[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 87 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S7521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            IRS REFORM BILL

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit 
about the crisis in agriculture, especially the crisis facing family 
farmers in my State of North Dakota. But before I do that, I would like 
to talk just for a moment about a piece of legislation that I 
understand may be brought to the floor of the Senate tomorrow--probably 
tomorrow evening. It is the so-called IRS reform bill.
  In my judgement, there is much in the IRS reform bill that has merit. 
The hearings that were held in the Senate, which reviewed cases of 
harassment of taxpayers, some unacceptable behavior by Internal Revenue 
Service agents, and some other items clearly made the case for the need 
for some changes with respect to the Internal Revenue Service. Much of 
this piece of legislation, as I indicated, has merit. But I want to 
object to something that was done in legislative darkness in putting 
this conference report together. It is a provision that was not in 
either the House or Senate bills. It is a provision that had never been 
debated. It had not been put in either bill in the House or Senate. Yet 
at the last moment, in legislative darkness, it was stuck in this 
conference report in the conference committee. I don't understand by 
what rules they operate when they say we are going to stick something 
in the conference report that is not in either the House or Senate 
bill.
  Here is what they did. They said in the conference report that they 
will reduce the holding period of assets for capital gains from 18 
months to 12 months. What does that mean? Well, it means that those 
with incomes in this country of over $100,000 a year are going to get 
90 percent of the benefit of a $2 billion tax break. That is $2 billion 
in tax breaks. Ninety percent of it will go to people who make over 
$100,000 in income. In fact, 76 percent goes to people making over 
$200,000 a year or more. This was done without debate. This was one of 
those little nuggets that was stuck in the bill. It was not debated by 
the House or the Senate.
  The same day they said we have $2 billion to give away to the upper-
income people, they said we don't have enough money to provide for low-
income heating assistance during the winter for low-income folks in the 
northern climates. This majority in Congress doesn't have enough money 
for that. They don't have enough money for low-income people who are 
trying to heat their homes. They say we are out of money, so we will 
cut that program off. They don't have enough money for summer jobs for 
disadvantaged youth. Gee, there is not enough money for that. They say 
there is not enough money for school construction in Indian schools, 
where the schools are falling apart and kids are walking through school 
doors into classrooms of which we all ought to be ashamed. No, there is 
not enough money for that.
  But in the dark of the legislative night, there is enough money to 
stick $2 billion into the purses of the richest Americans. This is done 
with no debate in this Congress. To the people who behave and operate 
like that and carry those knapsacks full of money to the upper-income 
folks, I just say that is a terrible way to legislate. On one hand you 
say you can't afford to help people who really need help, and that you 
have to abolish low-income energy assistance. Yet, on the other side 
there is plenty of money to reduce the capital gains holding period, 
without even a discussion in Congress about who it is going to benefit. 
It seems to me this is not a very happy day, when you talk about what 
should be our legislative priorities around this Capitol Building. I 
will talk more about that when the bill comes to the floor of the 
Senate tomorrow evening.

                          ____________________