important that we have this legislation come before the Senate to 
be debated and voted on. The American people certainly feel that should 
be done. I think they will feel comforted by the fact that the Senate 
stepped up and has addressed these concerns. This idea of a snooping 
through taxpayers files is very offensive to all Americans. So we need 
to get this done today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, April 15, 
the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 37, S. 522, 
regarding the unauthorized access of tax returns and the bill be 
considered under the following limitations: That there be only 1 
amendment in order to the bill, to be offered by Senators Coverdell, 
Glenn, and Roth, no other motions or amendments be in order, and 
further, total debate on the amendment and the bill be limited to 1 
hour 35 minutes, divided equally between Senator Coverdell or his 
designee and Senator Glenn or his designee. I further ask consent that 
following the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed 
to vote on the Coverdell amendment, the bill then be read the third 
time, and there then be 10 minutes for debate, to be equally divided, 
to be followed by the final vote on passage of S. 522, as amended, if 
amended.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I support the Coverdell-Glenn substitute 
amendment to establish criminal penalties for unauthorized inspection 
of tax returns and tax information. Penalties already exist for 
unauthorized disclosure of these documents. It is only fair and 
reasonable that these be extended to unauthorized inspection as well, 
particularly in light of the recent revelations involving misbehavior 
by some IRS employees. Tax filings are privileged, private information. 
Taxpayers have a right to know that the information they provide the 
IRS will be seen only by those who process it in the normal course of 
Government business.
  I would like to salute Senator Glenn, in particular, for his 
steadfast advocacy of this legislation over the years. The 
distinguished Senator from Ohio was ahead of his time when, years ago, 
he proposed the changes incorporated into the legislation before the 
Senate today. On behalf of the taxpayers of my State, I would like to 
thank him for his leadership on this important issue.
  I also want to thank Senator Coverdell and others who have been 
involved in this effort. I don't know that there is much opposition at 
all to their mutually effective work in addressing the problem that 
needs to be addressed at the earliest possible date.
  Unfortunately, as anyone who watches the news knows, we have a set of 
circumstances in the upper Midwest that also requires immediate action. 
Severe flooding, brought on by the most severe winter in the history of 
the region, has devastated hundreds of communities throughout the 
States of Minnesota and South and North Dakota. In my home State of 
South Dakota, there have been only 2 days this year in which a 
Presidential Disaster Declaration has not been in effect for the entire 
State. Despite the best efforts of FEMA and the administration to 
respond, State and local governments have been financially devastated 
by the costs associated with these disasters. The ongoing flooding that 
is currently occurring is having an even greater financial effect on 
families and individuals. In Watertown, SD, and other communities in 
the region, thousands of residents have been evacuated from their homes 
due to rising flood waters. Many of these evacuated homeowners have now 
discovered that they are unable to obtain benefits from their flood 
insurance, even though they purchased flood insurance and are now 
flooded out and lost their homes, their farms, and their businesses. 
Just last week, when many of us were home, we pledged immediate 
response in an effort to resolve the problem that they have as quickly 
as possible. I simply cannot pass up the opportunity, legislatively, to 
attempt to find a way to reconcile that pledge with my responsibilities 
here on the Senate floor.
  So it is in keeping with that effort that I ask unanimous consent 
that as part of the Coverdell amendment, we allow this small change, 
which the administration is completely in support of. There is very, 
very minimal budgetary exposure involved, and it would be an 
extraordinary measure of assistance to many people who, today, are not 
only without insurance coverage, but are also without homes. So I 
simply ask unanimous consent that this small change in the flood 
insurance law be accommodated in the Coverdell amendment. Then I will 
have no objection.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to that 
additional unanimous-consent request. I might say that I am from a 
State that has been disaster prone, and I know that Senator Daschle's 
area has had all kinds of problems this year--drought, flooding, 
freezing flooding, the works. We have had similar problems in my State, 
from droughts to floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, freezing rain, which 
have caused terrible devastation. So I am sympathetic to the problem.
  However, this is asking for a change in the law that has been in 
place since 1968. Clearly, my constituents and the constituents all 
over America that have had to deal with disasters have complied with 
and have dealt with this 30-day requirement of the insurance coverage 
versus 15 days. Regardless of that, I think it is something we should 
consider. But we have just recently been aware of the language of the 
Senator from South Dakota in this area. We need to assess whether there 
is objection to it. Will there be a budget impact? What does it mean 
for people that had to deal with it in the past or will in the future? 
We are checking with the chairmen of the Budget Committee, the Banking 
Committee, and the Finance Committee. I think we should not leap to do 
it until we know for sure exactly what the impact would be.
  Again, I do think we should work with each other in a bipartisan way, 
always, when disasters are involved. But as good stewards of our 
constituents, we need to make sure we understand the ramifications, 
too.
  So I think that within, hopefully, a relatively short period of time, 
we will be able to get an assessment of any negative impact that might 
come from this.
  I hope we can get started with this legislation, which is so 
important with regard to snooping through IRS files.

[[Page S3169]]

 Everybody understands that it is wrong. People are outraged by it. 
There is a bipartisan commitment to it. So if we don't get an agreement 
to get started on this now, or shortly, we will not be able to get it 
done today, which is symbolically a very important day to do it. So I 
would not be able to agree to this change in the bill at this time, 
while we are talking it out.
  I have suggested another alternative to make in order as an 
amendment. There are a lot of options. We could either withdraw it, or 
accept it, or vote on it later in the day. We will work with the 
Senators that have the jurisdiction. We will talk with the Senator from 
South Dakota to see if we can work something out on the flood insurance 
provision.
  In the meantime, I do object to the addition at this time. I plead 
with the Senator to allow us to proceed with this legislation under our 
unanimous-consent request while we continue to work on this issue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no objection at all to proceeding 
with consideration of the legislation. As I indicated, I think Senators 
Coverdell and Glenn ought to be complimented for their work in trying 
to address this matter. There is a difference between proceeding to the 
bill and proceeding under the unanimous-consent request, as propounded 
by the majority leader. I, of course, would object to the unanimous 
consent request but would have no objection to proceeding to the bill 
in an effort to begin debate.
  Mr. LOTT. In view of that, then, Mr. President, I am prepared to 
yield the floor. I advise Senators that we will renew our request 
again, probably within an hour or so after we have had a chance to 
check further into this matter.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, be recognized for up to 10 minutes of 
morning business following the remarks of Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
proceed as in morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________