[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9113-S9130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3355

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
consider amendment No. 3355, offered by Senator Kohl, and that I be 
added as a cosponsor. I urge this amendment be adopted. There is 
support by both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3355) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield time to Senator Hutchinson for 
the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                       Tax Code Sunset Amendment

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, shortly I will call up the Tax Code 
sunsetting amendment. I ask unanimous consent to add the following 
cosponsors: Senator Brownback, Senator McCain, Senator Abraham, Senator 
Inhofe, Senator Grams, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, Senator Helms, 
Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, Senator Sessions, and Senator 
Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from 
Colorado for his leadership on this appropriations bill, his leadership 
on tax reform in this Congress, and his support for the provision 
sunsetting the Tax Code. The amendment I will be offering on behalf of 
myself and Senator Brownback would sunset the entire Tax Code, December 
31, 2002. I appreciate so much the Senator from Colorado in his 
cosponsorship of the original legislation that was introduced, and his 
support of this very, very important concept.
  I also point out to my colleagues, with my appreciation, the various 
organizations that have endorsed the scrapping of the code, the 
sunsetting, the terminating of the existing Tax Code. The Americans for 
Hope, Growth and Opportunity, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, the American Conservative 
Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens for a Sound Economy have 
all lent their support for what I think is an essential step for all of 
us who believe the existing Tax Code does not work for the American 
people, and that the first step in replacing it with something that is 
simpler and something that is more fair and something that is less of a 
burden upon the American people would be to set a date certain in which 
we terminate and sunset the existing Tax Code.
  Congress recently took an important step to protect the American 
people from an overarching IRS. In the House, and in the Senate under 
the leadership of the distinguished Finance Committee chairman, Senator 
Roth, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and 
Reform Act. Under this legislation, the burden of proof has now been 
shifted to the IRS. A newly restructured IRS will now be overseen by an 
independent panel, and I commend the work of the Senate Finance 
Committee and Chairman Roth for bringing this proposal to fruition.
  But this legislation, which I firmly supported, must not be the end 
of protecting the American taxpayer. On April 2, 1998, the Senate 
expressed itself on the need for fundamental change in passing an 
amendment to the budget resolution, not only to restructure the IRS but 
also to terminate and sunset the Federal Tax Code by the end of 2001. 
We passed that sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and we have a list of 
all of those who voted for that sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying 
we should sunset, we should set a date certain, and we should terminate 
the existing Tax Code. I invite all my colleagues in the Senate to look 
at that list of those who voted, on both sides of the aisle, on a 
bipartisan basis, to sunset the Tax Code.
  The House took a bold stride beyond this sense of the Senate in 
passing the Tax Code Termination Act on June 17, 1998.
  Today, the Senate has the opportunity to do the same. The amendment 
I, along with Senator Brownback and all of our cosponsors, have offered 
to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, that we will be calling up 
soon, would eliminate the Tax Code by December 31, 2002. Originally, 
way back

[[Page S9114]]

last year, the original bill introduced would have sunset it back in 
the year 2000. Then there was an agreement among all the cosponsors to 
move that to December 31, 2001, to respond to those who said that is 
not enough time and the new Congress would not have enough time to 
enact comprehensive tax reform.
  Now, in the spirit of being as responsible as possible, and 
responding to, I think, the misguided and flawed allegations of the 
administration concerning Tax Code termination, we have moved that date 
to December 31, 2002. That allows us 4\1/2\ years in order to write a 
new Tax Code. We say, in this amendment, that it should be in place 
July 4, prior to the sunset date.
  I know the Department of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, has sent a letter 
out. Everybody, I am sure, will have seen this letter opposing this 
amendment, saying the President is going to veto this appropriations 
bill if the amendment is attached. It is not the first time that those 
kinds of threats have been made. It is, if you will read the letter, 
based upon misguided and flawed assumptions, making all kinds of 
assumptions as to what might be enacted or what might not be enacted at 
the time of the sunset date.
  So I believe what we are proposing is eminently responsible. So we 
need to join, I believe, the House of Representatives in passing this 
sunset date. It would allow the Social Security provisions, Medicare, 
and the Railroad Retirement Board to remain. But we would say the 
Congress, the President, the American people would replace the current 
Tax Code with a lean and honest system by no later than Independence 
Day, July 4, 2002.
  For too long, the American people have suffered under the chains of 
the oppressive regime we call our Federal Tax Code. It is just not 
enough to reform the IRS when the more fundamental problem is the Tax 
Code that we ask them to enforce. Each year, Americans spend over 5.4 
billion hours slaving away to comply with tax provisions, the 
equivalent amount of time it takes to produce all of the cars in this 
country, all of the trucks in this country, to manufacture all of the 
airplanes in this country for a year. That is how much time we ask the 
American people to spend just trying to comply with complicated, 
arcane, and inexplicable tax provisions. A humble family of four will 
spend the equivalent of 2 weeks just for Tax Code compliance.
  Ironically, every year $13.7 billion of the money that taxpayers 
struggle to pay the Federal Government is spent enforcing tax laws, yet 
the IRS, the bureaucracy of 110,000 people in over 650 offices 
nationwide, provides misinformation one-fourth of the time taxpayers 
call to seek assistance.
  Not too long ago, Money magazine did, as they do every year, an 
interesting study. They found this: 45, the number of professional tax 
preparers who came up with different answers when asked by Money 
magazine, in 1997, to fill out a hypothetical family's 1996 tax return. 
That was the April 1997 edition of Money magazine. They found that 45 
professional tax preparers, with the same information, came up with 
different answers on a hypothetical family's tax return. I think that 
is powerful evidence that we have a Tax Code that even the 
professionals cannot understand.
  They found also that the average hourly fee charged by professional 
tax preparers who came up with the 45 wrong answers is $81 an hour. 
That is what the American people are paying professional tax preparers 
who come up with the wrong answers time and time again.
  Mr. President, 6.4 million--that is the number of taxpayers who 
visited IRS customer service centers seeking answers to their tax 
questions in 1996. Over 6 million, according to the General Accounting 
Office, actually went to the IRS customer service centers seeking 
answers.
  Another figure, though, is 99 million, because it was 99 million 
taxpayers who called the IRS hotlines in 1996 seeking answers to 
questions about how they could comply with this complicated Tax Code; 
99 million, one-fourth of them getting incorrect answers from the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  The Tax Code is not a stagnant creature. This code has mutated from 
its original form into an 800,000-word, 7,500-page monster preying on 
the American taxpayer. We in Congress are culpable for this feeding 
frenzy, for even in our attempts of incremental reform, even in our 
attempts to help the American taxpayer, we have made the Tax Code more 
complex.
  In 1997, Congress made serious attempts to ease the burdens of the 
American taxpayer. It was the first significant tax cut, I think, in 16 
years. Yet, even in those efforts to provide tax relief, we unwittingly 
created new complications. I think everyone in this body would agree if 
we somehow could just start over and write a tax code, there is not one 
of us who would say, ``Write the Tax Code the way we have it now,'' 
because it has been a creation of these incremental changes made by 
special interest groups who had enough power to get that change enacted 
into law.
  We need to terminate, not complicate, the Tax Code. If you look at 
this chart, it says:

       The number of new sections in the Tax Code created by the 
     1997 Budget Act--

  This was our Tax Relief Act--we created 285 new sections.
  The number of changes in the Tax Code accompanying the 1997 tax cut, 
824, and the number of pages needed by the Research Institute of 
America to explain the changes in the tax law of 1997 was 3,132 pages. 
It was a lawyer's dream and tax accountant's dream when we passed that 
Tax Relief Act.
  While the American people were glad to receive some tax cuts --the 
$500-per-child tax cut, the change in the estate tax laws, change in 
the capital gains tax laws--the fact is, the great winners were the tax 
lawyers and the accountants--3,132 pages just to explain what we did in 
cutting taxes.
  The American people have called for this termination, this 
comprehensive reform of our tax laws. A recent poll that was conducted 
by the Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity discovered several 
things. In asking the question, ``Do you approve or disapprove of a new 
Federal law to abolish the current tax system and require that a new 
Federal tax system be approved by Congress by July 4, 2001, and that 
this new system should then take effect 6 months after that date?''
  The response was 48.9 percent approved of that proposition, which we 
are going to be voting on, while only 24.1 percent disapproved. By a 
margin of 2 to 1, the American people are saying we ought to set a date 
certain. Six months prior to that date certain, we should have a new 
comprehensive fair tax system in place.
  The poll went ahead: ``Do you approve or disapprove of a new Federal 
law to abolish the current tax system and require that a new Federal 
tax system be approved by Congress July 4, 2002?''
  Overwhelming support.
  They asked this question: ``If you knew that Congress passed a law to 
create a new Federal Tax Code with the following specific principles: 
apply one low tax rate to all Americans; provide tax relief for working 
Americans; protect the rights of taxpayers and reduce tax collection 
abuses; eliminate bias against savings and investment; promote economic 
growth and job creation; and not penalize marriage or families--do you 
believe it is possible that Congress could accomplish these goals?''
  That was the question, and 57.3 percent of Americans answered yes, 
with 34.1 percent saying no, and 8.6 percent saying they did not know 
or refusing to answer.
  That is really quite remarkable, because what that response tells us 
is that the American people still have faith that their elected 
representatives can and should replace the current tax system with a 
simpler, fairer system. They think we can do it.
  Americans rapidly, though, I believe are reaching the level of 
outrage about this tax cut that would resemble even the kind of tax 
rebellion that occurred in the early days of this Republic in 1776. As 
an aside, I offer my own statistic. No official poll. No Gallup. No 
scientific sample. But I suggest this: That 100 percent of the people 
in this country and 100 Senators in this institution believe that an 
overhaul of the tax system is overdue and that it should occur.
  Mr. President, in the Senate today, we have three options before us--
and I can't find another--we have these three options confronting every 
Senator in

[[Page S9115]]

this body: We can ignore the plight of the American taxpayer and do 
nothing. That is what we have done for far too long. We have done 
nothing. We have passed resolutions. We have passed sense of the 
Senates. We have made speeches, and we have debated. We have introduced 
bills, and we have even passed tax cuts that further complicated the 
Tax Code. But in the end, what we have really done about comprehensive 
tax reform is nothing.
  Tonight we have that option before us. We can continue to do nothing. 
We can vote down this amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations 
bill, or we can move to table it when it is offered, and we can go down 
the path of defending the status quo. I suspect there will be a lot of 
my colleagues who will make that choice tonight.
  Or we can implement incremental reforms and try our best to make 
repairs to a house built on shifting sand as we have almost every year 
for the last 12 years. In fact, one study found that since 1913, since 
the institution of the income tax, we have added about 100 pages to the 
Tax Code every year; on average, 100 pages are added to the Tax Code.
  We can continue to do that. We can continue to make small incremental 
changes in this complicated Tax Code and hope that somehow we are able 
to repair this house that is built on shifting sand. I do not believe 
that is a viable option.
  This is the third thing we can do: We can lay a solid foundation for 
a new house by voting for real reform, the termination of the current 
Tax Code. I believe the choice is clear.
  Secretary Rubin, President Clinton and other critics of this proposal 
will say that sunsetting is reckless. I suggest that when the opponents 
of this rise to oppose this amendment, that is what we are going to 
hear: ``This is a reckless proposal.'' We will hear it over and over.
  They have characterized it as irresponsible, reckless, certain to 
cause uncertainty. The President wants to pretend that sunsetting 
provisions are somehow unusual, somehow irresponsible. They are 
neither. He would have us believe they create paralyzing uncertainty, 
and yet if you will look at the sunset provisions that we have in law, 
all major spending legislation is sunsetted. We recently debated 
legislation to replace both the Higher Education Act and the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the ISTEA bill, both of which 
expired this year due to sunset provisions included in the original 
legislation. All major spending legislation contains sunsetting 
provisions. Sunsetting forces Congress to periodically review the 
merits, effectiveness and efficiency of the programs it creates. Only 
then can these programs be continued.
  In testimony before Congress, Alan Greenspan expressed his support 
for the concept of sunsetting. He is the guru, many believe, of the 
unprecedented period of economic expansion, but he said he believed 
that everything in Government should face these sunset provisions.
  The President has said he believes sunsetting will cause instability. 
I believe we are going to hear that. He imagines that the current tax 
system is somehow stable. The truth is, the current Tax Code is riddled 
with uncertainty. The only certainty in this system is that it will 
become more complex through incremental reform and that special 
interests will thread their way through these special loopholes.

  To my colleagues who say this is going to create uncertainty, this is 
my response: If you believe that we need to get from where we are to a 
simpler, fairer tax system, there is no way, I suggest, to get from 
where we are to where we all want to be without some degree of 
uncertainty. You cannot replace this entire Tax Code, no matter how 
incremental you may do it, over a long period of time without there 
being certain uncertainties in markets or business planning or 
whatever.
  But I suggest what Senator Brownback and myself have proposed is the 
most rational way to get from where we are to comprehensive tax reform. 
Because we allow 4\1/2\ years, we set a date certain, we ensure that 
there are going to be proper oversight hearings by the Finance 
Committee, that all of the various proposals that have been submitted 
will have ample time for debate, and that the American people and the 
American business community will have adequate time to plan for the 
changes that will be enacted.
  I would assume that those changes would be phased in over a period of 
years as well. But what we have proposed is eminently responsible, not 
going to create uncertainty, and is not reckless. It is only those who 
want to defend the status quo, I believe, who throw out those kinds of 
arguments.
  I have a number of other points I would like to make, and perhaps as 
the debate goes on I will have an opportunity to do that. I know there 
are a number of others who are cosponsors of this legislation who will 
be wanting to seek recognition.
  Senator Warner has requested a period of time to discuss the Capitol 
security program and the new visitor center. I know that is something 
that is heavy on all of our minds today. And Senator Brownback is 
certainly willing to postpone his comments.
  At this point I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. We have several Senators who want to speak in 
opposition to this amendment who are not on the floor yet, but I ask 
unanimous consent that we lay the present amendment aside for the 
purpose of allowing Senator Warner from Virginia to introduce another 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been offered.


                           Amendment No. 3356

(Purpose: To require the Administrator of General Services to acquire a 
lease for the Department of Transportation headquarters and to provide 
        additional funding for security for the Capitol complex)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Chafee, 
     for himself, Mr. Warner and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3356.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 47, strike lines 11 and 12.
       On page 62, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 4____. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HEADQUARTERS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of General Services, 
     without further review or approval by any other office of the 
     executive branch, shall--
       (1) acquire an operating lease for the Department of 
     Transportation headquarters; and
       (2) commence procurement of the lease not later than 
     November 1, 1998;

     in accordance with the authorizing resolutions passed by the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on 
     November 6, 1997, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on July 23, 
     1997.
       (b) Authorization To Reduce Annual Lease Amounts.--In order 
     to procure an operating lease, the Administrator of General 
     Services shall reduce the annual lease amounts authorized by 
     the resolutions to such extent as is necessary to effectuate 
     an operating lease at the time at which the lease is 
     executed.

     SEC. 4____. SECURITY OF CAPITOL COMPLEX.

       There is appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol for 
     costs associated with the security of the Capitol complex 
     $14,105,000.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the Department 
of Transportation headquarters and redirects the funds for Capitol 
security. I know Senator Warner would like to speak to this. I yield 
him time.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the 
bill. I will speak to the amendment. I would suggest, however, as I am 
speaking, that the distinguished managers look at what possibly could 
be a rewrite of the bill; and then at such time, if you agree, we will 
substitute this for the one that is at the desk.
  Mr. President, I wish to just speak briefly, as chairman of the Rules 
Committee, on behalf of the work that our committee has been doing 
since I have been privileged to take over the chairmanship.
  We have been looking at, first, a program by which the security of 
the overall square here--we call it a square--

[[Page S9116]]

both the building security and the outside security can be enhanced.
  There is an ongoing--almost weekly--meeting on security at some level 
in this system. The Rules Committee has given the clearest instructions 
to the Architect of the Capitol, indeed, to the chief of the police, 
and others, to bring to the attention of the committee, and others, any 
new type of equipment or concept that can help improve the security of 
the Nation's Capitol. That has been done, and done very, very well.
  On August 20 of last year--about a year ago--a plan was put forward 
entitled ``United States Capitol Square Perimeter Security Plan.'' A 
hearing was held before my committee, the Rules Committee, on September 
25, and the Rules Committee accepted the plan on November 4, 1997. It 
was a concept to upgrade the security on the exterior of the building.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an executive summary of 
that report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   United States Capitol Square Perimeter Security--Executive Summary

       This report was prepared by the Task Force appointed by the 
     Capitol Police Board (CPB). The membership of the Task Force 
     consists of representatives of the House and Senate Sergeants 
     at Arms, the U.S. Capitol Police and the Architect of the 
     Capitol. Technical support was provided by outside security 
     and architectural consultants.
       In light of recent incidents at other public and private 
     facilities, the CPB charged the Task Force with developing 
     options for improved perimeter security at Capitol Square. 
     The options were to incorporate the best available 
     technology, blend with the existing historic Frederick Law 
     Olmsted landscape design and provide for an appropriate and 
     cost effective coupling of these improvements with the 
     security concepts and criteria employed in the design of the 
     proposed U.S. Capitol Visitor Center (CVC).
       Four preliminary schemes were developed for evaluation by 
     the Task Force ranging from the simple replacement of the 
     concrete sewer pipes and planters with bollards to an 
     extensive perimeter fence concept that enclosed Capitol 
     Square behind the appropriately designed security barrier.
       Of the four schemes, one was chosen for development and 
     forms the basis for the recommendations. The recommended 
     scheme will work within the current constraints of the site 
     and will also support the CVC concept when executed.
       The recommended and preliminary schemes built upon the 
     concepts developed in the late 1980's that came to be known 
     as the ``Whip's Plan'' and expanded those concepts to 
     incorporate the proposed CVC and improved security 
     technology. The primary focus of the current effort is to 
     enhance the deterrents, detection and response capabilities 
     of security systems both existing and planned. In addition, 
     support was also provided by the U.S. Secret Service and 
     other law enforcement entities with overlapping 
     jurisdictional concerns.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Standards for systems, hardware and physical barrier 
     devices were developed as part of the process. These 
     standards are included in the recommended scheme. The systems 
     and other security methodologies used in the recommended 
     scheme for Capitol Square have been organized in a manner 
     that will enable them to be deployed consistently through the 
     Capitol complex.
       In that regard, a schematic design was also prepared that 
     eliminates the unsightly concrete ``Jersey' barriers, 
     commonly used along highways, from around the Russell, 
     Dirksen and Hart Senate Office Buildings and replaces them 
     with landscaped roundabouts similar to those being proposed 
     for the North and South Entrances of the U.S. Capitol 
     Building. The designs for both Capitol Square and the 
     exterior areas around the Senate Office Buildings are 
     proposed with thoughtful landscape treatments consistent with 
     existing architectural openness and aesthetics that typifies 
     the Capitol complex today. This work is shown to test and 
     expand the concepts on sites contiguous to Capitol Square.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. WARNER, Mr. President, integral to that plan is a visitor center 
which, while it has been considered separately, it is to be tied in 
with the overall Capitol security plan.
  Tomorrow, the Rules Committee will, hopefully, proceed with a markup 
of a redraft of a bill submitted by the distinguished majority leader, 
the minority leader, and myself several months ago. There are meetings 
going on right now with the Speaker, with the majority leader, and, 
indeed, their counterparts in the minority, to try to get some 
refinements to the concept which, hopefully, will be put into the 
markup tomorrow before the Rules Committee.
  I am proud to say the Senate has been moving with steady, firm 
momentum on this whole concept of security--both external and 
internal--for some months now.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the distinguished Senator 
Ben Nighthorse Campbell from myself and others asking that this 
particular amendment reflect the change of the status of the funds 
which is in the amendment--it is in section 4, ``Security Of Capitol 
Complex . . . is appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol for costs 
associated with the security of the Capitol complex $14,105,000.''
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                 Environment and Public Works,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1998.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
         General Government, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
         General Government, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Campbell and Ranking Member Kohl: We write to 
     request your assistance in resolving an important matter 
     involving the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), its 
     thousands of headquarters employees, and the taxpayers.
       As you know, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
     at the Administration's behest and the personal request of 
     the Secretary of Transportation, has been working to 
     authorize suitable housing arrangements for DOT headquarters. 
     DOT currently occupies the Nassif Building, which has been 
     under Federal lease for nearly 30 years. However, the 
     building is inadequate for DOT needs and may pose health 
     concerns for the 5,600 DOT employees who work at that 
     location.
       The lease on the Nassif Building expires in March of 2000, 
     presenting the government with an opportunity to obtain new 
     housing for DOT. Toward that end, on November 6, 1997, the 
     Committee approved a resolution authorizing the General 
     Services Administration (GSA) to enter into a long-term 
     operating lease for a headquarters building, with the 
     possibility of government ownership at a later point. The 
     terms of the Committee's resolution were based on discussions 
     with, and approved by, Administration officials.
       Since that time, however, the Administration has changed 
     its position and prefers a government owned building. Its 
     FY99 budget request included $14.1 million for the design 
     costs associated with the construction of a new government-
     owned building. This change has resulted in an eight month 
     delay--a delay that has meant no relief for DOT employees, 
     and is threatening to result in significantly higher interim 
     lease payments by the government.
       More importantly, while construction of a government-owned 
     building may be a cost-effective solution to DOT's housing 
     needs over the long term, we are concerned that such an 
     option is not realistic in light of our limited budgetary 
     resources. Frankly, we are skeptical that the $300 million 
     necessary for construction of a government-owned building 
     will be made available over the next few years, given the 
     backlog for priority courthouse construction. Should the 
     money become available, however, the Committee's resolution 
     explicitly invites the Administration to return to request 
     authority for government ownership. We have expressed these 
     views in recent meetings and discussions with Administration 
     officials from DOT, GSA, and the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB).
       Therefore, we believe that it is critical for GSA to move 
     ahead immediately with the lease procurement. Toward that 
     end, we would propose to work with you and your staff to 
     include language in S. 2312 that would ensure that the 
     Solicitation for Offers goes forward. Furthermore, in order 
     to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the Administration 
     to proceed expeditiously, we request that the current earmark 
     of $14.1 million for design of a new DOT building be deleted. 
     We consider this request to be of the utmost importance, as 
     we wish to resolve this situation for the benefit of the 
     Department, DOT employees, and the taxpayer.
       We appreciate your consideration of our request. Attached 
     is the text of our proposed amendment; we look forward to 
     working with you toward a satisfactory resolution.
           Sincerely,
         Max Baucus, John Warner, Bob Graham, Daniel Moynihan, Joe 
           Lieberman, James Inhofe, Craig Thomas, Kit Bond, Frank 
           R. Lautenberg, John H. Chafee, Tim Hutchinson, Wayne 
           Allard, Dirk Kempthorne, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wylen, Jeff 
           Sessions, Bob Smith.

  Mr. WARNER. The amendment is really twofold: one, to transfer those 
funds; and, secondly, to establish a procedure by which the other 
problem can be taken care of. I know right now the manager of the bill 
is comparing the two amendments.
  I believe our distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator 
Chafee,

[[Page S9117]]

is here to speak to the DOT headquarters issue.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is incorporated in the amendment. It is my 
understanding that this amendment regarding the DOT building and the 
lease arrangement is acceptable by the managers. While I----
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. Could I finish my statement and then you 
address that?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I have nothing further to say. If they are prepared to 
take that part, I am delighted.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate 
his work.
  The funds are transferred. As soon as we can reconcile some minor 
technical differences between the amendment at the desk and another 
copy, I say to our chairman, we will soon vote on that amendment. The 
letter I just had printed in the Record sets forth the chronology.
  Now, the reason that we are transferring this money is that--I am 
speaking for myself, but I am very optimistic that under the leadership 
of Senators Lott and Daschle, the Senate will come together in its 
concept for funding for the visitor center and its concept of how we 
can make some adjustments to the previous plan, and tomorrow in markup 
report out a bill which can then be considered by the full Senate and 
then eventually by the House.
  But I would like to read a little background to show you the need for 
moving ahead. Yes, the tragic events of the last few days--and we have 
just completed what I regard as a magnificent --magnificent--tribute to 
the two fallen Capitol policemen, together with their families, the 
President of the United States, the Vice President of the United 
States, Senator Lott, the Speaker, and Chief of Police Albrecht.
  But we have been moving steadily on this program. Now we intend, 
hopefully, to go and take the next step and put a legislative proposal 
before the Senate; and then, hopefully, the House will act.
  I will read from a CRS report, which I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record, dated July 16, 1998.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Capitol Hill Security: Capabilities and Planning

               (From the Congressional Research Service)


                                Summary

       The U.S. Capitol is simultaneously a national shrine, 
     tourist attraction, and working office building. Each of 
     these functions imposes different security requirements. The 
     Capitol Police Board, established by Congress to protect the 
     Capitol complex, has responsibility to reconcile the needs of 
     safety and openness. Acting under the direction of House and 
     Senate oversight and appropriations committees, the board has 
     recently instituted numerous enhancements to the Capitol 
     security system. To further enhance security, Congress in 
     April appropriated $20 million for a perimeter security plan 
     encompassing Capitol Square, Senate office buildings, and 
     adjacent grounds. Implementation of the plan is contingent 
     upon approval by the appropriate congressional oversight 
     committees. Still under consideration are proposals calling 
     for a visitors' center beneath the east front plaza that 
     would provide more effective remote screening of Capitol 
     visitors, and a perimeter security plan for the Supreme 
     Court.


                              Introduction

       Seven to 10 million tourists visit the Capitol complex 
     annually. In 1997, the Capitol hosted more than 2,000 
     American and foreign dignitaries, and was the site for nearly 
     300 scheduled demonstrations. In addition to lawmakers and 
     their staff, a sizable number of journalists, lobbyists, and 
     service personnel also work within the Capitol complex.
       The challenge of achieving a secure environment for the 
     Capitol complex, while still maintaining an atmosphere of 
     openness, has become increasingly difficult in this century. 
     Both the potential threats to the Capitol and the number of 
     people using the area every day have grown dramatically. 
     Incidents such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center 
     and the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building 
     in Oklahoma City, as well as international confrontations 
     like Desert Storm in 1991, have prompted increases in the 
     level of security afforded the Capitol complex.


                      current security procedures

                    Role of the U.S. Capitol Police

       The U.S. Capitol Police force, under the direction of the 
     Capitol Police Board (which is composed of the Architect of 
     the Capitol and the Sergeants at Arms of the House and 
     Senate), is responsible for Capitol complex security. By law, 
     the Capitol Police are responsible for the procurement, 
     installation, and maintenance of security systems for the 
     Capitol, House and Senate office buildings, and adjacent 
     grounds, subject to the direction of the Committee on House 
     Oversight, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The 
     Architect of the Capitol must approve any alteration to 
     structural, mechanical, or architectural features of the 
     Capitol complex buildings that is required for a security 
     system. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees must 
     approve funding for these programs.
       In FY 1997, Congress appropriated $75.4 million for the 
     Capitol Police Board, which included funding for the Capitol 
     Police, and $3.25 million for the design and installation of 
     new and expanded security systems. In addition, the Architect 
     of the Capitol received $250,000 for ``architectural and 
     engineering services related to the design and installation'' 
     of those systems. For FY 1998, Congress appropriated $74 
     million for the Capitol Police Board, including funding for 
     1,255 Capitol Police positions.

                      Regular Security Procedures

       The Capitol Police force is prepared to deal with a wide 
     array of challenges, including armed intruders, bomb threats, 
     and chemical and biological warfare. Metal detectors, X-ray 
     machines, other state-of-the-art security and surveillance 
     systems, and uniformed officers are located at the entrances 
     of all 19 buildings comprising the Capitol Hill complex. 
     Inside the Capitol, security cameras and motion detectors 
     monitor the movement of people. Uniformed and plain-clothes 
     officers are stationed in the House and Senate chambers, and 
     throughout the building. All trucks making deliveries to the 
     Capitol must first go to a central delivery site where the 
     contents are unloaded and subjected to X-ray, weapons, and K-
     9 inspections before being delivered. K-9 units also perform 
     random sweeps for explosives in adjacent streets and parking 
     garages.

                           Specialized Units

       The Capitol Police also have several specialized units to 
     deal with particular types of security threats. Each of these 
     units, except for the hazardous devices unit, works 
     with other units on other assignments, including street 
     patrols. The specialized units, which were created to 
     address organizational concerns and assure appropriate 
     responses to new kinds of perceived threats, include the: 
     first responder unit, the first to arrive when there is an 
     emergency; mountain bike unit, used for increased mobility 
     across the Capitol grounds when a situation requires quick 
     access to a site; containment and emergency response unit, 
     used for counter-terrorism, hostage rescues, dignitary 
     protection, and chemical/biological warfare situations; 
     hostage negotiations unit, with primary responsibility for 
     all hostage negotiations, frequently assisted by the 
     containment and emergency response unit; civil disturbance 
     unit, responsible for monitoring large demonstrations when 
     the potential for significant public disturbances exists; 
     and hazardous devices unit, acts as the bomb squad on 
     Capitol Hill, conducts off-site explosives security for 
     Members, maintains a K-9 explosives detection corps, and 
     is slated to take over chemical/biological warfare 
     response functions.

           Enhanced Capabilities of the Capitol Police Force

       In recent years, the Capitol Police force, with the 
     concurrence of Congress and the Capitol Police Board, has 
     enhanced its capabilities and professionalism by: increasing 
     the training opportunities available to members of the force; 
     creating a physical security division charged with the 
     development and implementation of an integrated security plan 
     for the entire Capitol complex; strengthening its ability to 
     deter, interdict, and respond to acts of violence through 
     partnership with other U.S. intelligence and security 
     agencies; and developing a chemical/biological incident 
     response capability. It has also created a working group to 
     refine, document, and implement an emergency evacuation plan 
     and critical-incident command operation.


                        perimeter security plan

       Subsequent to the developments already described, the 
     Senate Committee on Rules and Administration early in 1997 
     directed the Capitol Police Board to develop a perimeter 
     security plan for the Capitol complex. For this purpose, the 
     board organized a task force that included key staff from the 
     offices of the Architect of the Capitol, the House and Senate 
     Sergeants at Arms, and the Capitol Police, as well as 
     nationally recognized architectural and security consultants. 
     ``The challenge,'' the Architect emphasized at subsequent 
     hearings, was ``to sensitively integrate a sophisticated 
     security program into the historic landscape of the Capitol 
     grounds and the fabric of the incomparable complex of 
     buildings that grace Capitol Hill.''
       On September 25, 1997, the Architect unveiled the results 
     of the effort, which the Capitol Police Board endorsed, at a 
     Senate Rules Committee oversight hearing. The plan called for 
     ``improved security at all entrances to Capitol Square 
     through the use of a combination of high impact vehicle 
     barriers that are police activated at the most critical 
     locations, or card activated at parking related areas.'' The 
     primary elements of the plan were: (1) ``a continuous string 
     of security bollards similar to those designed for, and 
     installed at, the White House;'' (2) ``new

[[Page S9118]]

     impact stone planters consistent with the Frederick Law 
     Olmsted walls;'' and (3) an ``integration of electronic and 
     other security systems at each entrance.'' The continuous 
     security perimeter would be located largely within Olmsted's 
     original walls, as designed by the acclaimed 19th century 
     landscape architect.
       A month later, the Rules Committee approved this plan, and 
     also authorized the Architect to move forward immediately in 
     developing perimeter security for the area immediately 
     adjacent to the three Senate office buildings. On April 30, 
     1998, Congress approved $20 million for ``the design, 
     installation and maintenance of the Capitol Square perimeter 
     security plan'' as part of a FY 1998 supplemental 
     appropriations bill, which was signed into law the following 
     day. These funds include $4 million ``for physical security 
     measures associated with'' the plan. Use of the remaining $16 
     million was discussed in documents provided to the Senate 
     Rules Committee at the September 1997 hearings.
       The Senate version, as initially reported, provided that 
     funds for perimeter security of Senate office buildings be 
     subject to review and approval by the Senate Appropriations 
     and Rules and Administration Committees. Funds provided for 
     perimeter security of the Capitol Square were subject to 
     review and approval by the House and Senate Appropriations 
     Committees, the Committee on House Oversight, the Speaker 
     of the House, and Senate Rules Committee.


                    other current security proposals

                   Proposed Capitol Visitors' Center

       Still pending before Congress is a proposal to construct a 
     visitors' center beneath the east front plaza of the Capitol. 
     This proposal has implications for security enhancement 
     because the center would serve as the primary entrance and 
     exit for visitors, allowing the Capitol Police to screen them 
     more effectively. At the same time the center would create 
     space for several auditoriums, a cafeteria, educational 
     exhibit facilities, restrooms, and a first-aid station. 
     Planning for the visitors' center has been underway since 
     1991, when the Architect of the Capitol received approval to 
     use previously appropriated security enhancement funds for 
     the center's conceptual planning and design.
       The design was completed in June 1991, and reviewed by the 
     House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the Senate 
     Committee on Rules and Administration. In December 1993, the 
     Capitol Preservation Commission allocated $2.5 million to 
     translate the concept into a formal design. The Architect 
     entered into a contract with RTKL Associates Inc. to develop 
     a design for the visitors' center, and in 1995, the Architect 
     published a report reflecting RTKL's work.
       H.R. 20 and S. 1508, introduced in 1997, ``authorize the 
     Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the Capitol 
     Preservation Commission, to plan, construct, equip, 
     administer, and maintain a Capitol Visitor Center,'' and 
     ``reconstruct the East Plaza . . . to enhance its 
     attractiveness, safety, and security.'' S. 1508 would 
     delegate responsibility for the design, installation, and 
     maintenance of the center's security systems to the Capitol 
     Police Board, which would be required to conduct a study 
     assessing ``security cost savings and other benefits 
     resulting from the construction and operation'' of the 
     center.
       S. 1508 identifies a primary purpose of the center as the 
     enhancement of Capitol security. When it was introduced, 
     Senator John Warner, chairman of the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration, emphasized that the ``most compelling need 
     for the Capitol Visitor Center is to add a major element of 
     enhanced security for the entire Capitol building and 
     environs.'' During May 1997 hearings on H.R. 20, members of 
     the Police Board stressed that a visitors' center would 
     enable the Capitol Police to regulate the number of people 
     inside the building at a given time, allow them to be better 
     prepared for an orderly evacuation in the event of an 
     emergency, and strengthen the security of the Capitol while 
     preserving free public access.
       Both bills call for the establishment of a separate account 
     in the Treasury to handle funds for the project. S. 1508 
     directs the Capitol Preservation Commission to ``develop a 
     detailed plan for financing the project at the lowest net 
     cost to the Government.'' H.R. 20 directs the Architect of 
     the Capitol to develop and submit a plan to the commission 
     ``that would enable construction of the project to be 
     completed without the appropriation of funds to the 
     Legislative Branch.'' The estimated cost of the proposed 
     visitors' center is $125 million. Of this amount, the 
     Commission has already raised $23 million.

               Proposed Supreme Court Perimeter Security

       A related proposal calls for the development of a perimeter 
     security plan for the Supreme Court building and adjacent 
     grounds. In FY 1997, Congress appropriated $150,000 for a 
     preliminary study under the director of the Architect of the 
     Capitol, which was completed by private consultants. In June 
     1998, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist approved the 
     schematic plan presented by the Architect and security 
     consultants. The Court's FY 1999 budget request includes an 
     additional $500,000 for ``detailed design development and 
     preparation of construction drawings'' for this project that 
     are ``consistent with design schemes being implemented 
     through the Capitol complex perimeter security.'' It is 
     estimated that a Supreme Court perimeter security plan would 
     cost approximately $5.1 million.
  Mr. WARNER. From that report:

       Seven to 10 million tourists visit the Capitol complex 
     annually. In 1997, the Capitol hosted more than 2,000 
     American and foreign dignitaries, and was the site for nearly 
     300 scheduled demonstrations. In addition to lawmakers and 
     their staff, a sizable number of journalists, lobbyists, and 
     service personnel also work within the Capitol complex.
       The challenge of achieving a secure environment for the 
     Capitol complex, while still maintaining an atmosphere of 
     openness, has become increasingly difficult in this century. 
     Both the potential threats to the Capitol and the number of 
     people using the area every day have grown dramatically. 
     Incidents such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center 
     and the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building 
     in Oklahoma City, as well as international confrontations 
     like Desert Storm in 1991, have prompted increases in the 
     level of security afforded the Capitol complex.

  This report talks about the legislative proposals. I refer to one of 
the last paragraphs.

       S. 1508 [a bill that I drafted and put in with the 
     distinguished majority and minority leaders several months 
     ago] identifies the primary purpose of the center as the 
     enhancement of Capitol security. When it was introduced, 
     Senator John Warner, chairman of the Committee on Rules 
     Administration, emphasized that the ``most compelling need 
     for the Capitol Visitors Center is to add a major element of 
     enhanced security for the entire Capitol building and 
     environs.''
       ``During May of 1997 hearings on H.R. 20, members of the 
     Police Board stressed that a visitors' center would enable 
     the Capitol Police to regulate the number of people inside 
     the Capitol at a given time, allow them to be better prepared 
     for orderly evacuation in the event of an emergency, and 
     strengthen the security of the Capitol while preserving free 
     public access.''

  We want to, in every way, maintain this, the people's building, and 
to provide for the greatest degree of access that we can possibly 
achieve, given the need for increased security measures. It is my 
fervent hope that in the years to come, not only 7 to 10 million, but 
even more Americans and visitors from abroad can come and see this 
structure and the symbol of freedom for which it stands.
  Mr. President, I am having a portion of the report that was 
associated with the United States Capitol Square Perimeter Security 
Report be reworked by the Architect's office so it can be printed in 
the Record. I also hope before the day's conclusion to introduce a 
draft of a bill which would be taken up in markup tomorrow, but I am 
awaiting instructions from the majority and minority leader and, 
indeed, the Speaker's input, which I hope to get today.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the manager of the bill. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. It is my understanding that the Warner amendment of 
technical changes is supported by both sides of the aisle. I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. WARNER. May I ask the manager, have we had a chance to compare 
the two drafts, and is the draft at the desk to be amended at all?
  It is the same? So the draft at the desk, then, is the same. I join 
with the manager in moving the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3356) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay it on the table.
  Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado and his distinguished partner, the other manager of the bill, 
for their cooperation in expediting this manner.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I now ask unanimous consent to return to the Hutchinson 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.


                       Tax Code Sunset Amendment

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks regarding 
the Hutchinson amendment that is to be offered shortly regarding the 
Tax Code sunset bill or Tax Code Elimination Act that he has been 
working on. I have been working with him, along with a number of our 
other colleagues in the Senate, in considering this particular piece of 
legislation.
  I congratulate the Senator from Arkansas on his work on pushing 
forward a sunsetting of the Tax Code and a sunsetting of the burden it 
places on the American families--not so much of

[[Page S9119]]

the rates, even though I think those are too high; not so much as the 
level of taxation, which I think are too high as well; but the burden 
simply of such an oppressive, intrusive Tax Code.
  I want to share a little bit with my Members here in the Senate about 
the nature of this Tax Code and some of the things that are happening 
within this Tax Code. I have a chart here that I think says quite a bit 
about where our Tax Code has evolved to. Look at the basic foundation. 
The Declaration of Independence, 1,300 words; the Bible, 773,000 words; 
the United States Tax Code, 2.8 million words and growing. And growing. 
That is just too much, too much of a burden.
  I also want to share with my colleagues, this debate has been going 
on for a little bit of time, so we contacted the IRS and said could we 
have all of the forms that you send to the average American in asking 
them to fill out their taxes. We just want to see the forms that the 
average American gets, and we would like to have all of them.
  It was interesting that the first thing they responded from the IRS 
headquarters is we don't have all of the forms. They said they couldn't 
get those, so they did send us about two-thirds of them. I would like 
to show Members, these are just the forms. This is not the law. These 
represent the regulations that explain what is taking place with the 
IRS code. These are just the forms that they send and the instructions 
that go with those forms. There are a lot of other documents that go 
along with these, as well. I hope I can get these stacked on the desk 
and the desk will hold it.
  The burden on the back of this desk is the burden on the back of the 
public. This is not even all the forms. It represents two-thirds of the 
forms shipped out by the IRS to the average taxpayer, to businesses, 
saying these are the sort of things you have to fill out. Not only do 
you have to fill them out, you have to fill them out correctly. If you 
don't get them correct, you are subject to fines, penalties, possible 
imprisonment, from this horrendously complex Tax Code that many 
people--even with some advising from the Government--don't get the 
answer right.
  If that doesn't define a burden, I don't know what does. What is even 
worse is that the Federal Government is not content merely in 
collecting taxes or making complex taxes. It wants to control behavior, 
as well. Some of those things it would put in the Tax Code are not even 
very good, either.
  I want to give a great example of micromanagement by the Federal 
Government of people's daily lives in a negative fashion; that is, the 
marriage tax penalty. Most people are familiar with the marriage tax 
penalty, and that is a tax on people to be married, two-wage-earner 
families, to be married. They will pay more in taxes than two single 
people. Two single people who choose to live together would pay less in 
taxes than a married couple.
  Now I think most people would say in this time of difficulty for 
families that that is a bad signal to send. We are going to tax 
marriage as a disincentive to marriage in the system. People say we 
didn't put it there as a disincentive. Well, it is a disincentive to 
marriage and it is built into the Tax Code and it is substantial. It is 
also preposterous.
  Our society is built on the foundation of solid families. Creating 
disincentives to solid families is the wrong signal for us to send at 
this point in time in our Republic. It is the wrong signal to send at 
any time. Because of the marriage penalty and other inconsistencies in 
our Tax Code, I am convinced that this is a Tax Code that history will 
report as one of the most onerous burdens ever faced by the American 
public. Our amendment aims to make this code history and to require 
Congress and the President to put in place a new code, a fair and a 
simpler tax code, that has far less micromanagement from the Federal 
Government, and is far more oriented towards growth and toward the 
family.
  Mr. President, I want another American century. I want it for my 
children. I want it for my children's children. And I want it for all 
Americans. I am convinced that with this type of a system, with this 
type of micromanagement out of Washington, we cannot have another 
American century. This code must be scrapped. We put plenty of time in 
place to come up with a new, better, simpler tax code that is more 
liberating to the families, that is more supportive to business, and is 
far more intelligible by the public.
  As a matter of fact, I simply ask my colleagues that don't support 
this type of amendment, could we do any worse than the current Tax 
Code? Could we truly be any more complicated than the current taxation 
system? Could we be any more onerous and unintelligible than the 
current tax system if we sunset this and go to another? I ask that 
question as I travel around the State of Kansas, and I don't get many 
people that say it could get any worse. It has grown over the years and 
we have added and added and amended and amended. Americans are 
demanding tax reform and we have promised tax reform. It is now time to 
deliver on that promise to the American people. Some will argue that we 
have to be careful about any radical changes to our tax laws, and I 
agree. I believe that we must carefully weigh alternative plans, debate 
the macro and micro effects of each, and then arrive at a thoughtful 
and reasoned solution that is equitable and just. That is why we are 
putting this off 4\1/2\ years until we actually go to and require a new 
Tax Code. We are saying 4\1/2\ years of debate, but let's finally start 
the debate. We haven't even gotten started on it. We are saying let's 
start the debate, and let's set a time certain that we will have a new 
Tax Code that is fairer and simpler, and let's have a great national 
debate about it. The way we are going right now is, we are saying yes, 
it is a bad Tax Code, but we are not willing to do anything about it.

  This amendment would simply say we are going to do something about 
this over the next 4\1/2\ years. We are going to pass a new Tax Code. 
We are sunsetting this one at a date certain, and let the great 
national debate begin. I think that is a just and equitable way to go, 
and it is not a radical way to go.
  The bottom line is that the Tax Code we now have in place punishes 
good investment decisions and distorts the labor market, as well as our 
rates of national savings. It hurts the family and manipulates behavior 
by adding incentive to do one thing while punishing another, which 
frequently goes in the wrong direction.
  Here is another quick example of an inadequacy in our Tax Code that 
is a harmful public signal. I don't know if you recall this; some 
people will. I mentioned this previously on the floor. If you are a 
chronic gambler, you can deduct your gambling losses. If you are a 
homeowner who made an unlikely investment and the value of your home 
declined, you have no recourse in the Tax Code because you cannot claim 
a deduction for capital loss. The question is, Why can somebody deduct 
a loss associated with a bad game of blackjack but not a loss 
associated with their primary residence in which they were the 
unfortunate victim rather than the willing participant? The code is 
full of inconsistencies like the one I mentioned--perhaps unintended--
that people got into over a period of time.
  I would like to think that what we could do now is start a reasoned 
and great debate about a simpler, fairer, better system that is far 
less about micromanagement and raising revenue for the Federal 
Government, and not about sending bad signals to the public. Some may 
disagree about how we would go about going to a different Tax Code, but 
this is precisely the issue upon which we must focus our debate. We 
must decide where we want the tax to be imposed, and we must understand 
the imposition of the tax on the health of the economy. However this 
debate takes shape, we must have as our goal a tax system that doesn't 
distort behavior and create deadweight loss. We must have as our goal a 
pro-growth, pro-family tax system. We should have as our model some 
kind of simpler and fairer and far more understandable code.
  As I travel across Kansas, I ask a lot of people about whether or not 
they regularly, or even within the last month, have made a personal or 
business decision based upon the Tax Code. Virtually two-thirds say 
that, ``Over the last month, I have made a business or a family 
decision based upon tax policy.'' That is not what we want to create. 
It is a system where everybody has to consult with the Tax Code before 
they make a business decision, where everybody has to consult the Tax 
Code before they make a family

[[Page S9120]]

decision. Yet, that is the system that evolved to where we are today, 
to where it is micromanagement out of Washington.
  I ask the public in Kansas, ``Imagine if you had a system that, 
regardless of the business decision you made or the family decision you 
made, the tax results were the same. Would you like such a system?'' 
They say, ``Absolutely.'' Furthermore, they would have more economic 
growth, as they would put the money into a better economic decision 
taking place here, and they would not be penalized as a family member 
doing things that are the best for their families.
  Let's begin the great national debate. Let's sunset this Tax Code and 
move to something new. Our bill will enable the debate to take place 
outside of the realm of some of the demagoguery because it does protect 
the important funding mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare. We 
set aside those chapters in the IRS Code; we don't touch those. I 
believe we have a commitment to ensure that we have a full, honest, and 
open debate. Our bill will give that opportunity to this Senate.
  Finally, Mr. President, as we look forward to the new millennium and, 
hopefully, another American century, we will provide the American 
people with a renewed sense of the American dream, a renewed sense of 
what it means to be an American and what it means to live in America. 
We can't achieve that with this taxation system. It is time to sunset 
it, start the debate, and get to a better one.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, throughout my career, I have been a strong 
proponent of tax reform. I have made no bones about the fact that the 
tax burden borne by Americans is onerous and counter-productive to real 
economic growth, jobs, and opportunity. I have made it clear that we 
stand in need of tax reform--a tax code that is simple and fair, 
placing the needs and growth of our families and communities before the 
needs and growth of the Federal bureaucracy.
  I am encouraged by the developing consensus for serious tax reform. 
As chairman of the Finance Committee, this is among my highest 
priorities. And I look forward to working closely with my colleagues 
toward building a promising new tax system that will open a world of 
possibilities as America moves into the 21st century.
  At this time, however, I caution my colleagues to not let the 
momentum we are gathering overtake our constructive endeavors.
  To sunset the current tax code without first structuring a better 
system would be something like quitting your job before first 
establishing where your new place of employment is going to be. While 
such a move may be satisfying and even exciting, when you have a 
mortgage, some personal debt, and a family depending on your income it 
is not only imprudent, but could result in devastating consequences.
  Prudence, control, and careful planning--that's what our tax reform 
efforts require from us. Sunsetting the tax code without an alternative 
in place would create pandemonium in the marketplace.
  What would it do to our credit rating? To our ability to meet current 
responsibilities? How would it be perceived internationally, among our 
economic partners, and in the global banking community? And how would 
it affect our families and business community? How do they plan? Where 
do Americans put their money for retirement, for pensions, for 
investment, for housing? What will happen to the home mortgage 
deduction? And how will that influence the real estate and homebuilding 
markets?
  Today the Dow Jones industrial average is down because of recent 
corporate earning reports and developments in the investigation into 
the President. Can you imagine what will happen when news hits that the 
tax code is going to be sunset without a consensus or even a blueprint 
for a replacement?
  If Congress votes to sunset the tax code and does not enact a 
replacement by December 31, 2002, what happens? We need a tax system--
despite how much I would prefer it to be otherwise.
  If there is no replacement by December 31, 2002--if Congress has not 
yet reached a consensus, if the decision--the best Congress can do--is 
to extend the tax code we have voted to sunset then that extension 
would, in effect, become the single largest tax increase in history!
  I do no want to be party to that. I don't think any of my colleagues 
do.
  To tear down the tax code before Americans know what will replace it 
is dangerous. We must work to change the current system. Toward this 
end, I pledge my every effort.
  We must eliminate the current code's complexity. We must bring relief 
to those who are bearing a back-breaking load. We don't need to fiddle 
at the edges of the current code. We can change the code altogether. We 
can create an innovative and promising code for a new century. But we 
must do it in an organized and orderly way. To vote for this amendment 
is to pass the buck to future Congresses. We can go home and declare 
victory for taking a strong stand for tax reform, but then the issue 
will still have to be addressed, a consensus will still have to be 
developed, Americans will still need to be included in such an 
important effort.
  I am sympathetic to this amendment. Emotionally, it appeals to me. 
But it is not right. It is not right analytically. It is not good 
public policy. And it, in fact, is not right Constitutionally. Only the 
House can originate a revenue measure. This vote would constitute a 
revenue measure, and--as such--would be subject to a blue slip. For 
these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment 
and join me, and the many others who realize the importance of real tax 
reform, in working for a successful new code.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator Hutchinson's 
amendment to terminate the tax code. I commend his leadership and his 
persistence in advocating what is real tax reform.
  Mr. President, more than 200 years ago, our ancestors staged a tea 
party and revolted against their mother country to protest the 
imposition of unfair taxes. Today, taxes imposed by our own government 
are unfair by any standard. Had our ancestors faced a tax system as 
punitive as ours has become, they might very well have jumped into the 
harbor along with the tea.
  Americans today are working harder but taking home less of their pay. 
Why? In excess of $1.7 trillion of their income is siphoned off to 
Uncle Sam each year. In 1997, total taxes--federal, state, and local--
claiming a record 38.2 percent of a typical family's income.
  Nearly 40 percent of everything the average family made went to 
support government.
  Nearly 4 hours of every 8-hour working day are dedicated just to 
paying taxes. The total tax burden borne by the American taxpayer in 
1998 is the highest in U.S. history.
  We are being taxed at a higher level today than at any time in 
history, including World War II and other conflicts.
  The tax code must be terminated because the earnings, spending, and 
savings of the American people are taxed over and over to squeeze more 
money out of their pockets to line the pockets of government. Income is 
taxed when it's first earned. The after-tax income is then subject to 
certain excise taxes when spent.
  If this after-tax income is saved in a savings account or invested in 
a business, the interest and profits will be taxed again. If the 
corporation pays out its after-tax earnings as a dividend to the saver, 
or if the saver sells his investment, the savings is taxed a third time 
through a capital gains tax.
  If the saver dies with some accumulated savings, these savings will 
be taxed a fourth time through estate and gift taxes. Even after death, 
one's tax liability lives on.
  The tax code must be terminated because it has long been used as a 
tool for social engineering and income redistribution rather than sound 
economic policy.
  Clearly, a system of graduated marginal rates violates the principle 
of fairness. In addition, special interest groups are often unfairly 
rewarded by politicians with special tax privileges.

[[Page S9121]]

  We need to have a date certain when this Tax Code is going to end and 
that we can begin with something new. No matter what we have done 
recently to try to improve the IRS and the Tax Code, it is like putting 
lipstick on a pig. We can't make it pretty. We have to pull this code 
out by the roots, and we have to change it and replace it with 
something that is friendly and that is fair and taxpayer friendly.
  We need something like this legislation to act as a stick of dynamite 
under the chairs of Congress to make them act, rather than 
procrastinating and saying, ``We will do it next year, or maybe the 
year after, or the year after.'' The American taxpayers aren't going to 
wait that long.
  The Tax Code must be terminated because it has become simply 
complicated. It is difficult for anyone to understand, as Senator 
Brownback showed us with this huge stack of just the forms that we are 
having every year. The Tax Code has grown, as he showed us, from 14 
pages when it was first enacted to more than 10,000 pages of Tax Code 
today, plus another 20 volumes of tax regulations, and then thousands 
of pages and instructions that go along with it. Even the IRS and tax 
professionals repeatedly make mistakes. IRS agents reportedly gave 
wrong answers to taxpayers at least half of the time. And the question 
is, How can anyone master all of the code? I don't blame the IRS or any 
of the good workers at the IRS. But it is Congress that has developed a 
Tax Code that is so complicated that even the experts in the field of 
the IRS can't guarantee that they are going to give the average 
taxpayer an answer that is right when they call and ask.
  So, again, the tax code must be terminated because it's too expensive 
for the American people. The IRS employs over 102,000 agents to collect 
taxes, more agents than the FBI and the CIA combined. The taxpayers 
must pay more than $8 billion each year to operate the IRS.
  Worse still, American families, small business owners, and 
corporations will spend at least another $225 billion just trying to 
comply with the Tax Code, money that could be better spent elsewhere. 
If they fail to comply due to innocent mistakes, the IRS penalties 
could actually ruin some lives.
  The tax code must be terminated because the IRS has evolved into an 
arrogant, inefficient, intrusive, and abusive bureaucracy. IRS agents 
routinely use their enormous, coercive power to squeeze more money out 
of the taxpayers' pockets to meet the demands of ever-increasing 
government spending.
  Rooted deeply within the system rests the core flaw of the tax 
system: policymakers care little about spending other people's money 
because the money isn't their own. Now is the time to reverse that 
thinking.
  If you are going out tonight for supper and spend your own money, you 
might spend $50. But if you are going to go out for supper and you take 
my credit card, you might spend $500 on a night out. In Washington, 
much of that is what is happening.
  With millions of our citizens demanding real tax reform, Congress 
must grasp this historic opportunity to deliver change--change that 
will forever repair the system, honor our great American heritage of 
individual choice and responsibility, and reflect true American values.
  In sum, Mr. President, the current tax code is an unmerciful mess--
but it doesn't need to be. We can and must replace it with a new system 
that is simpler, fairer, flatter, and friendlier--a better system that 
will lead this great country into the 21st century.
  We will not have a better incentive to reform than an actual date to 
terminate the code. I urge my colleagues to support Senator 
Hutchinson's in this very, very important amendment.
  Thank you, very much. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do want to say to the managers that I 
don't think we should have a lengthy debate this afternoon on this 
subject. It is one that I could see us spending hours or days on, 
because there is plenty to talk about. But we need to continue to make 
an effort to move our appropriations bills.
  I know the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury and 
Postal Service, the Senator from Colorado, would like to do that. He 
and the ranking member from Wisconsin are working hard. But I want to 
give a few remarks briefly in support of this amendment. I have stayed 
away from doing that on amendments on appropriations bills because I 
have been discouraging amendments all along the line. But this is one I 
feel strongly about.
  It is also very hard for me to rise in support of an amendment of 
this nature when the chairman of the Finance Committee is expressing 
his reservations. But it is totally understandable. He wants to make 
sure that when we do it, we do it right, and that we develop another 
tax system that we have thought about. He is doing what you would 
expect a cautious chairman to do. He takes a back seat to none of us 
when it comes to finding ways to make the Tax Code fairer and giving 
tax relief to the American people.
  Having said that, I think we ought to do it. There is plenty of time 
here to think about what the alternative is going to be. Four and a 
half years--how long does it take? I will tell you how long it will 
take--forever, unless we make up our minds on behalf of the American 
people. With their support, we are going to make this happen. We are 
going to do it.
  Others have pointed out what we are talking about. Here it is, Mr. 
President. This is the Internal Revenue Code.
  The copy I have here is about 7,000 pages long in very small type. 
Frankly, that is absurd. This Tax Code contains the accumulation of 85 
years of special interest provisions--your special interest, my special 
interest, somebody else's special interest, but it has become a 
hodgepodge. It is not understandable. It makes no sense. It is not 
simple. It is not fair. It is hopeless. We ought to start over and try 
to get it right and make it fairer and simpler.
  It has become, quite frankly, a three-headed monster, and we have to 
cut off all three heads. We are working on two of those. One, you cut 
off the head of unfairness and try to provide some of the tax relief 
that really is needed by allowing families with children to keep more 
of their money, as we did last year; by moving to eliminate the death 
tax, as we started on last year; by hopefully getting started seriously 
phasing out as soon as possible the marriage penalty tax this year. We 
are doing some things that make it fairer and even a little simpler, 
and we will continue to do that. We should do some more of it this year 
and some more the next year. We should do some of it every year.
  The second head is intimidation--the culture, the problems at IRS 
that we saw that have developed over the years since the last time we 
reformed the IRS Code way back in 1952. Well, this year we got it done. 
It took us almost a year, but we did get fundamental reform and 
restructuring done. That was the second head that we were able to chop 
off and deal with.
  But the third one is to terminate this Tax Code, do it in a 
responsible way. It won't terminate until December 31, 2002. Plenty of 
time to decide.
  When I go to my own State and I ask people: What do you think about 
the Tax Code? They react negatively. And I say: How many of you think 
we should eliminate it? Every hand, every hand goes up. Then you start 
saying, OK, what are we going to replace it with? We have got time to 
go to the people in Wisconsin and Colorado and ask their opinion.
  Let's think this thing through. Let's do it right. But let's make it 
clear, let's make it undeniably clear we are going to do it. This is 
the way to do it.
  Some people say, well, gee, unless you have a plan in place, you 
shouldn't do this. Well, in Michigan, the great State of Michigan, a 
big State, they eliminated the property tax without a replacement 
because they knew that the deadline would force their legislature to 
act on a replacement. And they did. Wisconsin--Wisconsin--created a 
deadline for abolishing its welfare system, and it drove the reforms 
that have worked in that State probably better than any other State, at 
least from what I understand.
  This will guarantee that we get it done. I think we should pass the 
termination date, and I think we should make ourselves live by that 
date. We should move toward making decisions,

[[Page S9122]]

and we should fundamentally reform our Tax Code. It is overdue. It is 
the third head of this monster that must be removed so that the 
American people can be free, free of the oppression that we have 
developed over these 85 years in this Tax Code.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I rise in support of this proposal by Senators 
Hutchinson and Brownback, the proposal so eloquently supported by the 
majority leader, Trent Lott. He is exactly right, in my opinion.
  I was at that first press conference when this proposal was 
announced. I believed in it then and I believe in it now. The Internal 
Revenue Code with 7,500 pages and over 800,000 words, has grown each 
year and continues to grow. We cannot ask the American people to read 
thousands of pages before they pay their taxes. We cannot ask them to 
pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars to have accountants do their tax 
returns, returns they used to be able to do themselves. It is simply 
not fair, and it is not right.
  As I recall what a good tax is supposed to be, if there is a good 
tax, according to the textbooks, it is a tax that is understandable. It 
is a tax that is predictable in terms of revenue. I would say that is 
one thing our Tax Code does, it produces a very large but predictable 
supply of revenue. But a ``good'' tax is also supposed to be easy to 
collect and is supposed to be perceived as fair. I would say it is only 
in the predictability of revenue that our Tax Code acceptable. 
Otherwise, it is really on unacceptable terms that revenue is raised to 
fund this great Government.
  A few months ago, last fall, Dick Armey and Billy Tauzin from the 
House of Representatives came to my hometown of Mobile, AL, to have a 
debate about the Tax Code. Mr. Armey is in favor of a flat tax, and Mr. 
Tauzin, a consumption tax. The place was packed, standing room only. 
They announced it on the television and on Sunday night people came out 
from all over. They were fascinated and asked questions. They were 
energized by this debate. I am told that everywhere Mr. Armey and Mr. 
Tauzin go people are there in record numbers; they are interested in 
this issue, and they care about it.
  For days after the debate in Mobile, people came up to me, and this 
is the question they asked: Jeff, can we really do it? Is this 
something we can do? And my answer to them was: Absolutely, we can do 
it. There is no reason under this Sun that we cannot pass a simplified 
Tax Code. We must be able to say to the American people, the people who 
elected us, that we can produce a Tax Code that is simple, fair, easy 
to understand, and produces a steady revenue. And whether it is a flat 
tax or a consumption tax or some combination of both, we need to focus 
on this issue in Congress.
  By passing a deadline, with 4 years to go, we will set a date that 
will force us to confront this issue and respond to the wishes of the 
American people. Having run for office just recently, in 1996, I know 
the American people are confident the Government is going to have money 
to run itself. I also know they want tax reductions. With the recent 
surpluses, they want more than they wanted just a few years ago. But 
what they really want is a Tax Code that is simple and fair, and we can 
give that to them. We need to make a commitment to that end. And if we 
do so, I believe that people in this country will appreciate it very 
much.
  I favor this proposal. The American people are fed up. It will help 
make this country competitive because we will not have wasted all this 
time and effort collecting taxes. Instead, we will spend it developing 
new and improved products in our businesses and industries in America 
so that they can continue to be competitive in the world.
  I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I salute Senators Hutchinson 
and Brownback and all others who support this amendment, and I look 
forward to being a part of the reality of eliminating the Internal 
Revenue Code as we know it today.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to the 
Brownback amendment.
  Sunsetting the Tax Code may sound catchy and attractive, but in truth 
it is simply wishful thinking until we have some concrete idea about 
its replacement.
  Now, we all agree that the current code is too complex and too 
burdensome for the average taxpayer, and everyone agrees that we need a 
simpler and a fairer system. But we also know that some sort of tax 
structure is necessary to maintain the vital functions of our 
Government. The current Tax Code, however imperfect, allows us to 
sustain our national defense, provide aid to struggling farmers, make 
sure that those Social Security checks are delivered on time, and much, 
much more. Down the road, we may envision and hope for a more direct 
route to providing those resources than the current tax system, but 
until we find that alternate route, this debate should remain just 
that, a debate, an open dialog as to what system would best serve the 
American people. In addition, simply sunsetting the code would be a 
disaster for American business. We hear so much about the need for 
American corporations to make long-range business plans, and indeed 
that is true, they must. But how will that be possible if they don't 
know what Tax Code they will face after the current one sunsets? How 
many resources would companies waste trying to plan for all the 
possible new tax codes that we might enact 4 years from now?

  Finally, sunsetting the Tax Code without any notion of how we might 
pay for it makes a mockery of the progress we have made in balancing 
the Federal books. We are all encouraged by the budget surplus and the 
strong economic forecasts, but we should not get ahead of ourselves and 
think that the good news warrants a swift departure from the tough 
decisions and fiscal discipline that brought us to this point.
  So for these reasons I will support, when it is raised, a Budget Act 
point of order against the Brownback amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, which eliminates the Tax Code without an alternative.
  Mr. President, I heard it said that we ought to ``pull it out by its 
roots,'' get rid of it now. Well, I would hate to go to a dentist with 
a toothache and have the dentist say, ``You know what, we are going to 
look at this tooth. First, we will pull it out by its roots, and then 
we will look at it.''
  That is what is being proposed here, Mr. President. This amendment 
would get rid of the Tax Code, but without any indication of what would 
replace it. Instead, we could be left without any revenues to operate 
the government. We could be left with no revenue to support our 
military and protect our country. With no revenue to buy the weapons 
systems we need for the future to advance our country technologically.
  Mr. President, this amendment will create tremendous uncertainty in 
the business community. They're not going to know when they can make 
investments and when they cannot. For example, they will not know 
whether the R&D tax credit will be available. That is an important part 
of the code. But businesses will not know whether it will remain 
available if this amendment is enacted.
  Mr. President, I ran a big company that now employs 31,000 people. I 
started this company with two other guys, poor people from New Jersey. 
We built the company by planning ahead and making investments, often 
because we knew that there were tax benefits that we could count on. 
But if this amendment is approved, other entrepreneurs will not be able 
to make similar plans.
  What the distinguished Senator from Kansas is saying is, ``Wait, 
before you do any investing, let's get rid of the Tax Code. Wander 
where you want through the jungle for a couple of years, and that will 
make the Congress respond.''
  I don't understand it, I must tell you. Sometimes I think I work in a 
different place from some of my colleagues, because the references are 
to ``them.''
  ``They will never get it done unless we pull it out by its roots.''
  ``They will never get it done unless we make the pain excruciating.''

[[Page S9123]]

  ``Fear of shutting down Government, fear of being unable to operate, 
that will make them move.''
  Who is the ``them'' and who is the ``they''? Who is the ``we'' and 
who is the ``us''? We are all in this together for the American people.
  Look at the economy. I hear about this oppressive Tax Code and the 
number of pages, and ``Compare it to the Holy Bible.''
  ``Holy cow,'' that is what I say, ``holy cow.'' What are we going to 
do? Are we going to weigh these things? Do we want to buy a scale here 
and say if it weighs less than a certain number of grams, pounds, 
ounces, it is OK? But if it weighs over that, overboard?
  Go to the business community and ask them what they think about 
throwing it all away. They will tell you that we would only be 
punishing ourselves.
  Mr. President, I agree that the Tax Code is too complicated and too 
cumbersome. But the way to solve that is to offer something positive. 
It is to offer a real alternative.
  I also would point out, Mr. President, that eliminating the whole tax 
code could undermine much of the progress we have made in recent years. 
We have gone from a deficit of $290 billion six years ago, to a surplus 
that is now projected to be $60 billion. And for the next decade, we 
will have $1.5 trillion to pay down our debt.
  But this amendment would reverse this progress. It says that we want 
to play political games. That is what this is about. This is almost 
becoming a national sport here. It is not football, baseball or 
basketball, it is politics.
  We are going to take away the revenue code. Do you know what? You are 
not going to feel it, Mr. Citizen. Everything is going to be hunky-
dory. And do not worry if the FDA can no longer approve new drugs. And 
do not worry if the National Cancer Institute can no longer do the 
research needed to help defeat breast cancer or prostate cancer or to 
help the newborn grow up healthy--no. No. We are going to fix the 
revenue code. But you are not going to have to pay any price. You know, 
Mr. and Mrs. America, you know there are free lunches all over this 
place. You don't have to pay for anything.
  Listen, no one here likes taxing people who work hard for their 
money. The President certainly doesn't. He says: Provide tax relief for 
families who send their children to child care so that they can go out 
and work. Provide relief to support education, so that we can have the 
best educated society on this Earth. That is where we want to give tax 
relief--to ensure that our children can get a good education.
  That is especially important in our age of technology in the new 
millennium.
  Mr. President, I come out of the technology business. I am, 
immodestly, called, ``a member of the Hall of Fame of Information 
Processing.'' My company was one of the earliest in the computer 
business, and we learned that technology is the way to the future. We 
helped start an industry called the computing industry. It is different 
than the computer industry. The computer industry is the hardware. The 
computing industry is all else. It is programs. It is engineering. It 
is all those things. It is an industry that is dramatically improving 
efficiency in so many ways.
  Mr. President, from my experience in the business community, I know 
the problems that would be created if we simply rushed out and 
eliminated the entire tax code without a replacement. It would be a 
serious mistake.
  Yes, the Tax Code ought to be simpler. Yes, people ought to pay less. 
But you don't get something for nothing in life. You don't get it in a 
country club, you don't get it in a schoolroom, and you don't get it in 
the United States of America.
  We have seen what happens with those countries where they have codes 
that say you don't have to pay--communism. You don't have to pay. They 
produced a society in Russia that is almost flat broke, dispirited, 
broken down, can't produce a product. We say let the free market 
operate, and let the Tax Code reflect what the objectives are; to build 
a society, to invest in this society, to give people a chance to get an 
education, to know that when they are 65 years old that Social Security 
is going to be there and its purchasing power is protected.
  What a remarkable thing we are witnessing today, and how in a few 
words here we like to disparage it. ``It don't work. It ain't good. Get 
rid of it.''
  Here we produced surpluses when deficits were the rule. And we want, 
now, led by the President of the United States, to shore up Social 
Security so somewhere in the 2070s--it is pretty obvious I won't be 
running by then; I might, though--we want to make sure Social Security 
is there for our children, for our grandchildren.
  That is what we are doing now, and it is all part of a fiscal plan. 
You can't throw out the revenues without throwing out the expenses. I 
am sure the Senator from Kansas would say, ``Of course.''
  Well, what expenses? The expenses for the military, the expenses for 
research, the expenses for development, the expenses for education, the 
expenses for clean air, the expenses for operating our national parks, 
the expenses for leaving a legacy for our children, that tell them 
there are still fish in the oceans, fish in the streams, so that they 
have something to look forward to.
  No; the mission is destroy first and then decide what you are going 
to do next. I spent 3 years in the Army, and I never had that. We 
always knew what the mission was before we started out on it.
  Mr. President, I am a member of the Budget Committee. I am the senior 
Democrat on the Budget Committee, and I expect that a point of order 
will be raised against this amendment because it violates the budget 
rules. I hope that our colleagues respond appropriately.
  I respect those who differ with me, but I will tell you this: If a 
company I was investing in decided that they couldn't figure out what 
the revenues were going to be and they wanted to operate and just go 
ahead and see what happens, make all kinds of investments, I would get 
out of there in a hurry. There is not a company in America who will 
make big investments if they do not know what the tax treatment is 
going to be.
  I am going to yield the floor, but I hope my colleagues are going to 
join me in standing up for what is right for America and do things in 
an orderly fashion.
  I have heard the plea made so many times: Why can't we operate like a 
business? Why can't we operate like families do? We want to do just 
that. We want to operate just like a business that plans its actions, 
lays it out on a piece of paper and says, ``This is going to be our 
revenues, this is going to be our expenses, and this is where we want 
to be 5 and 10 years from now.''
  Instead, we now have a proposal that says, ``What we can do, ladies 
and gentlemen, and the board of directors and the president of the 
company, is we are going to ask you to hold your breath, we are going 
to make the investment anyway and take the chance it is going to come 
out right.''
  Fire that guy.
  I yield the floor and hope that my colleagues will assess the threat 
that this reckless proposal poses to our Government, our Nation, and 
our economy.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in accord with the majority leader's 
request that we move expeditiously, I will keep my remarks very brief. 
I want to read one statement from the American Conservative Union, a 
letter sent to all my colleagues, the last paragraph:

       We are pleased to support your legislation, and will watch 
     closely for a clean up-or-down vote on the bill with a view 
     to including it in our upcoming annual rating of the 
     Congress.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              The American Conservative Union,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 20, 1998.
     Hon. Tim Hutchinson,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchinson: On behalf of the nearly one 
     million members and supporters of the American Conservative 
     Union, I commend you for your introduction of S. 1673, the 
     Tax Code Termination Act.
       The purpose of the legislation is simple: by abolishing the 
     current tax code by a date

[[Page S9124]]

     certain, the legislation would force a national debate on 
     what kind of tax structure best fits our nation's needs, 
     while meeting the reform criteria of being lower, flatter, 
     and fairer. If enacted, the bill would force just such a 
     debate into the center of the 2000 federal elections, at both 
     the presidential and congressional level.
       Such a debate is a necessary prerequisite for thoughtful 
     action to revise the code appropriately. A president elected 
     after such a debate will be able to lay claim to a mandate; 
     the Congress chosen in those elections will have to respect 
     that.
       Some critics have suggested that the time-frame mandated in 
     the bill is too restrictive--that it doesn't allow the 107th 
     Congress enough time to reasonably hold hearings, draft, 
     revise, markup, amend, and then pass on the floor a total 
     rewrite of our tax code.
       We believe the contrary to be true. With a termination date 
     set for December 31, 2002, and a call for a new tax code to 
     be in place by July 1, 2002, we believe there will be plenty 
     enough time for the 107th Congress to consider and pass 
     appropriate legislation.
       We are pleased to support your legislation, and will watch 
     closely for a clean up-or-down vote on the bill--with a view 
     to including it in our upcoming annual rating of the 
     Congress.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                   David A. Keene,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, also, I have a letter from the 
National Federation of Independent Business in which they ``strongly 
urge your support of the Hutchinson-Brownback amendment. It is time to 
step forward and let the American people know that their elected 
leaders have the courage to change a system which is anti-work, anti-
saving and anti-family. Now is the time to take action.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the NFIB be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                                    July 23, 1998.
     Hon. Tim Hutchinson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator Hutchinson: On behalf of the 600,000 members 
     of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I 
     urge you to support the ``Tax Code Termination'' amendment 
     that will be offered by Senators Hutchinson and Brownback to 
     S. 2312, the Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations bill.
       The Hutchinson-Brownback amendment is a tremendous step 
     forward in the effort to abolish the current complex and 
     abusive tax code and replace it with a fairer, simpler code 
     for all Americans. The amendment would sunset the Tax Code 
     after December 31, 2002, but not until Congress acts prior to 
     that date by adopting a new, fairer system with a low rate by 
     July 4, 2002. Similar legislation recently passed the House 
     of Representatives on June 17, 1998. Passage of this 
     amendment would bring Congress one step closer to allowing 
     the American people, those who suffer the most at the hands 
     of an unjust tax system, to decide what system is fair and 
     simple.
       The IRS Income Tax Code is beyond repair, imposing 
     excessive compliance costs on small businesses nationwide. 
     Yet, legislation to overhaul the Code has stalled in 
     Congress. The purpose of sunsetting the current code on a 
     date certain is to force Congress to get serious about fixing 
     our tax system. Small employers understand that a new plan 
     must be ready for implementation before the old code is put 
     to rest. But, as indicated by the 750,000 petitions they have 
     signed and presented to Congress, small business owners want 
     Congress to get started on scrapping the seven-million word 
     that causes them so much time, money and grief.
       I strongly urge your support of the Hutchinson-Brownback 
     amendment. It is time to step forward and let the American 
     people know that their elected leaders have the courage to 
     change a system that is anti-work, anti-saving and anti-
     family. Now is the time to take action.

                                                   Dan Danner,

                                                   Vice President,
                                   Federal Governmental Relations.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, like Senator Lott, our majority 
leader, I am most reluctant to offer this amendment in opposition to 
the sentiments of the chairman of the Finance Committee. Likewise, I 
have the utmost respect for my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. I want to respond to a couple of things they said, my colleague 
from Wisconsin and my colleague from New Jersey, who, to me, when they 
talk about this proposal being something radical, what I hear in 
response is the politics of fear.
  They say, ``Well, we're not going to have a code, we're not going to 
have a Tax Code.'' And then, ``We are not going to have the FDA, we're 
not going to have FAA, we're not going to have roads, we're not going 
to have Social Security.''
  By the way, Social Security is omitted entirely from this bill. It is 
not even a factor. But we hear the politics of fear--the sky is 
falling.
  Let me assure my colleagues, there is nothing as certain as the Sun 
rising in the morning but that this Senate will have a Tax Code come 
2002. I assure you that this Senate and this House will not allow this 
Government to go without revenue.
  My goodness, if you love this Tax Code so much and you like the 
loopholes and you like the deductions and you like the exemptions and 
you like the exclusions so much, then you can propose that we reenact 
this Tax Code in total just like it is, and there you go. You go back 
and defend that before the American people because that, I say to my 
colleagues, is exactly what this debate is all about: Do you defend the 
status quo, or do you want change?
  Senator Roth--and I love this man. I respect him like my father, and 
I think he has done marvelous work in so many areas in the IRS. But I 
pose only this question to him and to all others who disagree with this 
amendment: How long? The fear that we are not going to have it 
enacted--here is the time line: 4\1/2\ years of national debate, and if 
we can't get it done in 4\1/2\ years, then we can reenact this 
wonderful Tax Code that those on the other side or those who oppose 
this would like to defend. Four and a half years of national debate. 
Long enough--long enough--to wait for tax reform.
  July 1998, that is where we are now. Come November, we will have a 
congressional election; November 2000, we will have a Presidential 
election; July 4, 2002, we suggest in this amendment that we should 
have a new code approved; November 2002, more congressional elections 
before we finally reach December 31, 2002, the sunset date.
  I suggest that is long enough. Let's give the American people what 
they are demanding, and that is a Tax Code that is fairer and simpler 
and friendlier.


                           Amendment No. 3249

       (Purpose: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, with that, I call up an amendment I 
have at the desk, No. 3249, the Tax Code sunset amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], for himself, 
     Mr. Brownback, Mr. McCain, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
     Grams, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Helms, Mr. Murkowski, 
     Mr. Coats, Mr. Sessions and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3249.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986; NEW 
                   FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM.

       (a) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--No tax shall be imposed by the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986--
       (A) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2002, 
     and
       (B) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a 
     taxable year, on any taxable event or for any period after 
     December 31, 2002.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to taxes 
     imposed by--
       (A) chapter 2 of such Code (relating to tax on self-
     employment income),
       (B) chapter 21 of such Code (relating to Federal Insurance 
     Contributions Act), and
       (C) chapter 22 of such Code (relating to Railroad 
     Retirement Tax Act).
       (b) New Federal Tax System.--
       (1) Structure.--The Congress hereby declares that any new 
     Federal tax system should be a simple and fair system that--
       (A) applies a low rate to all Americans,
       (B) provides tax relief for working Americans,
       (C) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax 
     collection abuses,
       (D) eliminates the bias against savings and investment,
       (E) promotes economic growth and job creation, and
       (F) does not penalize marriage or families.
       (2) Timing of implementation.--In order to ensure an easy 
     transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby 
     declares that any new Federal tax system should be approved 
     by Congress in its final form not later than July 4, 2002.

  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

[[Page S9125]]

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a few comments about the 
amendment that has just been offered to the Senate.
  The sponsor of the amendment asked the question: How long? How long, 
he asks, will it take to get rid of the current Tax Code?
  The answer to that is simply a long, long time, if the Senator who 
offers this amendment, and others, suggest to us that we should, for 
example, have a national sales tax of 30 percent or more. If the folks 
who have gotten rid of this Tax Code have implemented a 30 percent 
national sales tax--and, yes, that is what would be required to be 
implemented to replace it--if you buy a house, they will say, ``Yes, 
that house is $120,000, but then there is a 30 percent sales tax on top 
of that.'' A fellow named William Gale from the Brookings Institution 
wrote a policy brief on this: ``Don't Buy the Sales Tax.''
  The reason I am discussing this is, the Senator does not tell us with 
what he would replace the Tax Code. He simply says, ``Let's get rid of 
the current Tax Code.''
  There is plenty wrong with the current Tax Code. Count me among those 
who would like to change the things that are wrong, but count me among 
those who ask the question of the Senator who offers this amendment, 
What do you propose to replace it with?
  My understanding is, the Senator who offers this amendment at one 
point was a cosponsor of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling for a 
national sales tax. My understanding is, he took his name off of that 
bill. Am I mistaken about that? Did the Senator add his name?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be pleased to yield, of course.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, I have never--I have never--endorsed or signed on 
to any measure, and to suggest that I favor a 30 percent national sales 
tax or any form of sales tax is absolutely a misrepresentation and a 
mischaracterization of my position.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me reclaim my time.
  I appreciated the Senator's response. My understanding was--and we 
can determine this--but my understanding was that early in this 
Congress, the Senator added his name as a cosponsor to a resolution 
here in the Senate calling for a national sales tax. My understanding 
is he subsequently withdrew his name from that, but we can discuss 
that, I guess, with respect to the people who have the records.
  My point is this, Mr. Gale, who writes about the sales tax down at 
the Brookings Institution, says that if you had a national sales tax 
and are going to include all of the things that you need to include to 
make up the revenue, that you have to have a sales tax of 30 percent or 
more.
  The only reason I am raising this question is, What do you intend to 
replace the current Tax Code with? A value-added tax? A national sales 
tax? Or any one of a half dozen other iterations? I do not know.
  Then I ask the following question: With whatever you replace the 
current tax with, do you intend to provide for a deduction for home 
mortgage interest paid by someone who has just purchased a home and is 
banking in the coming years on being able to deduct that home mortgage 
interest? Is that part of some future plan or not?
  Does one intend, for example, to provide for a deduction for health 
insurance costs? Our current tax program in this country largely 
provides for that as a business deduction. I am told that if that 
deduction is eliminated, studies show that anywhere from 6 to 14 
million more Americans will no longer have health insurance coverage.
  Or what about charitable giving? Would what is proposed to replace 
this with--whatever that is; we don't know what that is--would it 
provide for a deduction for charitable giving? Some 1.4 million tax-
exempt organizations worry about that. At least one study suggests that 
perhaps charitable giving could be reduced by some $33 billion.
  So I ask the question, What does one propose to replace this with? I 
say to my friend from Arkansas, I certainly do not mean to misrepresent 
your record. I had been told that the Senator had at one point added 
his name to a sales tax resolution. It is not my intention to 
misrepresent that. If that is not the case, then I do not intend to 
assert that.
  But whatever the case is about the Senator from Arkansas and what he 
harbors to replace this tax with, whatever that is, at some point 
someone is going to have to say, ``By the way, here is what I feel this 
should be replaced with. And here is how it is going to affect you.''
  So I ask the Senator from Arkansas, since he is proposing that we 
eliminate the current Tax Code by a certain date, could he tell us--and 
I would be glad to yield for an answer--could he tell us what he 
proposes to replace it with?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I respond to the Senator, the whole point in having 
the sunset date is to force us into a national debate to decide the 
very question he poses. If I might continue, to argue the debate on 
what the pros and cons are on a sales tax, flat tax, I would just say, 
you can't do worse than what we have.
  If you reach that point that you want to reenact this code, this 
amendment allows you to do that. I suggest that we can and we must do 
much better. And it would be putting the cart before the horse to say, 
``This is what we must do.'' What we need to do is set the date forcing 
us to reach that consensus on what should replace the current code.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me ask a more specific question.
  I think the Senator said: I don't know what we should replace this 
with. I think that was the answer. Let me ask a more specific question. 
If, in fact, one of the alternatives would be a national sales tax--and 
certainly that is one of the alternatives--and if it would require 
about a 30-percent tax rate, as it would according to studies, would 
the Senator believe that that is an inappropriate replacement for the 
current Tax Code?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I, first of all, do not know to which study the 
Senator is referring. There are many studies on the various rates of a 
flat and sales tax. But what I would suggest is that the principles 
laid down in the bill that I introduced and in the amendment that we 
are debating would be violated by any type of a 30-percent aggressive 
sales tax. Obviously, that would be something that I think would be 
totally unacceptable.
  But to throw up these fears: ``We're going to lose a home mortgage 
deduction'' and ``We're going to lose a charitable deduction,'' that is 
the politics of fear. That is what prevents us from moving forward to 
real and comprehensive tax reform, in my opinion.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think what the Senator is saying, in response to my 
question, however, is he does not know what he would replace the Tax 
Code with. He does not know how it would affect the American people, 
does not know its impact on the economy. That represents a fear by a 
lot of people. For example, it represents a fear by the group of folks 
who represent the largest corporations in this country who work on the 
tax policies for--I could read the list of corporations, but it is 
virtually a who's who--Hewlett Packard, BellSouth, Alcan Aluminum, so 
on and so forth. Here is what they say. Listen to what they say:

       We're writing to express the institute's serious concern 
     about proposals to sunset the IRS Code on a designated date 
     without specifying a replacement tax system. In our view, 
     these proposals reflect either a misapprehension of the 
     importance of certainty and predictability to business 
     enterprises and individuals or a disregard for the 
     consequences of terminating the tax system. They illustrate 
     the folly of making tax policy by sound bite, and it ought to 
     be rejected.

  I know these are the folks who run America's businesses who say we 
need some certainty and predictability. They are not against reform. 
That is not what they are saying. But they are saying that they need to 
understand what it is you want to do.
  You want to sunset the Tax Code on the one hand, and then I ask the 
question, ``But what do you want to do on the other hand?'' You say 
that just as the Sun sets in the evening, it is going to come up in the 
morning. That is true. Just as you sunset the Tax Code now, you are 
going to replace it with something. That is true. The question is, With 
what? And you do not have an answer.
  So is it reasonable for us to ask the question, Is part of the answer 
a national sales tax or not? If it is not, let

[[Page S9126]]

us decide it is not. Is part of it a value-added tax or not? If it is 
not, let us say it is not. If it is, let us decide who it impacts and 
how it impacts in the American economy.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the Senator would yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think it would be very, very foolish of us to try 
to have a national debate on tax reform on the floor of the Senate 
tonight, for us to decide we are going to take a sales tax off the 
table, we are going to take VAT off the table, we are going to take a 
flat tax off the table, and we are going to take a modified or hybrid 
of it, and we are going to decide this evening.
  That is the whole point, I say to my colleague. The whole point that 
we need a deadline is to move us to reach the consensus on what is the 
best way. I suspect we will end up keeping a home mortgage deduction 
and the charitable deduction. But we need that national debate. The 
only way we are going to force that national debate is to focus--most 
Americans are exactly where I am. They are not sure what would be the 
best replacement. But they sure know this: What we have needs to be 
replaced.
  So let us take one step at a time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reclaiming my time, I do understand what the Senator is 
saying. Let us force a solution. But he does not have a logical 
solution. Let us tell the person on A Street or B Street or 10th Street 
or 12th Street that we want to get rid of the current Tax Code--but he 
has no idea how he wants to replace it.
  There is a very big difference between those who would tax someone's 
income at 14 percent and those who would impose a national sales tax at 
30 percent and those who would impose a value-added tax at 17 percent. 
There is a very big difference in how it impacts people.
  The Senator wants to suggest, ``Gee, this is some innocent little 
proposal of mine. Let's just get rid of the entire Tax Code'' which, by 
the way, violates the Budget Act. And he knows that. ``Let's get rid of 
the entire Tax Code and leave for some future debate the ability to 
cogitate the kind of Tax Code we might consider for tomorrow.''
  Count me as among those who want to make changes in our Tax Code. I 
mean, do not count me as part of the target that the Senator was aiming 
at when he was talking about all of these ``they, they, they'' and 
``fear, fear, fear.'' Just count me as part of the group who says, 
``Yes, let's make some changes in our Tax Code.''
  But also count me as part of a group who believes that if you are 
going to propose something to force solutions, you ought to have some 
notion in hand about what those solutions ought to be and how much is 
necessary to be collected in our revenue system in this country to pay 
for the needed social services?
  We build roads to go to market because we do not want to each build a 
road separately. That would not make much sense. We build schools 
together so we can send our kids to public schools. We do not need each 
of us to have a school in our own home. So we do things together. We 
provide for common defense. We have a Pentagon. We pay the men and 
women of the military to provide for the common defense of this 
country. That costs money. We, therefore, must raise that money. And 
the question is, How?
  We have an income tax system that isn't a very good system. You will 
not find disagreement here about that. But you will find profound 
disagreement about a proposal that says, let us simply scrap the 
current tax system with no notion in mind about what you might replace 
it with. Precisely for this reason, I have watched some people trot 
around this Capitol Building, and on a good day they even gallop and 
canter, alive and interested in their notion about how the Tax Code 
ought to be changed. Some of them very much want to go to a national 
sales tax and the Senator knows that.
  They want to go to a national sales tax. That will have a substantial 
impact on a lot of families; some good, some bad. Some of them want to 
go to a value-added tax . Some of them want to go to other forms of 
taxation. All of them will have significant consequences.
  But the Senator from Arkansas says let's not debate the ideas, 
consequences or the solutions. He says let's debate some mechanism to 
force the problem, which also probably violates the Budget Act. I don't 
understand that. I guess we will have a vote up or down on a proposal 
that sunsets the entire Tax Code, with the author telling me that he 
doesn't know what it ought to be replaced with and that we ought to 
just figure out some way to get from here to there by some protracted 
debate.
  I don't think that is a particularly good way to legislate. I think 
the Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, a man for whom the Senator from Arkansas has great 
affection, as he says, as do I, I think he has it exactly right. This 
is not a good way to make tax policy. There would be an opportunity for 
the Senator from Arkansas to bring to the floor his best idea about 
exactly how the Tax Code ought to be changed. He can do that at 7 
o'clock tonight; the best idea he has or anybody has about how to 
change the Tax Code in this country. And then let people gnaw on it, 
chew on it and see what they think, and have a vote on it. But that is 
not what he and some others choose to do. They choose to bring some 
shapeless package to sunset the current Tax Code, and to replace it 
with nothing except some hope in the future that someone will do 
something to provide the revenue in some undescribed way.
  Again I don't believe that is a good way to legislate. Neither does 
the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a Republican. Neither 
does the National Association of Manufacturers. Neither does the Tax 
Executive Institute, and many others.
  Mr. GRAMS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. GRAMS. I heard you say if this code were eliminated and replaced 
with a possible national sales tax, it could take up to 30 percent of a 
sales tax to replace what the Government has taken.
  Now, does that mean hidden behind all the hidden taxes, that somehow 
the Government now is taking from the average taxpayer, the average 
worker in this country, 30 percent of their income just to support the 
Federal Government?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator obviously misunderstood what I said. I was 
responding to a policy brief prepared by William Gale at the Brookings 
Institution that says ``Don't Buy the Sales Tax.''
  I have yielded. Let me have the floor.
  I was talking about comparing the income tax to the sales tax. As the 
Senator would know, I think there is a substantially different base. 
Dr. Gale talked about this. I would like the opportunity to send it to 
the Senator's office for his perusal.
  On page 4 of the 10-page report documenting a study he had done, he 
says a 30-percent tax rate would be needed on the more familiar tax-
exclusive approach on a national sales tax. He is one of the preeminent 
authorities on this issue in the country. I have met with him, talked 
to him, and enjoyed his work a great deal. I think he has done a lot of 
good work on the question, What would a national sales tax have to be? 
What would it look like? Who would it impact?
  One of the things I find most interesting, whether it is on the sales 
tax or the VAT tax, is that those in both the House and the Senate with 
specific tax plans to replace the current Tax Code always come up a 
couple hundred billion short in revenue.
  What they say is, I want to sunset the current Tax Code, and here is 
my substitute for it, and my substitute is a couple hundred billion 
dollars short. They won't say that, but that is the way they are 
evaluated when done fairly. Count me in on that. Gee, if you don't have 
to come up with something that responds to the same revenue base, we 
now have to meet the needs we have, then, gosh, maybe we should come up 
with something that raises only 50 percent of the revenue. Or how about 
10 percent of the revenue. That is a wonderful way to do business.
  I see the people walking around with plans that would, A, increase 
the Federal deficit substantially; and B, impose substantial 
dislocations on a lot of folks and raise questions about whether you 
would have the opportunity to deduct your home mortgage interest or 
deduct your gifts to charities. Some of them, incidentally, say

[[Page S9127]]

to people, we have decided to have a new form of taxation.
  I bet the Senator doesn't support another proposed new form of 
taxation, though. We will divide Americans into two groups: One group 
that works, and they get their money by going to work every day, and we 
will tax them because we have decided to tax work just like the current 
income tax does; and one who gets their money from investments, and we 
will exempt them. Tax work; zero tax on investments.
  I think that is the sort of thing that would be interesting to debate 
on the floor of the Senate. The quicker we get to that debate the 
better. Those who offer this amendment say we don't want to have that 
debate; we want to simply sunset the Tax Code, and we don't want to 
debate the sweet by-and-by. We don't want to debate the prospect of 
what we might propose. Just asking the Senator from Arkansas what he 
proposes, it occurs to me at this point we don't have a proposal. All 
we have is a suggestion, get rid of the current Tax Code and maybe 
tomorrow, maybe the day after tomorrow, we will come up with an idea so 
you can then debate that on the floor of the Senate.
  I have taken enough time. I hope when a point of order is made, as I 
expect it will be made because this does violate the Budget Act, that a 
good number of Members of the Senate will agree with the National 
Association of Manufacturers, Tax Executive Institute, with the 
chairman of the Finance Committee and others who say if we are going to 
sunset the Tax Code, first propose exactly to the American people what 
we would replace it with so they would have some knowledge and some 
certainty about what this debate is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the issue that is up before 
the Senate, and I have the deepest respect for the author of this 
amendment, Senator Hutchinson.
  I must say, however, that this is a very bad amendment. It is a 
profoundly bad amendment. It is a sound bite amendment. It is a feel 
good amendment, and if it were passed, I guarantee it would have 
profound adverse consequences upon our Nation.
  Why do I say that? I say it because there is a reason why the Tax 
Code is the way it is. We have to raise revenue somehow, obviously, to 
pay our bills. But the reason the tax code has gotten so complicated is 
because the American people over the years have come to Congress--to 
Members of the House and the Senate--and have said ``here are some tax 
provisions we would like.'' Members of Congress, by and large, don't 
lead. That may be news to some of us, but by and large, Members of the 
Senate don't lead. We tend to follow the American people. I'm not 
saying this is bad. We should follow our employers, the people we work 
for--the people who elect us. And it is the American people who, by and 
large, ask us to do the various things we have in our Tax Code.
  The home mortgage deduction has been mentioned many times because it 
is such a good example of what I mean. While it makes the code more 
complicated, there were very good reasons it was enacted and has 
continued over the years. There are a whole host of other reasons why 
the code has the reputation it has. We are an extremely large, 
extremely complicated country. More so than I think any one of us here 
realizes. There are so many different people in our country pursuing so 
many different economic opportunities, so many different business 
combinations. Our nation is even more complex as our economy becomes 
more global, and we develop more opportunities overseas. And various 
people in our country or its businesses have come to Congress and said 
these are some of the things that we would like because we think they 
will help the economy. That is why our code is the way it is.
  There is no doubt about the fact that the code is complicated. It is 
excessively complicated. We know that. We hear from our constituents 
all the time that it is much too complicated. But I think it is 
important to remind ourselves that there is a reason why, to date, we 
don't have a flat tax, why we don't have a value-added tax, why we 
don't have a national sales tax. It is because the American people have 
not decided which, if any, of the alternatives they want.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would love to yield to my good friend from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator for yielding. A 
number of Senators are attempting to determine their schedules for the 
evening, and I would like to propound a unanimous consent request, if I 
could.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana have 15 minutes 
complete, including the comments he has already made, and that the 
Senator from South Dakota have 5 minutes, and that the Senator from 
Maine have 5 minutes, and that following the allocation of that time, a 
vote be taken on this particular amendment and the motion to waive be 
made at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the second problem with this amendment I 
would like to mention is that it begs the question of what our current 
Tax Code is going to be replaced with.
  I must say there is something to the old adage that the grass is 
always greener on the other side of the fence. It is part of human 
nature to think that something else is always necessarily better than 
what we have. That somehow a sales tax, or a value-added tax, or a flat 
tax is necessarily going to be better than the current code. We all 
know, if we stop to reflect a little bit, that sometimes you get what 
you ask for and you don't like it because it didn't turn out the way 
you expected it to be. So all of us who, in my judgment--and I must say 
this sounds a little harsh--are being pandered to with this amendment 
and are listening and are somewhat tempted to believe in this 
amendment, should ask ourselves, realistically, how does life really 
work? When people promise something great on down the road, is it 
usually nearly as great as it is promised to be? Or to make the same 
point a little differently, if we are going to accomplish something 
that is good, generally it is through hard work and through rolling up 
sleeves and dealing with the difficult details. Not demagoging, 
pandering, or playing to the grandstand or to the crowd. That is 
basically how we get something done that makes sense.
  If this amendment is adopted, it is going to cause deep uncertainty 
in America. We are proud in our country of the economic growth of the 
last 4 or 5 years--low inflation, low interest rates, generally low 
unemployment rates, high economic growth rates, and the stock market 
has generally done well, although not so well in the last week or so. 
But if this amendment passes, just think of all the people and all the 
institutions that are not going to be able to plan very well for the 
future and all of the uncertainty this is going to create. The list 
goes on forever.
  You can begin with business. Business has all kinds of tax 
provisions. We can argue over the merits of these provisions, but they 
are part of current law and businesses include them in their planning. 
Let's take the business expense deduction that business now has. Are we 
going to keep the deduction for ordinary, necessary business expenses, 
or not? If you are a business person, you want to be able to deduct 
your costs. Businesses aren't going to know if they are going to be 
able to deduct those costs anymore. They don't know what the next law 
is going to be. What about the farm provisions? They won't know what 
the deductions are going to be for depreciation. They will have no 
idea. So what is a business to do?
  Let's take an individual with a home mortgage interest deduction, 
which has been mentioned many times. What does this amendment do to the 
real estate market, to home builders, carpenters, and electricians? 
What does it do to people who depend on homes or are building or buying 
new homes? They don't know if the mortgage deduction is going to be 
there in a new tax system. You say it might be. That is what the 
sponsors say, but they don't know that. Nobody could say with any 
certainty whether any single tax provision will exist in a new system.
  Then let's think a little bit about retirement. We have 401(k)s. What 
about

[[Page S9128]]

this new Roth IRA we passed last year? A lot of Americans are worried 
about their retirement security. They are worried enough about Social 
Security. They want to be able to invest in IRAs and 401(k)s to save 
some money so they can have a comfortable retirement. This amendment 
says, no, we might not have those tax deferred savings plans anymore; 
they might be gone. So what is a person today to do? Should he or she 
invest in a Roth IRA or something else, independent of the code? Maybe 
real estate. But we have already pointed out that real estate might be 
in jeopardy because of what we might be doing here. Maybe they can 
invest in gold. But we also don't know what the commodity markets are 
going to be as a consequence of this amendment.
  This amendment causes such uncertainty. Let's take the President's 
budget--whoever the President is after the year 2000. He or she doesn't 
know what kind of a budget to propose to Congress, doesn't know how 
much revenue is going to be raised. Not only do we not know the 
provisions and how we will raise revenue, we have no idea how much 
total revenue we are going to raise--none, zero, nullity, no idea. How 
is a President to propose a budget to Congress under those 
circumstances? How is Congress to pass a budget resolution under those 
circumstances? How is the Appropriations Committee going to know how 
much money to spend? They won't know.
  This is a kind of Russian roulette; it is a gun at your head. OK, 
imagine this amendment is law and we are getting close to the deadline 
in 2002. Yet we still don't have agreement on what to replace the 
current code with. The proponents say this amendment will force the 
Congress to act. But there is an old saying that ``haste makes waste.'' 
All too often we in Congress pass something very quickly that we 
haven't thought about very much when we are under the gun, and we don't 
fully understand the consequences of what we have passed.
  I see the Senator from Maine sitting over there. I ask the Senator 
from Maine, what is she going to be thinking when the years have gone 
by, and here it is 2002 and, despite our best efforts, we haven't 
enacted a replacement code yet? We have a choice--are we going to pass 
an amendment to extend the deadline another year, another 2 years, 
another 3 years? Doesn't that cause even more uncertainty?
  Or say we are not going to extend the deadline, instead we are going 
to push something through at the last moment. It ends up a hodge-podge 
of proposals. Something like a value-added tax, with a little bit of 
sales tax mixed in maybe. What will its impact be on the American 
people? Nobody knows. I guarantee that the Senator from Maine is not 
going to know and the Senator from Montana is not going to know. That 
is probably what would happen.
  There is something else we haven't talked about--Y2K, the computer 
bug problem. We are very nervous in this country, and around the world, 
about what is going to happen on January 1, 2000. Are the computers 
going to work or not? I think it is a little foolhardy right now to 
start to contemplate tax sunsetting in the year 2002 when we don't know 
what is going to happen in the year 2000.
  I must say, Mr. President, this is a sound-bite amendment. This is a 
feel-good amendment. I have bent over backwards to try to see the 
merits of this amendment; believe me, I have. I tell you that I am 
disappointed, frankly, that an amendment like this is on the floor of 
the Senate and apparently is being taken seriously--because if this 
were to pass, it would cause just tremendous uncertainty in this 
country. Americans' incomes would fall. America would be laughed at by 
countries overseas. That might be a little strong, but they will 
certainly wonder what the United States of America is doing; no country 
would do something like this. Mr. President, I very strongly urge that 
this amendment be defeated.
  Let's talk about kids for a minute and HOPE scholarships. What is 
going to happen to them? I don't say this as a scare tactic at all. I 
am saying to the Senator from Arkansas that these are real concerns of 
real people that I have mentioned. Say the Senator from Arkansas is a 
student, and there is no income in his family, and he really depends 
upon a HOPE scholarship to go to college. He wonders, gee, is it going 
to be there or not?
  To take a more definite provision, say he is going to buy a home, but 
he doesn't know whether to buy a home or not. That is a real question, 
Senator. It is not a scare tactic; it is a real question--if he or she 
doesn't know if there is going to be a home mortgage interest deduction 
or not, it is hard to tell whether he can afford to buy a home at all. 
Say you are a homebuilder. Are you going to build homes? How many, and 
at what price ranges? Those are real concerns of real people.
  Let's talk for a moment about what this does to American companies. 
Let's just look at fringe benefits, as one example. Employers generally 
are allowed a deduction for fringe benefits, whether it is health 
benefits or retirement benefits. What is going to be in the labor 
contract when a labor union wants to negotiate a labor contract? 
Negotiators won't know because they won't know what the Tax Code is 
going to be. They won't know what to negotiate. The better solution, 
obviously, is to address these real issues more calmly. I think that is 
what we need here--something that is rational, that is collective, that 
is out in the public spotlight, out of the hothouse of Washington, DC, 
politics. And that is what is driving this right now--Washington, DC, 
politics.

  I am really mystified as to why this amendment came before us, and 
why it is being taken seriously.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we must replace this country's Byzantine 
and loophole-ridden Tax Code. How can anyone stand on the floor of this 
Senate and defend it? Just look at our current Tax Code. It has been 
estimated that it takes Americans 5.4 billion hours to do their taxes. 
Our Tax Code currently consists of nearly 3 million words backed up by 
nearly 10 million words of regulations. It is impossible to understand, 
which is why it cost taxpayers an astounding $150 billion a year to 
comply with.
  Our Tax Code is riddled with loopholes that benefit special interests 
at the expense of the general interest. Special interests have filled 
the code with countless loopholes, poorly constructed tax writeoffs, 
and expensive subsidies that benefit a few at the expense of the many.
  Mr. President, our Tax Code is not like a fine wine that gets better 
with age. It is more like a woolen sweater in a closet full of moths. 
It acquires more and more holes all of the time, and after a while, you 
just can't keep on mending it. You have to throw it out.
  We want to write a new Tax Code that will provide all Americans with 
a simpler, fairer Tax Code, a Tax Code that they deserve. And we want 
to do it by Independence Day 2002.
  Mr. President, I have been in the Senate about a year and a half now. 
If there is one thing I have learned, it is that the Senate never takes 
action--that the Congress never acts unless there is a deadline. The 
Senator from Montana knows that better than most people. Does he really 
think that we would have acted to reauthorize ISTEA, the transportation 
bill that he worked so hard on with the Senator from Rhode Island 
without a deadline, without the existing law expiring unless we act?
  We are in a deadline situation right now as we rush to complete work 
before the August recess. We all know what happens towards the end of 
the fiscal year as we rush to complete work on the funding business to 
keep our Government open. The fact is, Mr. President, that this 
Congress will not act to do the necessary step of reforming our Tax 
Code without a deadline.
  It is not irresponsible to allow 4\1/2\ years for this task to be 
undertaken. We are not prejudging the results. We are not saying that 
the result has to be a national tax or some other possibility. What we 
are saying is that America deserves a Tax Code that we can be proud of. 
And the only way we are

[[Page S9129]]

going to accomplish that goal is if we set a deadline.
  Mr. President, the Tax Code is not going to expire overnight. We are 
not proposing sunsetting it tomorrow, or next month, or even next year. 
What we have laid out is over a 4-year period an adequate amount of 
time to carefully and responsibly craft an alternative of which America 
can be proud.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important 
legislation.
  No one--let me repeat that--no one is going to allow our current Tax 
Code to expire without a responsible alternative in place. But if we 
are going to restore public confidence in Government, we must start by 
ending the current Tax Code as we know it, and by crafting a well-
thought-out and responsible alternative.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this very worthwhile initiative. I commend the 
Senator from Arkansas and the Senator in the Chair for their work in 
this area.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I share the sentiment of the Senator from 
Montana. This is a profoundly bad piece of public policy that should 
never have appeared on the floor of this body in the first place.
  The question is not whether we are for tax reform or not tax reform. 
There is no such strawman to knock down.
  The question is not only where will we go at the end of 4\1/2\ years, 
for which the sponsors and supporters of this amendment seem to have 
utterly no answer, but what happens in the intervening years?
  The answer has been clearly laid out by the business community of 
this country, which is overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation, and 
by the thoughtful analysts, who also are overwhelmingly opposed to this 
legislation. What happens during the intervening 4\1/2\ years of debate 
as we struggle with whatever might come next is that business cannot 
make an investment in a knowing fashion--whether it is concern about 
capital gains, or depreciation tables, investment deductions, whether 
it is individual citizens with their home mortgage, whether it is 
questions about research and development tax credits, whether it is 
questions about the future of pension law. The uncertainty will freeze 
the American economy in a way that will assuredly slow down economic 
growth, lead to lost income, and lead to deficit spending once again.
  Mr. President, there is a good reason why the business community and 
responsible business groups all across this country have so vigorously 
opposed this legislation. They recognize this amendment for the bumper 
sticker sloganeering that, frankly, it is.
  There was a time early on in this debate when supporters of this 
legislation noted that they felt this is a absolute political winner, 
an opportunity to beat up on the Tax Code, which has no real 
supporters, and on the IRS besides, without having to be accountable, 
at least in the course of this election, for the ultimate results of 
this legislation.
  An interesting thing happened in the meantime, however. Some poll 
work was done by the Republican National Committee showing that a 
majority of voters in America already recognize this as a reckless 
move--reckless. That is the finding of the American public which 
already understands the political nature of what we have here--a bumper 
sticker to abolish the Tax Code. It sounds good, if you are at the 
coffee shop. We are not at the coffee shop. We are Members of the U.S. 
Senate. And it is our responsibility to chart the economic welfare of 
this Nation into the next century in a responsible fashion that 
continues our economic growth in the coming years and which recognizes 
that business needs certainty.
  We can talk about tax reform, and we will do tax reform. I invite 
additional debate on that issue. But to simply abolish a Tax Code with 
no utter idea of what comes next in the meantime, during which American 
business is left to fend for itself figuring out how to invest billions 
and billions of dollars, is a sure recipe for disaster.
  I have a sense that this amendment is not intended to pass. The 
reason we are here is not to make public policy. The reason, frankly, 
we are here debating this issue is because there are some who want a 
slogan for the coming election in November.
  I think that is regrettable. I think the American people deserve 
better than that. Our economy needs better than that.
  I think this is irresponsible legislation.
  I see a colleague of ours on the floor, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. I 
see others who have significant business success in their own careers. 
I have to wonder whether Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, who spoke 
against this amendment, who created a massively successful business 
enterprise in his home State of New Jersey, whether he could possibly 
have gotten off the ground in his business with the kind of uncertainty 
that would, in fact, be created by this legislation.
  Mr. President, the question is not tax reform, or not tax reform. We 
all agree, I believe, that we need tax reform, and we need to push in 
that direction. But this is sloganeering. This is pandering. This is 
sham reform. The American public deserves better than this.
  It also violates the Budget Act. I need not remind my colleagues that 
it is the Budget Act that is responsible for bringing us 5 years in 
succession of declining budgets. Budget deficits, which were $292 
billion a year, are now a budget surplus because we abided by the 
Budget Act.
  Now, to violate that and to set up a recipe for the destruction of 
our economy is utter irresponsibility. We deserve better than that. The 
American public deserves better than that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON. It is not going to pass. It is going to produce 30-
second television spots, no doubt, in November. But that is the reason 
the American public has become so incredibly cynical about the American 
political process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON. This deserves to die here in the Chamber tonight.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 202(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                       Motion to Waive Budget Act

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I move to waive the Budget Act for consideration of 
the Hutchinson-Brownback amendment and ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is absent because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

[[Page S9130]]



                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Harkin
     Helms
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49 and the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield for a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the last vote, I was recorded as ``no.'' 
It will not change the outcome of the vote if I am recorded as ``aye.'' 
I would like the Record to reflect my having voted ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                   capital visitor center legislation

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon I indicated on the 
Senate Floor that the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration may 
hold a markup on Capitol Visitor Center legislation tomorrow morning. 
After consultation with the Senate Leadership, I have decided to 
postpone the markup until the House has an opportunity to review our 
proposal.

                          ____________________