Summary:

All articles in Senate section

THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999
(Senate - April 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3790-S3814] THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Safe Seniors Assurance Study Act of 1999.'' I am joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada. This bill would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services conduct a study and analyze the impact of physician supervision, or lack of physician supervision, on death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia services. Since the [[Page S3791]] Medicare program began, the Health Care Financing Adminstration's (HCFA) standards for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers have required that a physician either provide the anesthesia care or supervise the anesthesia care provided by nurse anesthetists. This requirement has also applied to the Medicaid program. The very old and the very young, both covered by these two federal insurance programs, represent the segments of our population that, on average, face the highest anesthesia risks. The two programs cover over 40 million Americans. In December 1997, HCFA proposed changes to its standards for hospitals and surgical centers. Included in these proposed changes was the elimination of the physician supervision requirement, leaving to state governments the decision whether physician supervision of nurse anesthetists was necessary. In issuing its proposed changes, HCFA offered no scientific data indicating that anesthesia safety would not be impaired as a result of the changed rule, and has offered no such data to this day. In 1992, HCFA considered a similar change, but rejected it. After reviewing the studies available at the time showing anesthesia outcomes, HCFA concluded: ``In consideration of the risks associated with anesthesia procedures, we believe it would not be appropriate to allow anesthesia administration by a non-physician anesthetist unless under supervision by an anesthesiologist or the operating practitioner.'' HCFA also declined to adopt as a ``national minimum standard of care, a practice that is allowed in only some states.'' In the only comparative anesthesia outcome study published since 1992, researchers found that outcomes were better in hospitals having Board-certified anesthesiologists on staff. In the Fall of last year, an abstract of a University of Pennsylvania study of 65,000 Medicare surgical cases indicated that mortality and `failure to rescue' rates significantly improved when a nurse anesthetist was supervised by an anesthesiologist rather than the operating surgeon. This latter study is expected to be published in final form later this year. The Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations measure recommended that HCFA ``base retaining or changing the current requirement of physician supervision. . .on scientifically valid outcomes data.'' The Report suggested ``an outcome approach that would examine, using existing operating room anesthesia data, mortality and adverse outcomes rates by different anesthesia providers, adjusted to reflect relevant scientific variables.'' A bill was introduced in the House in early February by Representatives Dave Weldon and Gene Green that would require HCFA to undertake the congressionally-recommended outcome study of Medicare patients, and complete it by June 30, 2000. That bill currently has about 37 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue about safety. The bill that I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Harry Reid today, is very similar to the Weldon/ Green bill in the House. Our Senate version would only require that the Secretary of HHS consider the results of the June 2000 study in deciding whether or not to implement its 1997 proposal. Physician anesthesiologists personally provide, or supervise anesthesia administration by a qualified non-physician, 90% of the anesthesia care in this country. In the rest of the cases, supervision is provided by the operating practitioner. Under the Medicare program, there is no additional cost for having an anesthesiologist provide or supervise the anesthesia care versus having a non-physician provide the anesthesia under the supervision of the operating practitioner. The proposed HCFA rule change does not, therefore, generate any cost savings. Anesthesiologists are physicians who, after four years of pre-medical training in college, have completed eight years of medical education and specialized residency training. This is in contrast to the 24 to 30 months of training received by nurse anesthetists after nursing school--in fact, about 37% of nurse anesthetists have not graduated from college. The American Medical Association's House of Delegates last December approved a resolution supporting legislation requiring that an appropriately licensed and credentialed physician administer or supervise anesthesia care. National surveys of Medicare beneficiaries performed by the Tarrance Group in January 1998 and 1999 show that 4 out of 5 seniors oppose the elimination of the current physician supervision requirement. Let's err on the side of safety and caution by requiring that the Secretary of HHS conduct a study on the mortality and death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia care by different providers. Analyzing the impact of physician supervision on anesthesia care and requiring the Secretary to simply consider the results of that study in determining whether or not to change current regulations to allow unsupervised nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia services, is the very least we can do to ensure that we are making safe changes to existing regulations--changes that HCFA rejected in 1992 when studies of anesthesia outcomes were up-to-date and available. If HCFA is going to now change its policy in 1999, we should ask HCFA to show us the scientific and clinical data behind its decision to ensure that the safety of our most vulnerable populations--our children and our elderly--are adequately protected. None of us--including HCFA-- is in a position to judge the merits of this proposed rule change without first gathering and then analyzing up-to-date scientific evidence. Only then can patients be confident in the safety and quality of their anesthesia care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. ______ By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Reid): S. 819. A bill to provide funding for the National Park System from outer Continental Shelf revenues; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. National Park Preservation Act Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Member of the Senate, I am today introducing the National Park Preservation Act with my colleague Senator Reid of Nevada. This legislation will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitats, and cultural and other core park resources within our National Park System. As you are all aware, the National Park Service has a presence in virtually every state in the nation. There are a total of 345 units in the national park system spread throughout the nation. My home state of Florida is home to three National Parks--Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas; two National Preserves--Big Cypress and Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve; two National Seashores--Canaveral and Gulf Islands; two National Monuments--Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas; and two National Memorials--DeSoto and Fort Caroline. Although these National Parks are treasured throughout the nation, everyday activities often threaten the resources of our park system. For example, in Yellowstone National Park an inadequate sewage system frequently discharges materials into precious resources such as Yellowstone Lake. Development surrounding Mojave National Park threatens the park's desert wilderness. Ground-level ozone accumulating at Great Smoky Mountains National Park threatens the park's core resource--visibility. Manipulation of the natural hydrologic system impacts water quality and water availability in Everglades National Park. The Graham-Reid National Park Preservation Act will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. The bill will establish a permanent account using Outer Continental Shelf revenues to provide $500 million annually to the Department of Interior to protect and preserve these resources. These funds will be made available for projects such as land acquisition, construction, grants to state or local governments, or partnerships with other federal agencies that seek to combat identified threats to ecosystems, critical habitats, cultural resources, and other core park resources. In this legislation, I [[Page S3792]] also continue my longstanding efforts to protect Florida's coastal resources by making revenues from any new oil and gas leases or from development of any existing leases in a moratorium area ineligible for expenditure in this account. Thirty percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring within the unit such as sewage treatment at Yellowstone Park. Seventy percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside of the unit, such as degradation of water resources at Everglades National Park. Of these funds, the legislation specifically provides $75 million to the Everglades restoration effort as the keynote project of the legislation. The Everglades National Park is one component of the Everglades ecosystem which stretches from the Kissimmee River basin near Orlando and all the way to Florida Bay and Keys. It is the only ecosystem of its kind in the world. It is the largest wetland and subtropical wilderness in the United States. It is home to a unique population of plant and wildlife. The water in this system is the lifeblood of the freshwater aquifer that provides most of Florida's drinking water. For more than a century, this ecosystem has been altered to facilitate development and protect against hurricanes and droughts. Today, almost 50% of the original Everglades has been drained or otherwise altered. The remaining Everglades, and in particular, the regions located within Everglades National Park, are severely threatened by nutrient-rich water, interrupted hydrology, decreased water supply, exotic plants, and mercury contamination. On July 1 the Army Corps of Engineers will submit to Congress an Everglades restoration plan, termed the ``Restudy'' by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This plan reviews the original Central and South Florida Flood Control project which was initiated in the 1940s by the Army Corps and has been the source of the ecosystem manipulation that occurred in Florida since that time. The Restudy outlines the basic elements of a plan to restore the Everglades as closely to their natural state as possible. This is a difficult and complex task since the original area of the Everglades was reduced by 50% with the development of both coasts as large metropolitan areas. Costs of execution of this plan will be shared on a 50-50 basis with the state of Florida. There has never been a restoration project of this size in the history of the United States or the world. This is an opportunity to preserve a national treasure that was destroyed by our own actions in the past. The bill we will introduce today will provide dedicated funds for the federal share of the land acquisition portions of this project which is so critical to the nation. I look forward to working with each of you as we seek to protect and preserve the ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 819 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Act to Sustain the National Parks''. SEC. 2. DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. (a) Definitions.--In this Act: (1) Leased tract.--The term ``leased tract'' means a tract leased under section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) for the purpose of drilling for, developing, and producing oil and natural gas resources, consisting of a block, a portion of a block, or a combination of blocks or portions of blocks, as specified in the lease and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagram. (2) Outer continental shelf.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331). (3) Outer continental shelf revenues.-- (A) In general.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' means all amounts received by the United States from leased tracts, less-- (i) such amounts as are credited to States under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)); and (ii) such amounts as are needed for adjustments or refunds of overpayments for rents, royalties, or other purposes. (B) Inclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' includes royalties (including payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net profit share payments, and related late-payment interest from natural gas and oil leases issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for a leased tract. (C) Exclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' does not include amounts received by the United States under-- (i) any lease issued on or after the date of enactment of this Act; (ii) any lease under which no oil or gas production occurred before January 1, 1999; or (iii) any lease in an area for which there is in effect a moratorium on leasing or drilling on the outer Continental Shelf. (b) Separate Account.--Of the amount of outer Continental Shelf revenues received by the Secretary of the Interior during each fiscal year, $500,000,000 shall be deposited in a separate account in the Treasury of the United States and shall, without further Act of appropriation, be available to the Secretary of the Interior in subsequent fiscal years until expended. (c) Threatened Park Resources.-- (1) In general.--The amounts made available under subsection (b) shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System that have ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources that are threatened or impaired. (2) Identified threats.--The amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) shall be used only to address identified threats and impairments described in paragraph (1), including use for land acquisition, construction, grants to State, local, or municipal governments, or partnerships with other Federal agencies or nonprofit organizations; and (B) shall not be directed to other operational or maintenance needs of units of the National Park System. (3) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) 30 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring inside the unit; and (B) 70 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside the unit (including $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2015 for the Federal share of the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration project under the comprehensive plan developed under section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767)). (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended by striking ``All rentals'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 2 of the National Park Preservation Act, all rentals''. ______ By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Jeffords); S. 820. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 4.3- cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and inland waterway transportation which remain in the general fund of the Treasury; to the Committee on Finance. the transportation tax equity and fairness act Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Breaux and Jeffords, to correct an inequity that currently exists with the taxes imposed on transportation fuels. In 1990 Congress extended fuel taxes beyond their traditional role as transportation user fees by introducing a 2.5 cents-per-gallon federal deficit reduction tax on railroad and highway fuels. These taxes were enacted as part of legislation that was designed to reduce the federal budget that existed at that time. In 1993, Congress increased these ``deficit reduction fuel taxes'' and extended them to inland waterway users and commercial airlines. The taxes imposed on barges went into effect immediately, while those affecting the airlines were delayed for 2 years. As a result of these two pieces of legislation a deficit reduction fuel tax of 6.8 cents per gallon was imposed on railroads and trucks, 4.3 cents per gallon on barges, and a suspended 4.3 cents per gallon tax on airlines. Beginning in 1995, however, Congress began to redirect these taxes for other uses. The first step was taking 2.5 cents of the amount paid by highway users and transferring it to the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund, [[Page S3793]] as many of my colleagues know, is the principal source of money used for highway infrastructure. Taxes paid into this trust fund by highway users results in a direct benefit to them by being recycled back into improvements to our nation's roads and bridges. Recognizing that this transfer would place the railroad industry--a direct competitor of the trucking industry--at a competitive disadvantage, Congress reduced the deficit reduction tax paid by railroads by 1.25 cents. As a result of these changes, then, highway users, commerical airlines and inland waterway users paid a deficit reduction tax of 4.3 cents while railroads paid a tax of 5.55 cents. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act further disadvantaged the railroad and inland waterway sectors by relieving highway users and commercial airlines from the remaining 4.3 cent deficit reduction fuel tax. Instead of these funds going into the General Fund of the Treasury, the taxes paid by these sectors were redirected to their respective trust funds. I have a chart that I will ask be included with my statement that shows the evolution of deficit reduction fuel excise taxes over the past decade. Today, two sectors of the transportation industry--railroads and inland waterway users--pay ``deficit reduction'' taxes even though we no longer have a deficit. Furthermore, these sectors are required to continue paying these taxes even though their competitors do not. There is absolutely no policy rationale for railroads and barge operators to pay deficit reduction fuel taxes while motor carriers and commerical airlines are required to pay nothing. We believe the time has come to correct this unfairness. This bill levels the playing field by repealing the remaining 4.3 cent tax paid by the railroads and inland waterway users. I urge all of my colleagues to our legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the chart be included in the Record. The chart follows: DEFICIT REDUCTION FUEL EXCISE TAXES PAID BY THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION SECTORS BY YEAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1990 1993 1995 1997 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Highway Users........................ 2.5 6.8 4.3 0 0 Railroads............................ 2.5 6.8 5.55 5.55 4.3 Barges............................... 0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Commercial Airlines.................. 0 0 4.3 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______ By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Torricelli): S. 821. A bill to provide for the collection of data on traffic stops; to the Committee on the Judiciary. traffic stops statistics study act of 1999 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help our nation deal with the problem of racial profiling during traffic stops. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feingold, Kennedy, and Torricelli. Across the country, too many motorists fear that they will be stopped by law enforcement for nothing more than the color of their skin. The offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``Driving While Black'' is well known to minorities, and the fact that this term has entered the common vocabulary demonstrates the pervasiveness of the problem. In my home state and other states along the Interstate-95 corridor, there have been many serious and credible allegations of racial profiling. For example, statistics recently released by the state of New Jersey, reveal that 73 percent of motorists arrested on the New Jersey turnpike in early 1997 were minorities. Similarly, a court- ordered study in Maryland found that more than 70 percent of drivers stopped on Interstate-95 were African American though they made up only 17.5 percent of drivers. Not surprisingly, the practice of racial profiling has led to litigation. In the case of State versus Soto, a state court judge ruled that troopers were engaging in racial profiling on the southernmost segment of the New Jersey Turnpike. That decision spurred the United States Department of Justice to begin a ``pattern and practice'' investigation, in December 1996, to determine whether the New Jersey State Police had violated the constitutional rights of minority motorists. The Department of Justice is also investigating police agencies in Eastpointe, Michigan, and Orange County, Florida. Additionally, a number of individuals and organizations have filed private lawsuits seeking to end the inappropriate use of racial profiling. While litigation may bring about limited reforms, it is clear that Congress must develop a nationwide approach. The legislation I am introducing today will help define the scope of the problem, increase police awareness, and suggest whether additional steps are necessary. It would require that the Attorney General collect data on traffic stops and report the results to Congress. Because better relations between police and citizens will help ease racial tensions, the measure will also authorize grants to law enforcement agencies for the development of better training programs and policing strategies. In recent decades, we have made great progress in strengthening the civil rights of all Americans. Many dedicated law enforcement officials have contributed greatly to this effort by applying the law fairly and working to strengthen the bonds of trust in the communities they serve. To their credit, some police agencies have spoken out against the practice of racial profiling. In New Jersey, the State Troopers Fraternal Association, the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and the State Troopers Superior Officers Association have stated that ``anyone out there using racial profiling or in any way misusing or abusing their position, must be identified and properly dealt with.'' But we cannot allow the actions of some police officials to undermine these achievements, and we should work to ensure that minority motorists are no longer subjected to unwarranted traffic stops. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and help protect the civil rights of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 821 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY. (a) Study.-- (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by law enforcement officers. (2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an initial analysis of existing data, including complaints alleging and other information concerning traffic stops motivated by race and other bias. (3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial analysis under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall then gather the following data on traffic stops from a nationwide sample of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions identified in the initial analysis: (A) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop. (B) Identifying characteristics of the driver stopped, including the race, gender, ethnicity, and approximate age of the driver. (C) Whether immigration status was questioned, immigration documents were requested, or an inquiry was made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with regard to any person in the vehicle. (D) The number of individuals in the stopped vehicle. (E) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop and whether consent was requested for the search. (F) Any alleged criminal behavior by the driver that justified the search. (G) Any items seized, including contraband or money. (H) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop. (I) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop or the search and the justification for the arrest. (J) The duration of the stop. (b) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of its initial analysis to Congress, and make such report available to the public, and identify the jurisdictions for which the study is to be conducted. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the data collected under this Act to Congress, a copy of which shall also be published in the Federal Register. SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM. In order to complete the study described in section 2, the Attorney General may provide grants to law enforcement agencies to collect and submit the data described in section 2 to the appropriate agency as designated by the Attorney General. [[Page S3794]] SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA. Information released pursuant to section 2 shall not reveal the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law enforcement officer involved in a traffic stop. SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement agency'' means an agency of a State or political subdivision of a State, authorized by law or by a Federal, State, or local government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal laws, or a federally recognized Indian tribe. (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe. SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) in introducing the Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999. This legislation represents a substantial step toward ending an insidious form of discrimination that is plaguing African-American and Hispanic drivers on our roadways-- racial profiling. Most law enforcement officers do their best to respect and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, but it has become undeniable that racial profiling has become a disturbingly common practice. Racial profiling is the practice of pulling over African American, Hispanic, and other minority drivers for routine traffic stops as a premise for conducting a search for drugs. They might be driving just like any ordinary driver, and so they might be surprised to be pulled over. ``Was I speeding?'' they ask. Often, they are told that they have committed some minor traffic infraction that most people are not even aware of--sometimes, the infraction is just a pretext--they might be told that their tire tread is not of the correct depth, or that they have a bumper sticker affixed incorrectly. Any such infraction can be alleged in order to pull over a target of racial profiling, and as a premise to ask for a search. Many people are not aware that they have the right to refuse a search, and many innocent people are afraid that saying no will make them look guilty. The reality is, if they do refuse a search, victims can sometimes look forward to being detained anyway while a canine unit comes out to sniff for drugs. That is what happened to attorney Robert Wilkins and his family as they returned to Maryland by car from his grandfather's funeral in Chicago. Mr. Wilkins was fortunate enough to be an attorney who knew his rights, and proceeded to join with the ACLU and other groups to sue the Maryland State Police. As a result of that lawsuit, Maryland has conducted its own study of traffic stops, and the results indicate that over 75 percent of those people stopped and search on I- 95 are African-American, even though African-Americans make up only 17 percent of the state's population. The innocent people who are inevitably caught in these racially motivated stops feel like they are being punished for what is now called ``DWB''--``Driving While Black,'' or ``Driving While Brown.'' Mr. President, by and large when minorities are stopped by law enforcement officers, they are not attorneys, and they may not know or assert all of their rights--they are scared and they are resentful. And rightly so, when they have been the victim of racial profiling. Is this the way we want to stop the flow of drugs in America? By randomly targeting racial and ethnic minorities who are doing nothing more suspicious than driving their cars? Do we want law-abiding American citizens to feel as though they are living in a police state, scared and reluctant to travel in their cars for fear of being stopped and searched for no reason? While African-Americans make up under 20% of the American population, several local studies like the Maryland one I mentioned earlier indicate that they make up a much greater percentage of all routine traffic stops, and are far more likely to be searched and subsequently arrested. In my own home state of Wisconsin, a 1996 study by the Madison Capital Times revealed that African-Americans receive 13% of Madison's traffic tickets, despite the fact that they make up only 4% of the city's population, In Florida, the Orlando Sentinel newspaper obtained more than 140 hours of videotapes from police patrol cars showing drivers being stopped on Interstate 95. About 70% of the drivers stopped were black or Hispanic, even though they made up only 5% of all drivers on the road. And in New Jersey, a recent study suggests that African Americans are almost five times as likely to be stopped for speeding as drivers of other races. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' As Americans, we should all feel threatened when any one of us is denied our personal liberty. Just last week, the United States Supreme Court took yet another step toward eradicating our Fourth Amendment rights against the invasion of our privacy. It held in Wyoming versus Houghton that police can search the personal belongings of all passengers inside a car when looking for criminal evidence against the driver. I fear that this will send a message to some law enforcement officers that they can now expand racial profiling to include not only the driver of a passing car, but also the passengers. And if you happen to be a passenger in a car that was pulled over because of the color of the driver's skin, you can now look forward to having your personal belongings searched through and pored over. The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999 will begin to shed light on the practice of racial profiling. By analyzing the data that the Justice Department obtains over the next two years, we will get a clear picture of the prevalence of the practice of pulling people over because of their skin color or apparent ethnicity. A version of this bill passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. The simultaneous introduction of this bill in the Senate and the House shows that we are serious about sending this to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with us to enact this legislation. It is high time to put a stop to this blatant and offensive practice, which is taking some law enforcement officers, and the rest of us, down a dangerous and discriminatory road. ______ By Mr. SPECTER: S. 822. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a flat tax only on individual taxable earned income and business taxable income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. flat tax act of 1999 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation on a flat tax. This, of course, is a famous day, April 15, the day when Federal income tax returns are due. Across this land for many days, many weeks, some months, Americans have been struggling with their tax returns. As we speak, some may have on C-SPAN2 quietly while they are working on their returns at this very moment. I recall seeing long lines at the Philadelphia post office near midnight on income tax day when cars were lined up and people were dropping off their tax returns at the post office to beat the filing deadline. This is a good occasion to talk about the flat tax which permits taxpayers to report their income on a postcard. It can actually be done in the course of some 15 minutes. I filed my tax return and sent it off yesterday. It is very complicated. They say it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a tax return. I think it takes more than a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a Federal income tax return, and we have labored under the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code for far too long. I first introduced this legislation in March of 1995. I was the second one in the Congress of the United States to introduce flat-tax legislation. The majority leader, Dick Armey, had introduced the flat tax in the House of Representatives the preceding fall. I studied it. I studied the model of Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka, two distinguished professors of economics and tax law at Stanford University, and concluded that America ought to have a flat tax and that we could, in fact, have a flat tax if the American people really understood what a flat tax was all about. The Hall-Rabushka model was revenue neutral at 19 percent. I have added 1 percent in order to allow for two deductions: one on charitable contributions up to $2,500 a year and a second on interest on home mortgages of [[Page S3795]] borrowings up to $100,000 to take care of middle-class Americans, because I think without those two deductions, it would be a political impossibility to have a flat tax enacted. The advantage of the flat tax is that it does have the flatness with only those two deductions, so it is a very simple matter to return the tax return. Here is a sample tax return. You fill in your name and your address. You list your total wage, salary, or pension. There is a personal allowance, for a family of four. Up to $27,500 pays no tax at all. That constitutes about 53 percent of Americans. It has the two deductions for mortgage interest on debt up to $100,000 for an owner-occupied home and charitable contributions up to $2,500; total compensation multiplied by 20 percent, and that is that. The tax burden costs Americans about $224 billion a year of our gross national product, which is mired in complexity and unnecessary regulation. The flat tax seeks to bring equity into the tax payment by taxing only once so that the flat tax eliminates tax on net dividends, capital gains or estates because all of those items have already been taxed. It would enable Americans to accumulate a great deal more in capital which would help business expansion which would help the economy. And it is projected that the gross national product would be increased by some $2 trillion over 7 years by virtue of this flat tax proposal. The flat tax is a win-win situation all up and down the line because, by eliminating the loopholes, it eliminates the opportunities of very wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes at all. When you take a look at the returns of the very, very rich, with the practices of deductions and tax shelters, all of which is legal, the very, very wealthy avoid paying any tax at all. But this flat tax would have the advantages of capital accumulation, would have the advantage of increasing the gross national product, but most of all would have the simplicity of being able to file a tax return on a postcard. I think that as I speak--it is always problematic as to how many people are watching C-SPAN2--but I think as I speak there are many Americans across the land tonight who would like to be able to fill out a tax return in 15 minutes. And my view is that if it were better understood, that there would be a great public clamor to have a flat tax enacted. Mr. President, to reiterate, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to provide for a flat 20% tax on individuals and businesses. In the 104th Congress, I was the first Senator to introduce flat tax legislation and the first Member of Congress to set forth a deficit-neutral plan for dramatically reforming our nation's tax code and replacing it with a flatter, fairer plan designed to stimulate economic growth. My flat tax legislation was also the first plan to retain limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. As I traveled around the country and held town hall meetings across Pennsylvania and other states, the public support for fundamental tax reform was overwhelming. I would point out in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: (1) my copy of the Constitution; and (2) a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard--many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates. Support for the flat tax is growing as more and more Americans embrace the simplicity, fairness and growth potential of flat tax reform. An April 17, 1995, edition of Newsweek cited a poll showing that 61 percent of Americans favor a flat tax over the current tax code. Significantly, a majority of the respondents who favor the flat tax preferred my flat tax plan with limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Well before he entered the 1996 Republican presidential primary, publisher Steve Forbes opined in a March 27, 1995, Forbes editorial about the tremendous appeal and potency of my flat tax plan. Congress was not immune to public demand for reform. Jack Kemp was appointed to head up the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform and the Commission soon came out with its report recognizing the value of a fairer, flatter tax code. Mr. Forbes soon introduced a flat tax plan of his own, and my fellow candidates in the 1996 Republican presidential primary began to embrace similar versions of either a flat tax or a consumption-based tax system. Unfortunately, the politics of that Presidential campaign denied the flat tax a fair hearing and momentum stalled. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. While my flat tax proposal was favorably received at town hall meetings in Pennsylvania, Congress failed to move forward on any tax reform during the 105th Congress. I tried repeatedly to raise the issue with leadership and the Finance Committee to no avail. I think the American people want this debate to move forward and I think the issue of tax reform is ripe for consideration. In this period of opportunity as we commence the 106th Session of Congress, I am optimistic that public support for tax reform will enable us to move forward and adopt this critically important and necessary legislation. That is why today I am again introducing my Flat Tax Act of 1999. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20% tax rate for all individuals and businesses. It will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-line postcard. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic growth. Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Before I introduced my flat tax bill early in the 104th Congress, I had discussions with Congressman Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, about his flat tax proposal. In fact, I testified with House Majority Leader Richard Armey before the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees, as well as the Joint Economic Committee and the House Small Business Committee on the tremendous benefits of flat tax reform. Since then, and both before and after introducing my original flat tax bill, my staff and I have studied the flat tax at some length, and have engaged in a host of discussions with economists and tax experts, including the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to evaluate the economic impact and viability of a flat tax. Based on those discussions, and on the revenue estimates supplied to us, I have concluded that a simple flat tax at a rate of 20% on all business and personal income can be enacted without reducing federal revenues. A flat tax will help reduce the size of government and allow ordinary citizens to have more influence over how their money is spent because they will spend it--not the government. By creating strong incentives for savings and investment, the flat tax will have the [[Page S3796]] beneficial result of making available larger pools of capital for expansion of the private sector of the economy--rather than more tax money for big government. This will mean more jobs and, just as important, more higher-paying jobs. As a matter of federal tax policy, there has been considerable controversy over whether tax breaks should be used to stimulate particular kinds of economic activity, or whether tax policy should be neutral, leaving people to do what they consider best from a purely economic point of view. Our current tax code attempts to use tax policy to direct economic activity. Yet actions under that code have demonstrated that so-called tax breaks are inevitably used as the basis for tax shelters which have no real relation to solid economic purposes, or to the activities which the tax laws were meant to promote. Even when the government responds to particular tax shelters with new and often complex revisions of the regulations, clever tax experts are able to stay one or two steps ahead of the IRS bureaucrats by changing the structure of their business transactions and then claiming some legal distinctions between the taxpayer's new approach and the revised IRS regulations and precedents. Under the massive complexity of the current IRS Code, the battle between $500-an-hour tax lawyers and IRS bureaucrats to open and close loopholes is a battle the government can never win. Under the flat tax bill I offer today, there are no loopholes, and tax avoidance through clever manipulations will become a thing of the past. The basic model for this legislation comes from a plan created by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Their plan envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible. In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19% rate, is based on a well documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19% to 20% to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. A preliminary estimate in the 104th Congress by the Committee on Joint Taxation places the annual cost of the home interest deduction at $35 billion, and the cost of the charitable deduction at $13 billion. While the revenue calculation is complicated because the Hall-Rabushka proposal encompasses significant revisions to business taxes as well as personal income taxes, there is a sound basis for concluding that the 1% increase in rate would pay for the two deductions. Revenue estimates for tax code revisions are difficult to obtain and are, at best, judgment calls based on projections from fact situations with myriad assumed variables. It is possible that some modification may be needed at a later date to guarantee revenue neutrality. This legislation offered today is quite similar to the bill introduced in the House by Congressman Armey and in the Senate late in 1995 by Senator Richard Shelby, which were both in turn modeled after the Hall-Rabushka proposal. The flat tax offers great potential for enormous economic growth, in keeping with principles articulated so well by Jack Kemp. This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans. In the 104th Congress, we took some important steps toward reducing the size and cost of government, and this work is ongoing and vitally important. But the work of downsizing government is only one side of the coin; what we must do at the same time, and with as much energy and care, is to grow the private sector. As we reform the welfare programs and government bureaucracies of past administrations, we must replace those programs with a prosperity that extends to all segments of American society through private investment and job creation--which can have the additional benefit of producing even lower taxes for Americans as economic expansion adds to federal revenues. Just as Americans need a tax code that is fair and simple, they also are entitled to tax laws designed to foster rather than retard economic growth. The bill I offer today embodies those principles. My plan, like the Armey-Shelby proposal, is based on the Hall- Rabushka analysis. But my flat tax differs from the Armey-Shelby plan in four key respects: First, my bill contains a 20% flat tax rate. Second, this bill would retain modified deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions (which will require a 1% higher tax rate than otherwise). Third, my bill would maintain the automatic withholding of taxes from an individual's paycheck. Lastly, my bill is designed to be revenue neutral, and thus will not undermine our vital efforts to balance the nation's budget. The key advantages of this flat tax plan are three-fold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts, and as interest rates drop. Under this tax plan, individuals would be taxed at a flat rate of 20% on all income they earn from wages, pensions and salaries. Individuals would not be taxed on any capital gains, interest on savings, or dividends--since those items will have already been taxed as part of the flat tax on business revenue. The flat tax will also eliminate all but two of the deductions and exemptions currently contained within the tax code. Instead, taxpayers will be entitled to ``personal allowances'' for themselves and their children. The personal allowances are: $10,000 for a single taxpayer; $15,000 for a single head of household; $17,500 for a married couple filing jointly; and $5,000 per child or dependent. These personal allowances would be adjusted annually for inflation after 1999. In order to ensure that this flat tax does not unfairly impact low income families, the personal allowances contained in my proposal are much higher than the standard deduction and personal exemptions allowed under the current tax code. For example in the 1998 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,250 for a single taxpayer, $6,250 for a head of household and $7,100 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $2,700. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay tax on all income over $17,900 (personal exemptions of $10,800 and a standard deduction of $7,100). By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax only on income over that amount. My legislation retains the provisions for the deductibility of charitable contributions up to a limit of $2,500 and home mortgage interest on up to $100,000 of borrowing. Retention of these key deductions will, I believe, enhance the political salability of this legislation and allow the debate on the flat tax to move forward. If a decision is made to eliminate these deductions, the revenue saved could be used to reduce the overall flat tax rate below 20%. With respect to businesses, the flat tax would also be a flat rate of 20%. My legislation would eliminate the intricate scheme of complicated depreciation schedules, deductions, credits, and [[Page S3797]] other complexities that go into business taxation in favor of a much- simplified system that taxes all business revenue less only wages, direct expenses and purchases--a system with much less potential for fraud, ``creative accounting'' and tax avoidance. Businesses would be allowed to expense 100% of the cost of capital formation, including purchases of capital equipment, structures and land, and to do so in the year in which the investments are made. The business tax would apply to all money not reinvested in the company in the form of employment or capital formation--thus fully taxing revenue at the business level and making it inappropriate to re-tax the same monies when passed on to investors as dividends or capital gains. Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of the advantages of the flat tax legislation I am introducing today. The first major advantage to this flat tax is simplicity. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spend approximately 5.3 billion hours each year filling out tax forms. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5.6 million words in 1995. Whenever the government gets involved in any aspect of our lives, it can convert the most simple goal or task into a tangled array of complexity, frustration and inefficiency. By way of example, most Americans have become familiar with the absurdities of the government's military procurement programs. If these programs have taught us anything, it is how a simple purchase order for a hammer or a toilet seat can mushroom into thousands of words of regulations and restrictions when the government gets involved. The Internal Revenue Service is certainly no exception. Indeed, it has become a distressingly common experience for taxpayers to receive computerized print-outs claiming that additional taxes are due, which require repeated exchanges of correspondence or personal visits before it is determined, as it so often is, that the taxpayer was right in the first place. The plan offered today would eliminate these kinds of frustrations for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the five million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of tens of millions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules and regulations. The flat tax I have proposed can be calculated just by filling out a small postcard which would require a taxpayer only to answer a few easy questions. Filing a tax return would become a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. Along with the advantage of simplicity, enactment of this flat tax bill will help to remove the burden of costly and unnecessary government regulation, bureaucracy and red tape from our everyday lives. The heavy hand of government bureaucracy is particularly onerous in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, which has been able to extend its influence into so many aspects of our lives. In 1995, the IRS employed 117,000 people, spread out over countless offices across the United States. Its budget was in excess of $7 billion, with over $4 billion spent merely on enforcement. By simplifying the tax code and eliminating most of the IRS' vast array of rules and regulations, the flat tax would enable us to cut a significant portion of the IRS budget, including the bulk of the funding now needed for enforcement and administration. In addition, a flat tax would allow taxpayers to redirect their time, energies and money away from the yearly morass of tax compliance. According to the Tax Foundation, in 1996, the private sector spent over $150 billion complying with federal tax laws. According to a Tax Foundation study, adoption of flat tax reform would cut pre-filing compliance costs by over 90 percent. Monies spent by businesses and investors in creating tax shelters and finding loopholes could be instead directed to productive and job- creating economic activity. With the adoption of a flat tax, the opportunities for fraud and cheating would also be vastly reduced, allowing the government to collect, according to some estimates, over $120 billion annually. The third major advantage to a flat tax is that it will be a tremendous spur to economic growth. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates adoption of a flat tax like the one offered today would increase future national wealth by over $2 trillion, in present value terms, over a seven year period. This translates into over $7,500 in increased wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth also means that there will be more jobs--it is estimated that the $2 trillion increase in wealth would lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs. The economic principles are fairly straightforward. Our current tax system is inefficient; it is biased toward too little savings and too much consumption. The flat tax creates substantial incentives for savings and investment by eliminating taxation on interest, dividends and capital gains--and tax policies which promote capital formation and investment are the best vehicle for creation of new and high paying jobs, and for a greater prosperity for all Americans. It is well recognized that to promote future economic growth, we need not only to eliminate the federal government's reliance on deficits and borrowed money, but to restore and expand the base of private savings and investment that has been the real engine driving American prosperity throughout our history. These concepts are related--the federal budget deficit soaks up much of what we have saved, leaving less for businesses to borrow for investments. It is the sum total of savings by all aspects of the U.S. economy that represents the pool of all capital available for investment--in training, education, research, machinery, physical plant, etc.--and that constitutes the real seed of future prosperity. The statistics here are daunting. In the 1960s, the net U.S. national savings rate was 8.2 percent, but it has fallen to a dismal 1.5 percent. Americans save at only one-tenth the rate of the Japanese, and only one-fifth the rate of the Germans. This is unacceptable and we must do something to reverse the trend. An analysis of the components of U.S. savings patterns shows that although the federal budget deficit is the largest cause of ``dissavings,'' both personal and business savings rates have declined significantly over the past three decades. Thus, to recreate the pool of capital stock that is critical to future U.S. growth and prosperity, we have to do more than just get rid of the deficit. We have to very materially raise our levels of private savings and investment. And we have to do so in a way that will not cause additional deficits. The less money people save, the less money is available for business investment and growth. The current tax system discourages savings and investment, because it taxes the interest we earn from our savings accounts, the dividends we make from investing in the stock market, and the capital gains we make from successful investments in our homes and the financial markets. Indeed, under the current law these rewards for saving and investment are not only taxed, they are overtaxed--since gains due solely to inflation, which represent no real increase in value, are taxed as if they were profits to the taxpayer. With the limited exceptions of retirement plans and tax free municipal bonds, our current tax code does virtually nothing to encourage personal savings and investment, or to reward it over consumption. This bill will change this system, and address this problem. The proposed legislation rev

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999
(Senate - April 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3790-S3814] THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Safe Seniors Assurance Study Act of 1999.'' I am joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada. This bill would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services conduct a study and analyze the impact of physician supervision, or lack of physician supervision, on death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia services. Since the [[Page S3791]] Medicare program began, the Health Care Financing Adminstration's (HCFA) standards for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers have required that a physician either provide the anesthesia care or supervise the anesthesia care provided by nurse anesthetists. This requirement has also applied to the Medicaid program. The very old and the very young, both covered by these two federal insurance programs, represent the segments of our population that, on average, face the highest anesthesia risks. The two programs cover over 40 million Americans. In December 1997, HCFA proposed changes to its standards for hospitals and surgical centers. Included in these proposed changes was the elimination of the physician supervision requirement, leaving to state governments the decision whether physician supervision of nurse anesthetists was necessary. In issuing its proposed changes, HCFA offered no scientific data indicating that anesthesia safety would not be impaired as a result of the changed rule, and has offered no such data to this day. In 1992, HCFA considered a similar change, but rejected it. After reviewing the studies available at the time showing anesthesia outcomes, HCFA concluded: ``In consideration of the risks associated with anesthesia procedures, we believe it would not be appropriate to allow anesthesia administration by a non-physician anesthetist unless under supervision by an anesthesiologist or the operating practitioner.'' HCFA also declined to adopt as a ``national minimum standard of care, a practice that is allowed in only some states.'' In the only comparative anesthesia outcome study published since 1992, researchers found that outcomes were better in hospitals having Board-certified anesthesiologists on staff. In the Fall of last year, an abstract of a University of Pennsylvania study of 65,000 Medicare surgical cases indicated that mortality and `failure to rescue' rates significantly improved when a nurse anesthetist was supervised by an anesthesiologist rather than the operating surgeon. This latter study is expected to be published in final form later this year. The Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations measure recommended that HCFA ``base retaining or changing the current requirement of physician supervision. . .on scientifically valid outcomes data.'' The Report suggested ``an outcome approach that would examine, using existing operating room anesthesia data, mortality and adverse outcomes rates by different anesthesia providers, adjusted to reflect relevant scientific variables.'' A bill was introduced in the House in early February by Representatives Dave Weldon and Gene Green that would require HCFA to undertake the congressionally-recommended outcome study of Medicare patients, and complete it by June 30, 2000. That bill currently has about 37 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue about safety. The bill that I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Harry Reid today, is very similar to the Weldon/ Green bill in the House. Our Senate version would only require that the Secretary of HHS consider the results of the June 2000 study in deciding whether or not to implement its 1997 proposal. Physician anesthesiologists personally provide, or supervise anesthesia administration by a qualified non-physician, 90% of the anesthesia care in this country. In the rest of the cases, supervision is provided by the operating practitioner. Under the Medicare program, there is no additional cost for having an anesthesiologist provide or supervise the anesthesia care versus having a non-physician provide the anesthesia under the supervision of the operating practitioner. The proposed HCFA rule change does not, therefore, generate any cost savings. Anesthesiologists are physicians who, after four years of pre-medical training in college, have completed eight years of medical education and specialized residency training. This is in contrast to the 24 to 30 months of training received by nurse anesthetists after nursing school--in fact, about 37% of nurse anesthetists have not graduated from college. The American Medical Association's House of Delegates last December approved a resolution supporting legislation requiring that an appropriately licensed and credentialed physician administer or supervise anesthesia care. National surveys of Medicare beneficiaries performed by the Tarrance Group in January 1998 and 1999 show that 4 out of 5 seniors oppose the elimination of the current physician supervision requirement. Let's err on the side of safety and caution by requiring that the Secretary of HHS conduct a study on the mortality and death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia care by different providers. Analyzing the impact of physician supervision on anesthesia care and requiring the Secretary to simply consider the results of that study in determining whether or not to change current regulations to allow unsupervised nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia services, is the very least we can do to ensure that we are making safe changes to existing regulations--changes that HCFA rejected in 1992 when studies of anesthesia outcomes were up-to-date and available. If HCFA is going to now change its policy in 1999, we should ask HCFA to show us the scientific and clinical data behind its decision to ensure that the safety of our most vulnerable populations--our children and our elderly--are adequately protected. None of us--including HCFA-- is in a position to judge the merits of this proposed rule change without first gathering and then analyzing up-to-date scientific evidence. Only then can patients be confident in the safety and quality of their anesthesia care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. ______ By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Reid): S. 819. A bill to provide funding for the National Park System from outer Continental Shelf revenues; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. National Park Preservation Act Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Member of the Senate, I am today introducing the National Park Preservation Act with my colleague Senator Reid of Nevada. This legislation will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitats, and cultural and other core park resources within our National Park System. As you are all aware, the National Park Service has a presence in virtually every state in the nation. There are a total of 345 units in the national park system spread throughout the nation. My home state of Florida is home to three National Parks--Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas; two National Preserves--Big Cypress and Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve; two National Seashores--Canaveral and Gulf Islands; two National Monuments--Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas; and two National Memorials--DeSoto and Fort Caroline. Although these National Parks are treasured throughout the nation, everyday activities often threaten the resources of our park system. For example, in Yellowstone National Park an inadequate sewage system frequently discharges materials into precious resources such as Yellowstone Lake. Development surrounding Mojave National Park threatens the park's desert wilderness. Ground-level ozone accumulating at Great Smoky Mountains National Park threatens the park's core resource--visibility. Manipulation of the natural hydrologic system impacts water quality and water availability in Everglades National Park. The Graham-Reid National Park Preservation Act will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. The bill will establish a permanent account using Outer Continental Shelf revenues to provide $500 million annually to the Department of Interior to protect and preserve these resources. These funds will be made available for projects such as land acquisition, construction, grants to state or local governments, or partnerships with other federal agencies that seek to combat identified threats to ecosystems, critical habitats, cultural resources, and other core park resources. In this legislation, I [[Page S3792]] also continue my longstanding efforts to protect Florida's coastal resources by making revenues from any new oil and gas leases or from development of any existing leases in a moratorium area ineligible for expenditure in this account. Thirty percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring within the unit such as sewage treatment at Yellowstone Park. Seventy percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside of the unit, such as degradation of water resources at Everglades National Park. Of these funds, the legislation specifically provides $75 million to the Everglades restoration effort as the keynote project of the legislation. The Everglades National Park is one component of the Everglades ecosystem which stretches from the Kissimmee River basin near Orlando and all the way to Florida Bay and Keys. It is the only ecosystem of its kind in the world. It is the largest wetland and subtropical wilderness in the United States. It is home to a unique population of plant and wildlife. The water in this system is the lifeblood of the freshwater aquifer that provides most of Florida's drinking water. For more than a century, this ecosystem has been altered to facilitate development and protect against hurricanes and droughts. Today, almost 50% of the original Everglades has been drained or otherwise altered. The remaining Everglades, and in particular, the regions located within Everglades National Park, are severely threatened by nutrient-rich water, interrupted hydrology, decreased water supply, exotic plants, and mercury contamination. On July 1 the Army Corps of Engineers will submit to Congress an Everglades restoration plan, termed the ``Restudy'' by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This plan reviews the original Central and South Florida Flood Control project which was initiated in the 1940s by the Army Corps and has been the source of the ecosystem manipulation that occurred in Florida since that time. The Restudy outlines the basic elements of a plan to restore the Everglades as closely to their natural state as possible. This is a difficult and complex task since the original area of the Everglades was reduced by 50% with the development of both coasts as large metropolitan areas. Costs of execution of this plan will be shared on a 50-50 basis with the state of Florida. There has never been a restoration project of this size in the history of the United States or the world. This is an opportunity to preserve a national treasure that was destroyed by our own actions in the past. The bill we will introduce today will provide dedicated funds for the federal share of the land acquisition portions of this project which is so critical to the nation. I look forward to working with each of you as we seek to protect and preserve the ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 819 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Act to Sustain the National Parks''. SEC. 2. DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. (a) Definitions.--In this Act: (1) Leased tract.--The term ``leased tract'' means a tract leased under section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) for the purpose of drilling for, developing, and producing oil and natural gas resources, consisting of a block, a portion of a block, or a combination of blocks or portions of blocks, as specified in the lease and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagram. (2) Outer continental shelf.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331). (3) Outer continental shelf revenues.-- (A) In general.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' means all amounts received by the United States from leased tracts, less-- (i) such amounts as are credited to States under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)); and (ii) such amounts as are needed for adjustments or refunds of overpayments for rents, royalties, or other purposes. (B) Inclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' includes royalties (including payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net profit share payments, and related late-payment interest from natural gas and oil leases issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for a leased tract. (C) Exclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' does not include amounts received by the United States under-- (i) any lease issued on or after the date of enactment of this Act; (ii) any lease under which no oil or gas production occurred before January 1, 1999; or (iii) any lease in an area for which there is in effect a moratorium on leasing or drilling on the outer Continental Shelf. (b) Separate Account.--Of the amount of outer Continental Shelf revenues received by the Secretary of the Interior during each fiscal year, $500,000,000 shall be deposited in a separate account in the Treasury of the United States and shall, without further Act of appropriation, be available to the Secretary of the Interior in subsequent fiscal years until expended. (c) Threatened Park Resources.-- (1) In general.--The amounts made available under subsection (b) shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System that have ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources that are threatened or impaired. (2) Identified threats.--The amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) shall be used only to address identified threats and impairments described in paragraph (1), including use for land acquisition, construction, grants to State, local, or municipal governments, or partnerships with other Federal agencies or nonprofit organizations; and (B) shall not be directed to other operational or maintenance needs of units of the National Park System. (3) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) 30 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring inside the unit; and (B) 70 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside the unit (including $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2015 for the Federal share of the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration project under the comprehensive plan developed under section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767)). (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended by striking ``All rentals'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 2 of the National Park Preservation Act, all rentals''. ______ By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Jeffords); S. 820. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 4.3- cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and inland waterway transportation which remain in the general fund of the Treasury; to the Committee on Finance. the transportation tax equity and fairness act Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Breaux and Jeffords, to correct an inequity that currently exists with the taxes imposed on transportation fuels. In 1990 Congress extended fuel taxes beyond their traditional role as transportation user fees by introducing a 2.5 cents-per-gallon federal deficit reduction tax on railroad and highway fuels. These taxes were enacted as part of legislation that was designed to reduce the federal budget that existed at that time. In 1993, Congress increased these ``deficit reduction fuel taxes'' and extended them to inland waterway users and commercial airlines. The taxes imposed on barges went into effect immediately, while those affecting the airlines were delayed for 2 years. As a result of these two pieces of legislation a deficit reduction fuel tax of 6.8 cents per gallon was imposed on railroads and trucks, 4.3 cents per gallon on barges, and a suspended 4.3 cents per gallon tax on airlines. Beginning in 1995, however, Congress began to redirect these taxes for other uses. The first step was taking 2.5 cents of the amount paid by highway users and transferring it to the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund, [[Page S3793]] as many of my colleagues know, is the principal source of money used for highway infrastructure. Taxes paid into this trust fund by highway users results in a direct benefit to them by being recycled back into improvements to our nation's roads and bridges. Recognizing that this transfer would place the railroad industry--a direct competitor of the trucking industry--at a competitive disadvantage, Congress reduced the deficit reduction tax paid by railroads by 1.25 cents. As a result of these changes, then, highway users, commerical airlines and inland waterway users paid a deficit reduction tax of 4.3 cents while railroads paid a tax of 5.55 cents. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act further disadvantaged the railroad and inland waterway sectors by relieving highway users and commercial airlines from the remaining 4.3 cent deficit reduction fuel tax. Instead of these funds going into the General Fund of the Treasury, the taxes paid by these sectors were redirected to their respective trust funds. I have a chart that I will ask be included with my statement that shows the evolution of deficit reduction fuel excise taxes over the past decade. Today, two sectors of the transportation industry--railroads and inland waterway users--pay ``deficit reduction'' taxes even though we no longer have a deficit. Furthermore, these sectors are required to continue paying these taxes even though their competitors do not. There is absolutely no policy rationale for railroads and barge operators to pay deficit reduction fuel taxes while motor carriers and commerical airlines are required to pay nothing. We believe the time has come to correct this unfairness. This bill levels the playing field by repealing the remaining 4.3 cent tax paid by the railroads and inland waterway users. I urge all of my colleagues to our legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the chart be included in the Record. The chart follows: DEFICIT REDUCTION FUEL EXCISE TAXES PAID BY THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION SECTORS BY YEAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1990 1993 1995 1997 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Highway Users........................ 2.5 6.8 4.3 0 0 Railroads............................ 2.5 6.8 5.55 5.55 4.3 Barges............................... 0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Commercial Airlines.................. 0 0 4.3 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______ By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Torricelli): S. 821. A bill to provide for the collection of data on traffic stops; to the Committee on the Judiciary. traffic stops statistics study act of 1999 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help our nation deal with the problem of racial profiling during traffic stops. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feingold, Kennedy, and Torricelli. Across the country, too many motorists fear that they will be stopped by law enforcement for nothing more than the color of their skin. The offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``Driving While Black'' is well known to minorities, and the fact that this term has entered the common vocabulary demonstrates the pervasiveness of the problem. In my home state and other states along the Interstate-95 corridor, there have been many serious and credible allegations of racial profiling. For example, statistics recently released by the state of New Jersey, reveal that 73 percent of motorists arrested on the New Jersey turnpike in early 1997 were minorities. Similarly, a court- ordered study in Maryland found that more than 70 percent of drivers stopped on Interstate-95 were African American though they made up only 17.5 percent of drivers. Not surprisingly, the practice of racial profiling has led to litigation. In the case of State versus Soto, a state court judge ruled that troopers were engaging in racial profiling on the southernmost segment of the New Jersey Turnpike. That decision spurred the United States Department of Justice to begin a ``pattern and practice'' investigation, in December 1996, to determine whether the New Jersey State Police had violated the constitutional rights of minority motorists. The Department of Justice is also investigating police agencies in Eastpointe, Michigan, and Orange County, Florida. Additionally, a number of individuals and organizations have filed private lawsuits seeking to end the inappropriate use of racial profiling. While litigation may bring about limited reforms, it is clear that Congress must develop a nationwide approach. The legislation I am introducing today will help define the scope of the problem, increase police awareness, and suggest whether additional steps are necessary. It would require that the Attorney General collect data on traffic stops and report the results to Congress. Because better relations between police and citizens will help ease racial tensions, the measure will also authorize grants to law enforcement agencies for the development of better training programs and policing strategies. In recent decades, we have made great progress in strengthening the civil rights of all Americans. Many dedicated law enforcement officials have contributed greatly to this effort by applying the law fairly and working to strengthen the bonds of trust in the communities they serve. To their credit, some police agencies have spoken out against the practice of racial profiling. In New Jersey, the State Troopers Fraternal Association, the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and the State Troopers Superior Officers Association have stated that ``anyone out there using racial profiling or in any way misusing or abusing their position, must be identified and properly dealt with.'' But we cannot allow the actions of some police officials to undermine these achievements, and we should work to ensure that minority motorists are no longer subjected to unwarranted traffic stops. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and help protect the civil rights of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 821 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY. (a) Study.-- (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by law enforcement officers. (2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an initial analysis of existing data, including complaints alleging and other information concerning traffic stops motivated by race and other bias. (3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial analysis under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall then gather the following data on traffic stops from a nationwide sample of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions identified in the initial analysis: (A) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop. (B) Identifying characteristics of the driver stopped, including the race, gender, ethnicity, and approximate age of the driver. (C) Whether immigration status was questioned, immigration documents were requested, or an inquiry was made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with regard to any person in the vehicle. (D) The number of individuals in the stopped vehicle. (E) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop and whether consent was requested for the search. (F) Any alleged criminal behavior by the driver that justified the search. (G) Any items seized, including contraband or money. (H) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop. (I) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop or the search and the justification for the arrest. (J) The duration of the stop. (b) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of its initial analysis to Congress, and make such report available to the public, and identify the jurisdictions for which the study is to be conducted. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the data collected under this Act to Congress, a copy of which shall also be published in the Federal Register. SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM. In order to complete the study described in section 2, the Attorney General may provide grants to law enforcement agencies to collect and submit the data described in section 2 to the appropriate agency as designated by the Attorney General. [[Page S3794]] SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA. Information released pursuant to section 2 shall not reveal the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law enforcement officer involved in a traffic stop. SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement agency'' means an agency of a State or political subdivision of a State, authorized by law or by a Federal, State, or local government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal laws, or a federally recognized Indian tribe. (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe. SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) in introducing the Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999. This legislation represents a substantial step toward ending an insidious form of discrimination that is plaguing African-American and Hispanic drivers on our roadways-- racial profiling. Most law enforcement officers do their best to respect and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, but it has become undeniable that racial profiling has become a disturbingly common practice. Racial profiling is the practice of pulling over African American, Hispanic, and other minority drivers for routine traffic stops as a premise for conducting a search for drugs. They might be driving just like any ordinary driver, and so they might be surprised to be pulled over. ``Was I speeding?'' they ask. Often, they are told that they have committed some minor traffic infraction that most people are not even aware of--sometimes, the infraction is just a pretext--they might be told that their tire tread is not of the correct depth, or that they have a bumper sticker affixed incorrectly. Any such infraction can be alleged in order to pull over a target of racial profiling, and as a premise to ask for a search. Many people are not aware that they have the right to refuse a search, and many innocent people are afraid that saying no will make them look guilty. The reality is, if they do refuse a search, victims can sometimes look forward to being detained anyway while a canine unit comes out to sniff for drugs. That is what happened to attorney Robert Wilkins and his family as they returned to Maryland by car from his grandfather's funeral in Chicago. Mr. Wilkins was fortunate enough to be an attorney who knew his rights, and proceeded to join with the ACLU and other groups to sue the Maryland State Police. As a result of that lawsuit, Maryland has conducted its own study of traffic stops, and the results indicate that over 75 percent of those people stopped and search on I- 95 are African-American, even though African-Americans make up only 17 percent of the state's population. The innocent people who are inevitably caught in these racially motivated stops feel like they are being punished for what is now called ``DWB''--``Driving While Black,'' or ``Driving While Brown.'' Mr. President, by and large when minorities are stopped by law enforcement officers, they are not attorneys, and they may not know or assert all of their rights--they are scared and they are resentful. And rightly so, when they have been the victim of racial profiling. Is this the way we want to stop the flow of drugs in America? By randomly targeting racial and ethnic minorities who are doing nothing more suspicious than driving their cars? Do we want law-abiding American citizens to feel as though they are living in a police state, scared and reluctant to travel in their cars for fear of being stopped and searched for no reason? While African-Americans make up under 20% of the American population, several local studies like the Maryland one I mentioned earlier indicate that they make up a much greater percentage of all routine traffic stops, and are far more likely to be searched and subsequently arrested. In my own home state of Wisconsin, a 1996 study by the Madison Capital Times revealed that African-Americans receive 13% of Madison's traffic tickets, despite the fact that they make up only 4% of the city's population, In Florida, the Orlando Sentinel newspaper obtained more than 140 hours of videotapes from police patrol cars showing drivers being stopped on Interstate 95. About 70% of the drivers stopped were black or Hispanic, even though they made up only 5% of all drivers on the road. And in New Jersey, a recent study suggests that African Americans are almost five times as likely to be stopped for speeding as drivers of other races. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' As Americans, we should all feel threatened when any one of us is denied our personal liberty. Just last week, the United States Supreme Court took yet another step toward eradicating our Fourth Amendment rights against the invasion of our privacy. It held in Wyoming versus Houghton that police can search the personal belongings of all passengers inside a car when looking for criminal evidence against the driver. I fear that this will send a message to some law enforcement officers that they can now expand racial profiling to include not only the driver of a passing car, but also the passengers. And if you happen to be a passenger in a car that was pulled over because of the color of the driver's skin, you can now look forward to having your personal belongings searched through and pored over. The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999 will begin to shed light on the practice of racial profiling. By analyzing the data that the Justice Department obtains over the next two years, we will get a clear picture of the prevalence of the practice of pulling people over because of their skin color or apparent ethnicity. A version of this bill passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. The simultaneous introduction of this bill in the Senate and the House shows that we are serious about sending this to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with us to enact this legislation. It is high time to put a stop to this blatant and offensive practice, which is taking some law enforcement officers, and the rest of us, down a dangerous and discriminatory road. ______ By Mr. SPECTER: S. 822. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a flat tax only on individual taxable earned income and business taxable income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. flat tax act of 1999 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation on a flat tax. This, of course, is a famous day, April 15, the day when Federal income tax returns are due. Across this land for many days, many weeks, some months, Americans have been struggling with their tax returns. As we speak, some may have on C-SPAN2 quietly while they are working on their returns at this very moment. I recall seeing long lines at the Philadelphia post office near midnight on income tax day when cars were lined up and people were dropping off their tax returns at the post office to beat the filing deadline. This is a good occasion to talk about the flat tax which permits taxpayers to report their income on a postcard. It can actually be done in the course of some 15 minutes. I filed my tax return and sent it off yesterday. It is very complicated. They say it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a tax return. I think it takes more than a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a Federal income tax return, and we have labored under the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code for far too long. I first introduced this legislation in March of 1995. I was the second one in the Congress of the United States to introduce flat-tax legislation. The majority leader, Dick Armey, had introduced the flat tax in the House of Representatives the preceding fall. I studied it. I studied the model of Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka, two distinguished professors of economics and tax law at Stanford University, and concluded that America ought to have a flat tax and that we could, in fact, have a flat tax if the American people really understood what a flat tax was all about. The Hall-Rabushka model was revenue neutral at 19 percent. I have added 1 percent in order to allow for two deductions: one on charitable contributions up to $2,500 a year and a second on interest on home mortgages of [[Page S3795]] borrowings up to $100,000 to take care of middle-class Americans, because I think without those two deductions, it would be a political impossibility to have a flat tax enacted. The advantage of the flat tax is that it does have the flatness with only those two deductions, so it is a very simple matter to return the tax return. Here is a sample tax return. You fill in your name and your address. You list your total wage, salary, or pension. There is a personal allowance, for a family of four. Up to $27,500 pays no tax at all. That constitutes about 53 percent of Americans. It has the two deductions for mortgage interest on debt up to $100,000 for an owner-occupied home and charitable contributions up to $2,500; total compensation multiplied by 20 percent, and that is that. The tax burden costs Americans about $224 billion a year of our gross national product, which is mired in complexity and unnecessary regulation. The flat tax seeks to bring equity into the tax payment by taxing only once so that the flat tax eliminates tax on net dividends, capital gains or estates because all of those items have already been taxed. It would enable Americans to accumulate a great deal more in capital which would help business expansion which would help the economy. And it is projected that the gross national product would be increased by some $2 trillion over 7 years by virtue of this flat tax proposal. The flat tax is a win-win situation all up and down the line because, by eliminating the loopholes, it eliminates the opportunities of very wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes at all. When you take a look at the returns of the very, very rich, with the practices of deductions and tax shelters, all of which is legal, the very, very wealthy avoid paying any tax at all. But this flat tax would have the advantages of capital accumulation, would have the advantage of increasing the gross national product, but most of all would have the simplicity of being able to file a tax return on a postcard. I think that as I speak--it is always problematic as to how many people are watching C-SPAN2--but I think as I speak there are many Americans across the land tonight who would like to be able to fill out a tax return in 15 minutes. And my view is that if it were better understood, that there would be a great public clamor to have a flat tax enacted. Mr. President, to reiterate, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to provide for a flat 20% tax on individuals and businesses. In the 104th Congress, I was the first Senator to introduce flat tax legislation and the first Member of Congress to set forth a deficit-neutral plan for dramatically reforming our nation's tax code and replacing it with a flatter, fairer plan designed to stimulate economic growth. My flat tax legislation was also the first plan to retain limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. As I traveled around the country and held town hall meetings across Pennsylvania and other states, the public support for fundamental tax reform was overwhelming. I would point out in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: (1) my copy of the Constitution; and (2) a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard--many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates. Support for the flat tax is growing as more and more Americans embrace the simplicity, fairness and growth potential of flat tax reform. An April 17, 1995, edition of Newsweek cited a poll showing that 61 percent of Americans favor a flat tax over the current tax code. Significantly, a majority of the respondents who favor the flat tax preferred my flat tax plan with limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Well before he entered the 1996 Republican presidential primary, publisher Steve Forbes opined in a March 27, 1995, Forbes editorial about the tremendous appeal and potency of my flat tax plan. Congress was not immune to public demand for reform. Jack Kemp was appointed to head up the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform and the Commission soon came out with its report recognizing the value of a fairer, flatter tax code. Mr. Forbes soon introduced a flat tax plan of his own, and my fellow candidates in the 1996 Republican presidential primary began to embrace similar versions of either a flat tax or a consumption-based tax system. Unfortunately, the politics of that Presidential campaign denied the flat tax a fair hearing and momentum stalled. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. While my flat tax proposal was favorably received at town hall meetings in Pennsylvania, Congress failed to move forward on any tax reform during the 105th Congress. I tried repeatedly to raise the issue with leadership and the Finance Committee to no avail. I think the American people want this debate to move forward and I think the issue of tax reform is ripe for consideration. In this period of opportunity as we commence the 106th Session of Congress, I am optimistic that public support for tax reform will enable us to move forward and adopt this critically important and necessary legislation. That is why today I am again introducing my Flat Tax Act of 1999. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20% tax rate for all individuals and businesses. It will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-line postcard. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic growth. Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Before I introduced my flat tax bill early in the 104th Congress, I had discussions with Congressman Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, about his flat tax proposal. In fact, I testified with House Majority Leader Richard Armey before the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees, as well as the Joint Economic Committee and the House Small Business Committee on the tremendous benefits of flat tax reform. Since then, and both before and after introducing my original flat tax bill, my staff and I have studied the flat tax at some length, and have engaged in a host of discussions with economists and tax experts, including the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to evaluate the economic impact and viability of a flat tax. Based on those discussions, and on the revenue estimates supplied to us, I have concluded that a simple flat tax at a rate of 20% on all business and personal income can be enacted without reducing federal revenues. A flat tax will help reduce the size of government and allow ordinary citizens to have more influence over how their money is spent because they will spend it--not the government. By creating strong incentives for savings and investment, the flat tax will have the [[Page S3796]] beneficial result of making available larger pools of capital for expansion of the private sector of the economy--rather than more tax money for big government. This will mean more jobs and, just as important, more higher-paying jobs. As a matter of federal tax policy, there has been considerable controversy over whether tax breaks should be used to stimulate particular kinds of economic activity, or whether tax policy should be neutral, leaving people to do what they consider best from a purely economic point of view. Our current tax code attempts to use tax policy to direct economic activity. Yet actions under that code have demonstrated that so-called tax breaks are inevitably used as the basis for tax shelters which have no real relation to solid economic purposes, or to the activities which the tax laws were meant to promote. Even when the government responds to particular tax shelters with new and often complex revisions of the regulations, clever tax experts are able to stay one or two steps ahead of the IRS bureaucrats by changing the structure of their business transactions and then claiming some legal distinctions between the taxpayer's new approach and the revised IRS regulations and precedents. Under the massive complexity of the current IRS Code, the battle between $500-an-hour tax lawyers and IRS bureaucrats to open and close loopholes is a battle the government can never win. Under the flat tax bill I offer today, there are no loopholes, and tax avoidance through clever manipulations will become a thing of the past. The basic model for this legislation comes from a plan created by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Their plan envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible. In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19% rate, is based on a well documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19% to 20% to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. A preliminary estimate in the 104th Congress by the Committee on Joint Taxation places the annual cost of the home interest deduction at $35 billion, and the cost of the charitable deduction at $13 billion. While the revenue calculation is complicated because the Hall-Rabushka proposal encompasses significant revisions to business taxes as well as personal income taxes, there is a sound basis for concluding that the 1% increase in rate would pay for the two deductions. Revenue estimates for tax code revisions are difficult to obtain and are, at best, judgment calls based on projections from fact situations with myriad assumed variables. It is possible that some modification may be needed at a later date to guarantee revenue neutrality. This legislation offered today is quite similar to the bill introduced in the House by Congressman Armey and in the Senate late in 1995 by Senator Richard Shelby, which were both in turn modeled after the Hall-Rabushka proposal. The flat tax offers great potential for enormous economic growth, in keeping with principles articulated so well by Jack Kemp. This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans. In the 104th Congress, we took some important steps toward reducing the size and cost of government, and this work is ongoing and vitally important. But the work of downsizing government is only one side of the coin; what we must do at the same time, and with as much energy and care, is to grow the private sector. As we reform the welfare programs and government bureaucracies of past administrations, we must replace those programs with a prosperity that extends to all segments of American society through private investment and job creation--which can have the additional benefit of producing even lower taxes for Americans as economic expansion adds to federal revenues. Just as Americans need a tax code that is fair and simple, they also are entitled to tax laws designed to foster rather than retard economic growth. The bill I offer today embodies those principles. My plan, like the Armey-Shelby proposal, is based on the Hall- Rabushka analysis. But my flat tax differs from the Armey-Shelby plan in four key respects: First, my bill contains a 20% flat tax rate. Second, this bill would retain modified deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions (which will require a 1% higher tax rate than otherwise). Third, my bill would maintain the automatic withholding of taxes from an individual's paycheck. Lastly, my bill is designed to be revenue neutral, and thus will not undermine our vital efforts to balance the nation's budget. The key advantages of this flat tax plan are three-fold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts, and as interest rates drop. Under this tax plan, individuals would be taxed at a flat rate of 20% on all income they earn from wages, pensions and salaries. Individuals would not be taxed on any capital gains, interest on savings, or dividends--since those items will have already been taxed as part of the flat tax on business revenue. The flat tax will also eliminate all but two of the deductions and exemptions currently contained within the tax code. Instead, taxpayers will be entitled to ``personal allowances'' for themselves and their children. The personal allowances are: $10,000 for a single taxpayer; $15,000 for a single head of household; $17,500 for a married couple filing jointly; and $5,000 per child or dependent. These personal allowances would be adjusted annually for inflation after 1999. In order to ensure that this flat tax does not unfairly impact low income families, the personal allowances contained in my proposal are much higher than the standard deduction and personal exemptions allowed under the current tax code. For example in the 1998 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,250 for a single taxpayer, $6,250 for a head of household and $7,100 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $2,700. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay tax on all income over $17,900 (personal exemptions of $10,800 and a standard deduction of $7,100). By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax only on income over that amount. My legislation retains the provisions for the deductibility of charitable contributions up to a limit of $2,500 and home mortgage interest on up to $100,000 of borrowing. Retention of these key deductions will, I believe, enhance the political salability of this legislation and allow the debate on the flat tax to move forward. If a decision is made to eliminate these deductions, the revenue saved could be used to reduce the overall flat tax rate below 20%. With respect to businesses, the flat tax would also be a flat rate of 20%. My legislation would eliminate the intricate scheme of complicated depreciation schedules, deductions, credits, and [[Page S3797]] other complexities that go into business taxation in favor of a much- simplified system that taxes all business revenue less only wages, direct expenses and purchases--a system with much less potential for fraud, ``creative accounting'' and tax avoidance. Businesses would be allowed to expense 100% of the cost of capital formation, including purchases of capital equipment, structures and land, and to do so in the year in which the investments are made. The business tax would apply to all money not reinvested in the company in the form of employment or capital formation--thus fully taxing revenue at the business level and making it inappropriate to re-tax the same monies when passed on to investors as dividends or capital gains. Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of the advantages of the flat tax legislation I am introducing today. The first major advantage to this flat tax is simplicity. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spend approximately 5.3 billion hours each year filling out tax forms. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5.6 million words in 1995. Whenever the government gets involved in any aspect of our lives, it can convert the most simple goal or task into a tangled array of complexity, frustration and inefficiency. By way of example, most Americans have become familiar with the absurdities of the government's military procurement programs. If these programs have taught us anything, it is how a simple purchase order for a hammer or a toilet seat can mushroom into thousands of words of regulations and restrictions when the government gets involved. The Internal Revenue Service is certainly no exception. Indeed, it has become a distressingly common experience for taxpayers to receive computerized print-outs claiming that additional taxes are due, which require repeated exchanges of correspondence or personal visits before it is determined, as it so often is, that the taxpayer was right in the first place. The plan offered today would eliminate these kinds of frustrations for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the five million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of tens of millions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules and regulations. The flat tax I have proposed can be calculated just by filling out a small postcard which would require a taxpayer only to answer a few easy questions. Filing a tax return would become a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. Along with the advantage of simplicity, enactment of this flat tax bill will help to remove the burden of costly and unnecessary government regulation, bureaucracy and red tape from our everyday lives. The heavy hand of government bureaucracy is particularly onerous in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, which has been able to extend its influence into so many aspects of our lives. In 1995, the IRS employed 117,000 people, spread out over countless offices across the United States. Its budget was in excess of $7 billion, with over $4 billion spent merely on enforcement. By simplifying the tax code and eliminating most of the IRS' vast array of rules and regulations, the flat tax would enable us to cut a significant portion of the IRS budget, including the bulk of the funding now needed for enforcement and administration. In addition, a flat tax would allow taxpayers to redirect their time, energies and money away from the yearly morass of tax compliance. According to the Tax Foundation, in 1996, the private sector spent over $150 billion complying with federal tax laws. According to a Tax Foundation study, adoption of flat tax reform would cut pre-filing compliance costs by over 90 percent. Monies spent by businesses and investors in creating tax shelters and finding loopholes could be instead directed to productive and job- creating economic activity. With the adoption of a flat tax, the opportunities for fraud and cheating would also be vastly reduced, allowing the government to collect, according to some estimates, over $120 billion annually. The third major advantage to a flat tax is that it will be a tremendous spur to economic growth. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates adoption of a flat tax like the one offered today would increase future national wealth by over $2 trillion, in present value terms, over a seven year period. This translates into over $7,500 in increased wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth also means that there will be more jobs--it is estimated that the $2 trillion increase in wealth would lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs. The economic principles are fairly straightforward. Our current tax system is inefficient; it is biased toward too little savings and too much consumption. The flat tax creates substantial incentives for savings and investment by eliminating taxation on interest, dividends and capital gains--and tax policies which promote capital formation and investment are the best vehicle for creation of new and high paying jobs, and for a greater prosperity for all Americans. It is well recognized that to promote future economic growth, we need not only to eliminate the federal government's reliance on deficits and borrowed money, but to restore and expand the base of private savings and investment that has been the real engine driving American prosperity throughout our history. These concepts are related--the federal budget deficit soaks up much of what we have saved, leaving less for businesses to borrow for investments. It is the sum total of savings by all aspects of the U.S. economy that represents the pool of all capital available for investment--in training, education, research, machinery, physical plant, etc.--and that constitutes the real seed of future prosperity. The statistics here are daunting. In the 1960s, the net U.S. national savings rate was 8.2 percent, but it has fallen to a dismal 1.5 percent. Americans save at only one-tenth the rate of the Japanese, and only one-fifth the rate of the Germans. This is unacceptable and we must do something to reverse the trend. An analysis of the components of U.S. savings patterns shows that although the federal budget deficit is the largest cause of ``dissavings,'' both personal and business savings rates have declined significantly over the past three decades. Thus, to recreate the pool of capital stock that is critical to future U.S. growth and prosperity, we have to do more than just get rid of the deficit. We have to very materially raise our levels of private savings and investment. And we have to do so in a way that will not cause additional deficits. The less money people save, the less money is available for business investment and growth. The current tax system discourages savings and investment, because it taxes the interest we earn from our savings accounts, the dividends we make from investing in the stock market, and the capital gains we make from successful investments in our homes and the financial markets. Indeed, under the current law these rewards for saving and investment are not only taxed, they are overtaxed--since gains due solely to inflation, which represent no real increase in value, are taxed as if they were profits to the taxpayer. With the limited exceptions of retirement plans and tax free municipal bonds, our current tax code does virtually nothing to encourage personal savings and investment, or to reward it over consumption. This bill will change this system, and address this problem. The proposed legislation reverses the current skewed incent

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999
(Senate - April 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3790-S3814] THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Safe Seniors Assurance Study Act of 1999.'' I am joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada. This bill would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services conduct a study and analyze the impact of physician supervision, or lack of physician supervision, on death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia services. Since the [[Page S3791]] Medicare program began, the Health Care Financing Adminstration's (HCFA) standards for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers have required that a physician either provide the anesthesia care or supervise the anesthesia care provided by nurse anesthetists. This requirement has also applied to the Medicaid program. The very old and the very young, both covered by these two federal insurance programs, represent the segments of our population that, on average, face the highest anesthesia risks. The two programs cover over 40 million Americans. In December 1997, HCFA proposed changes to its standards for hospitals and surgical centers. Included in these proposed changes was the elimination of the physician supervision requirement, leaving to state governments the decision whether physician supervision of nurse anesthetists was necessary. In issuing its proposed changes, HCFA offered no scientific data indicating that anesthesia safety would not be impaired as a result of the changed rule, and has offered no such data to this day. In 1992, HCFA considered a similar change, but rejected it. After reviewing the studies available at the time showing anesthesia outcomes, HCFA concluded: ``In consideration of the risks associated with anesthesia procedures, we believe it would not be appropriate to allow anesthesia administration by a non-physician anesthetist unless under supervision by an anesthesiologist or the operating practitioner.'' HCFA also declined to adopt as a ``national minimum standard of care, a practice that is allowed in only some states.'' In the only comparative anesthesia outcome study published since 1992, researchers found that outcomes were better in hospitals having Board-certified anesthesiologists on staff. In the Fall of last year, an abstract of a University of Pennsylvania study of 65,000 Medicare surgical cases indicated that mortality and `failure to rescue' rates significantly improved when a nurse anesthetist was supervised by an anesthesiologist rather than the operating surgeon. This latter study is expected to be published in final form later this year. The Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations measure recommended that HCFA ``base retaining or changing the current requirement of physician supervision. . .on scientifically valid outcomes data.'' The Report suggested ``an outcome approach that would examine, using existing operating room anesthesia data, mortality and adverse outcomes rates by different anesthesia providers, adjusted to reflect relevant scientific variables.'' A bill was introduced in the House in early February by Representatives Dave Weldon and Gene Green that would require HCFA to undertake the congressionally-recommended outcome study of Medicare patients, and complete it by June 30, 2000. That bill currently has about 37 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue about safety. The bill that I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Harry Reid today, is very similar to the Weldon/ Green bill in the House. Our Senate version would only require that the Secretary of HHS consider the results of the June 2000 study in deciding whether or not to implement its 1997 proposal. Physician anesthesiologists personally provide, or supervise anesthesia administration by a qualified non-physician, 90% of the anesthesia care in this country. In the rest of the cases, supervision is provided by the operating practitioner. Under the Medicare program, there is no additional cost for having an anesthesiologist provide or supervise the anesthesia care versus having a non-physician provide the anesthesia under the supervision of the operating practitioner. The proposed HCFA rule change does not, therefore, generate any cost savings. Anesthesiologists are physicians who, after four years of pre-medical training in college, have completed eight years of medical education and specialized residency training. This is in contrast to the 24 to 30 months of training received by nurse anesthetists after nursing school--in fact, about 37% of nurse anesthetists have not graduated from college. The American Medical Association's House of Delegates last December approved a resolution supporting legislation requiring that an appropriately licensed and credentialed physician administer or supervise anesthesia care. National surveys of Medicare beneficiaries performed by the Tarrance Group in January 1998 and 1999 show that 4 out of 5 seniors oppose the elimination of the current physician supervision requirement. Let's err on the side of safety and caution by requiring that the Secretary of HHS conduct a study on the mortality and death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia care by different providers. Analyzing the impact of physician supervision on anesthesia care and requiring the Secretary to simply consider the results of that study in determining whether or not to change current regulations to allow unsupervised nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia services, is the very least we can do to ensure that we are making safe changes to existing regulations--changes that HCFA rejected in 1992 when studies of anesthesia outcomes were up-to-date and available. If HCFA is going to now change its policy in 1999, we should ask HCFA to show us the scientific and clinical data behind its decision to ensure that the safety of our most vulnerable populations--our children and our elderly--are adequately protected. None of us--including HCFA-- is in a position to judge the merits of this proposed rule change without first gathering and then analyzing up-to-date scientific evidence. Only then can patients be confident in the safety and quality of their anesthesia care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. ______ By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Reid): S. 819. A bill to provide funding for the National Park System from outer Continental Shelf revenues; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. National Park Preservation Act Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Member of the Senate, I am today introducing the National Park Preservation Act with my colleague Senator Reid of Nevada. This legislation will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitats, and cultural and other core park resources within our National Park System. As you are all aware, the National Park Service has a presence in virtually every state in the nation. There are a total of 345 units in the national park system spread throughout the nation. My home state of Florida is home to three National Parks--Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas; two National Preserves--Big Cypress and Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve; two National Seashores--Canaveral and Gulf Islands; two National Monuments--Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas; and two National Memorials--DeSoto and Fort Caroline. Although these National Parks are treasured throughout the nation, everyday activities often threaten the resources of our park system. For example, in Yellowstone National Park an inadequate sewage system frequently discharges materials into precious resources such as Yellowstone Lake. Development surrounding Mojave National Park threatens the park's desert wilderness. Ground-level ozone accumulating at Great Smoky Mountains National Park threatens the park's core resource--visibility. Manipulation of the natural hydrologic system impacts water quality and water availability in Everglades National Park. The Graham-Reid National Park Preservation Act will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. The bill will establish a permanent account using Outer Continental Shelf revenues to provide $500 million annually to the Department of Interior to protect and preserve these resources. These funds will be made available for projects such as land acquisition, construction, grants to state or local governments, or partnerships with other federal agencies that seek to combat identified threats to ecosystems, critical habitats, cultural resources, and other core park resources. In this legislation, I [[Page S3792]] also continue my longstanding efforts to protect Florida's coastal resources by making revenues from any new oil and gas leases or from development of any existing leases in a moratorium area ineligible for expenditure in this account. Thirty percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring within the unit such as sewage treatment at Yellowstone Park. Seventy percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside of the unit, such as degradation of water resources at Everglades National Park. Of these funds, the legislation specifically provides $75 million to the Everglades restoration effort as the keynote project of the legislation. The Everglades National Park is one component of the Everglades ecosystem which stretches from the Kissimmee River basin near Orlando and all the way to Florida Bay and Keys. It is the only ecosystem of its kind in the world. It is the largest wetland and subtropical wilderness in the United States. It is home to a unique population of plant and wildlife. The water in this system is the lifeblood of the freshwater aquifer that provides most of Florida's drinking water. For more than a century, this ecosystem has been altered to facilitate development and protect against hurricanes and droughts. Today, almost 50% of the original Everglades has been drained or otherwise altered. The remaining Everglades, and in particular, the regions located within Everglades National Park, are severely threatened by nutrient-rich water, interrupted hydrology, decreased water supply, exotic plants, and mercury contamination. On July 1 the Army Corps of Engineers will submit to Congress an Everglades restoration plan, termed the ``Restudy'' by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This plan reviews the original Central and South Florida Flood Control project which was initiated in the 1940s by the Army Corps and has been the source of the ecosystem manipulation that occurred in Florida since that time. The Restudy outlines the basic elements of a plan to restore the Everglades as closely to their natural state as possible. This is a difficult and complex task since the original area of the Everglades was reduced by 50% with the development of both coasts as large metropolitan areas. Costs of execution of this plan will be shared on a 50-50 basis with the state of Florida. There has never been a restoration project of this size in the history of the United States or the world. This is an opportunity to preserve a national treasure that was destroyed by our own actions in the past. The bill we will introduce today will provide dedicated funds for the federal share of the land acquisition portions of this project which is so critical to the nation. I look forward to working with each of you as we seek to protect and preserve the ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 819 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Act to Sustain the National Parks''. SEC. 2. DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. (a) Definitions.--In this Act: (1) Leased tract.--The term ``leased tract'' means a tract leased under section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) for the purpose of drilling for, developing, and producing oil and natural gas resources, consisting of a block, a portion of a block, or a combination of blocks or portions of blocks, as specified in the lease and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagram. (2) Outer continental shelf.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331). (3) Outer continental shelf revenues.-- (A) In general.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' means all amounts received by the United States from leased tracts, less-- (i) such amounts as are credited to States under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)); and (ii) such amounts as are needed for adjustments or refunds of overpayments for rents, royalties, or other purposes. (B) Inclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' includes royalties (including payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net profit share payments, and related late-payment interest from natural gas and oil leases issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for a leased tract. (C) Exclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' does not include amounts received by the United States under-- (i) any lease issued on or after the date of enactment of this Act; (ii) any lease under which no oil or gas production occurred before January 1, 1999; or (iii) any lease in an area for which there is in effect a moratorium on leasing or drilling on the outer Continental Shelf. (b) Separate Account.--Of the amount of outer Continental Shelf revenues received by the Secretary of the Interior during each fiscal year, $500,000,000 shall be deposited in a separate account in the Treasury of the United States and shall, without further Act of appropriation, be available to the Secretary of the Interior in subsequent fiscal years until expended. (c) Threatened Park Resources.-- (1) In general.--The amounts made available under subsection (b) shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System that have ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources that are threatened or impaired. (2) Identified threats.--The amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) shall be used only to address identified threats and impairments described in paragraph (1), including use for land acquisition, construction, grants to State, local, or municipal governments, or partnerships with other Federal agencies or nonprofit organizations; and (B) shall not be directed to other operational or maintenance needs of units of the National Park System. (3) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) 30 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring inside the unit; and (B) 70 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside the unit (including $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2015 for the Federal share of the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration project under the comprehensive plan developed under section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767)). (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended by striking ``All rentals'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 2 of the National Park Preservation Act, all rentals''. ______ By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Jeffords); S. 820. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 4.3- cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and inland waterway transportation which remain in the general fund of the Treasury; to the Committee on Finance. the transportation tax equity and fairness act Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Breaux and Jeffords, to correct an inequity that currently exists with the taxes imposed on transportation fuels. In 1990 Congress extended fuel taxes beyond their traditional role as transportation user fees by introducing a 2.5 cents-per-gallon federal deficit reduction tax on railroad and highway fuels. These taxes were enacted as part of legislation that was designed to reduce the federal budget that existed at that time. In 1993, Congress increased these ``deficit reduction fuel taxes'' and extended them to inland waterway users and commercial airlines. The taxes imposed on barges went into effect immediately, while those affecting the airlines were delayed for 2 years. As a result of these two pieces of legislation a deficit reduction fuel tax of 6.8 cents per gallon was imposed on railroads and trucks, 4.3 cents per gallon on barges, and a suspended 4.3 cents per gallon tax on airlines. Beginning in 1995, however, Congress began to redirect these taxes for other uses. The first step was taking 2.5 cents of the amount paid by highway users and transferring it to the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund, [[Page S3793]] as many of my colleagues know, is the principal source of money used for highway infrastructure. Taxes paid into this trust fund by highway users results in a direct benefit to them by being recycled back into improvements to our nation's roads and bridges. Recognizing that this transfer would place the railroad industry--a direct competitor of the trucking industry--at a competitive disadvantage, Congress reduced the deficit reduction tax paid by railroads by 1.25 cents. As a result of these changes, then, highway users, commerical airlines and inland waterway users paid a deficit reduction tax of 4.3 cents while railroads paid a tax of 5.55 cents. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act further disadvantaged the railroad and inland waterway sectors by relieving highway users and commercial airlines from the remaining 4.3 cent deficit reduction fuel tax. Instead of these funds going into the General Fund of the Treasury, the taxes paid by these sectors were redirected to their respective trust funds. I have a chart that I will ask be included with my statement that shows the evolution of deficit reduction fuel excise taxes over the past decade. Today, two sectors of the transportation industry--railroads and inland waterway users--pay ``deficit reduction'' taxes even though we no longer have a deficit. Furthermore, these sectors are required to continue paying these taxes even though their competitors do not. There is absolutely no policy rationale for railroads and barge operators to pay deficit reduction fuel taxes while motor carriers and commerical airlines are required to pay nothing. We believe the time has come to correct this unfairness. This bill levels the playing field by repealing the remaining 4.3 cent tax paid by the railroads and inland waterway users. I urge all of my colleagues to our legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the chart be included in the Record. The chart follows: DEFICIT REDUCTION FUEL EXCISE TAXES PAID BY THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION SECTORS BY YEAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1990 1993 1995 1997 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Highway Users........................ 2.5 6.8 4.3 0 0 Railroads............................ 2.5 6.8 5.55 5.55 4.3 Barges............................... 0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Commercial Airlines.................. 0 0 4.3 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______ By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Torricelli): S. 821. A bill to provide for the collection of data on traffic stops; to the Committee on the Judiciary. traffic stops statistics study act of 1999 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help our nation deal with the problem of racial profiling during traffic stops. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feingold, Kennedy, and Torricelli. Across the country, too many motorists fear that they will be stopped by law enforcement for nothing more than the color of their skin. The offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``Driving While Black'' is well known to minorities, and the fact that this term has entered the common vocabulary demonstrates the pervasiveness of the problem. In my home state and other states along the Interstate-95 corridor, there have been many serious and credible allegations of racial profiling. For example, statistics recently released by the state of New Jersey, reveal that 73 percent of motorists arrested on the New Jersey turnpike in early 1997 were minorities. Similarly, a court- ordered study in Maryland found that more than 70 percent of drivers stopped on Interstate-95 were African American though they made up only 17.5 percent of drivers. Not surprisingly, the practice of racial profiling has led to litigation. In the case of State versus Soto, a state court judge ruled that troopers were engaging in racial profiling on the southernmost segment of the New Jersey Turnpike. That decision spurred the United States Department of Justice to begin a ``pattern and practice'' investigation, in December 1996, to determine whether the New Jersey State Police had violated the constitutional rights of minority motorists. The Department of Justice is also investigating police agencies in Eastpointe, Michigan, and Orange County, Florida. Additionally, a number of individuals and organizations have filed private lawsuits seeking to end the inappropriate use of racial profiling. While litigation may bring about limited reforms, it is clear that Congress must develop a nationwide approach. The legislation I am introducing today will help define the scope of the problem, increase police awareness, and suggest whether additional steps are necessary. It would require that the Attorney General collect data on traffic stops and report the results to Congress. Because better relations between police and citizens will help ease racial tensions, the measure will also authorize grants to law enforcement agencies for the development of better training programs and policing strategies. In recent decades, we have made great progress in strengthening the civil rights of all Americans. Many dedicated law enforcement officials have contributed greatly to this effort by applying the law fairly and working to strengthen the bonds of trust in the communities they serve. To their credit, some police agencies have spoken out against the practice of racial profiling. In New Jersey, the State Troopers Fraternal Association, the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and the State Troopers Superior Officers Association have stated that ``anyone out there using racial profiling or in any way misusing or abusing their position, must be identified and properly dealt with.'' But we cannot allow the actions of some police officials to undermine these achievements, and we should work to ensure that minority motorists are no longer subjected to unwarranted traffic stops. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and help protect the civil rights of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 821 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY. (a) Study.-- (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by law enforcement officers. (2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an initial analysis of existing data, including complaints alleging and other information concerning traffic stops motivated by race and other bias. (3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial analysis under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall then gather the following data on traffic stops from a nationwide sample of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions identified in the initial analysis: (A) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop. (B) Identifying characteristics of the driver stopped, including the race, gender, ethnicity, and approximate age of the driver. (C) Whether immigration status was questioned, immigration documents were requested, or an inquiry was made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with regard to any person in the vehicle. (D) The number of individuals in the stopped vehicle. (E) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop and whether consent was requested for the search. (F) Any alleged criminal behavior by the driver that justified the search. (G) Any items seized, including contraband or money. (H) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop. (I) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop or the search and the justification for the arrest. (J) The duration of the stop. (b) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of its initial analysis to Congress, and make such report available to the public, and identify the jurisdictions for which the study is to be conducted. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the data collected under this Act to Congress, a copy of which shall also be published in the Federal Register. SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM. In order to complete the study described in section 2, the Attorney General may provide grants to law enforcement agencies to collect and submit the data described in section 2 to the appropriate agency as designated by the Attorney General. [[Page S3794]] SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA. Information released pursuant to section 2 shall not reveal the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law enforcement officer involved in a traffic stop. SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement agency'' means an agency of a State or political subdivision of a State, authorized by law or by a Federal, State, or local government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal laws, or a federally recognized Indian tribe. (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe. SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) in introducing the Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999. This legislation represents a substantial step toward ending an insidious form of discrimination that is plaguing African-American and Hispanic drivers on our roadways-- racial profiling. Most law enforcement officers do their best to respect and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, but it has become undeniable that racial profiling has become a disturbingly common practice. Racial profiling is the practice of pulling over African American, Hispanic, and other minority drivers for routine traffic stops as a premise for conducting a search for drugs. They might be driving just like any ordinary driver, and so they might be surprised to be pulled over. ``Was I speeding?'' they ask. Often, they are told that they have committed some minor traffic infraction that most people are not even aware of--sometimes, the infraction is just a pretext--they might be told that their tire tread is not of the correct depth, or that they have a bumper sticker affixed incorrectly. Any such infraction can be alleged in order to pull over a target of racial profiling, and as a premise to ask for a search. Many people are not aware that they have the right to refuse a search, and many innocent people are afraid that saying no will make them look guilty. The reality is, if they do refuse a search, victims can sometimes look forward to being detained anyway while a canine unit comes out to sniff for drugs. That is what happened to attorney Robert Wilkins and his family as they returned to Maryland by car from his grandfather's funeral in Chicago. Mr. Wilkins was fortunate enough to be an attorney who knew his rights, and proceeded to join with the ACLU and other groups to sue the Maryland State Police. As a result of that lawsuit, Maryland has conducted its own study of traffic stops, and the results indicate that over 75 percent of those people stopped and search on I- 95 are African-American, even though African-Americans make up only 17 percent of the state's population. The innocent people who are inevitably caught in these racially motivated stops feel like they are being punished for what is now called ``DWB''--``Driving While Black,'' or ``Driving While Brown.'' Mr. President, by and large when minorities are stopped by law enforcement officers, they are not attorneys, and they may not know or assert all of their rights--they are scared and they are resentful. And rightly so, when they have been the victim of racial profiling. Is this the way we want to stop the flow of drugs in America? By randomly targeting racial and ethnic minorities who are doing nothing more suspicious than driving their cars? Do we want law-abiding American citizens to feel as though they are living in a police state, scared and reluctant to travel in their cars for fear of being stopped and searched for no reason? While African-Americans make up under 20% of the American population, several local studies like the Maryland one I mentioned earlier indicate that they make up a much greater percentage of all routine traffic stops, and are far more likely to be searched and subsequently arrested. In my own home state of Wisconsin, a 1996 study by the Madison Capital Times revealed that African-Americans receive 13% of Madison's traffic tickets, despite the fact that they make up only 4% of the city's population, In Florida, the Orlando Sentinel newspaper obtained more than 140 hours of videotapes from police patrol cars showing drivers being stopped on Interstate 95. About 70% of the drivers stopped were black or Hispanic, even though they made up only 5% of all drivers on the road. And in New Jersey, a recent study suggests that African Americans are almost five times as likely to be stopped for speeding as drivers of other races. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' As Americans, we should all feel threatened when any one of us is denied our personal liberty. Just last week, the United States Supreme Court took yet another step toward eradicating our Fourth Amendment rights against the invasion of our privacy. It held in Wyoming versus Houghton that police can search the personal belongings of all passengers inside a car when looking for criminal evidence against the driver. I fear that this will send a message to some law enforcement officers that they can now expand racial profiling to include not only the driver of a passing car, but also the passengers. And if you happen to be a passenger in a car that was pulled over because of the color of the driver's skin, you can now look forward to having your personal belongings searched through and pored over. The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999 will begin to shed light on the practice of racial profiling. By analyzing the data that the Justice Department obtains over the next two years, we will get a clear picture of the prevalence of the practice of pulling people over because of their skin color or apparent ethnicity. A version of this bill passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. The simultaneous introduction of this bill in the Senate and the House shows that we are serious about sending this to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with us to enact this legislation. It is high time to put a stop to this blatant and offensive practice, which is taking some law enforcement officers, and the rest of us, down a dangerous and discriminatory road. ______ By Mr. SPECTER: S. 822. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a flat tax only on individual taxable earned income and business taxable income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. flat tax act of 1999 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation on a flat tax. This, of course, is a famous day, April 15, the day when Federal income tax returns are due. Across this land for many days, many weeks, some months, Americans have been struggling with their tax returns. As we speak, some may have on C-SPAN2 quietly while they are working on their returns at this very moment. I recall seeing long lines at the Philadelphia post office near midnight on income tax day when cars were lined up and people were dropping off their tax returns at the post office to beat the filing deadline. This is a good occasion to talk about the flat tax which permits taxpayers to report their income on a postcard. It can actually be done in the course of some 15 minutes. I filed my tax return and sent it off yesterday. It is very complicated. They say it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a tax return. I think it takes more than a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a Federal income tax return, and we have labored under the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code for far too long. I first introduced this legislation in March of 1995. I was the second one in the Congress of the United States to introduce flat-tax legislation. The majority leader, Dick Armey, had introduced the flat tax in the House of Representatives the preceding fall. I studied it. I studied the model of Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka, two distinguished professors of economics and tax law at Stanford University, and concluded that America ought to have a flat tax and that we could, in fact, have a flat tax if the American people really understood what a flat tax was all about. The Hall-Rabushka model was revenue neutral at 19 percent. I have added 1 percent in order to allow for two deductions: one on charitable contributions up to $2,500 a year and a second on interest on home mortgages of [[Page S3795]] borrowings up to $100,000 to take care of middle-class Americans, because I think without those two deductions, it would be a political impossibility to have a flat tax enacted. The advantage of the flat tax is that it does have the flatness with only those two deductions, so it is a very simple matter to return the tax return. Here is a sample tax return. You fill in your name and your address. You list your total wage, salary, or pension. There is a personal allowance, for a family of four. Up to $27,500 pays no tax at all. That constitutes about 53 percent of Americans. It has the two deductions for mortgage interest on debt up to $100,000 for an owner-occupied home and charitable contributions up to $2,500; total compensation multiplied by 20 percent, and that is that. The tax burden costs Americans about $224 billion a year of our gross national product, which is mired in complexity and unnecessary regulation. The flat tax seeks to bring equity into the tax payment by taxing only once so that the flat tax eliminates tax on net dividends, capital gains or estates because all of those items have already been taxed. It would enable Americans to accumulate a great deal more in capital which would help business expansion which would help the economy. And it is projected that the gross national product would be increased by some $2 trillion over 7 years by virtue of this flat tax proposal. The flat tax is a win-win situation all up and down the line because, by eliminating the loopholes, it eliminates the opportunities of very wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes at all. When you take a look at the returns of the very, very rich, with the practices of deductions and tax shelters, all of which is legal, the very, very wealthy avoid paying any tax at all. But this flat tax would have the advantages of capital accumulation, would have the advantage of increasing the gross national product, but most of all would have the simplicity of being able to file a tax return on a postcard. I think that as I speak--it is always problematic as to how many people are watching C-SPAN2--but I think as I speak there are many Americans across the land tonight who would like to be able to fill out a tax return in 15 minutes. And my view is that if it were better understood, that there would be a great public clamor to have a flat tax enacted. Mr. President, to reiterate, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to provide for a flat 20% tax on individuals and businesses. In the 104th Congress, I was the first Senator to introduce flat tax legislation and the first Member of Congress to set forth a deficit-neutral plan for dramatically reforming our nation's tax code and replacing it with a flatter, fairer plan designed to stimulate economic growth. My flat tax legislation was also the first plan to retain limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. As I traveled around the country and held town hall meetings across Pennsylvania and other states, the public support for fundamental tax reform was overwhelming. I would point out in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: (1) my copy of the Constitution; and (2) a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard--many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates. Support for the flat tax is growing as more and more Americans embrace the simplicity, fairness and growth potential of flat tax reform. An April 17, 1995, edition of Newsweek cited a poll showing that 61 percent of Americans favor a flat tax over the current tax code. Significantly, a majority of the respondents who favor the flat tax preferred my flat tax plan with limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Well before he entered the 1996 Republican presidential primary, publisher Steve Forbes opined in a March 27, 1995, Forbes editorial about the tremendous appeal and potency of my flat tax plan. Congress was not immune to public demand for reform. Jack Kemp was appointed to head up the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform and the Commission soon came out with its report recognizing the value of a fairer, flatter tax code. Mr. Forbes soon introduced a flat tax plan of his own, and my fellow candidates in the 1996 Republican presidential primary began to embrace similar versions of either a flat tax or a consumption-based tax system. Unfortunately, the politics of that Presidential campaign denied the flat tax a fair hearing and momentum stalled. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. While my flat tax proposal was favorably received at town hall meetings in Pennsylvania, Congress failed to move forward on any tax reform during the 105th Congress. I tried repeatedly to raise the issue with leadership and the Finance Committee to no avail. I think the American people want this debate to move forward and I think the issue of tax reform is ripe for consideration. In this period of opportunity as we commence the 106th Session of Congress, I am optimistic that public support for tax reform will enable us to move forward and adopt this critically important and necessary legislation. That is why today I am again introducing my Flat Tax Act of 1999. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20% tax rate for all individuals and businesses. It will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-line postcard. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic growth. Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Before I introduced my flat tax bill early in the 104th Congress, I had discussions with Congressman Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, about his flat tax proposal. In fact, I testified with House Majority Leader Richard Armey before the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees, as well as the Joint Economic Committee and the House Small Business Committee on the tremendous benefits of flat tax reform. Since then, and both before and after introducing my original flat tax bill, my staff and I have studied the flat tax at some length, and have engaged in a host of discussions with economists and tax experts, including the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to evaluate the economic impact and viability of a flat tax. Based on those discussions, and on the revenue estimates supplied to us, I have concluded that a simple flat tax at a rate of 20% on all business and personal income can be enacted without reducing federal revenues. A flat tax will help reduce the size of government and allow ordinary citizens to have more influence over how their money is spent because they will spend it--not the government. By creating strong incentives for savings and investment, the flat tax will have the [[Page S3796]] beneficial result of making available larger pools of capital for expansion of the private sector of the economy--rather than more tax money for big government. This will mean more jobs and, just as important, more higher-paying jobs. As a matter of federal tax policy, there has been considerable controversy over whether tax breaks should be used to stimulate particular kinds of economic activity, or whether tax policy should be neutral, leaving people to do what they consider best from a purely economic point of view. Our current tax code attempts to use tax policy to direct economic activity. Yet actions under that code have demonstrated that so-called tax breaks are inevitably used as the basis for tax shelters which have no real relation to solid economic purposes, or to the activities which the tax laws were meant to promote. Even when the government responds to particular tax shelters with new and often complex revisions of the regulations, clever tax experts are able to stay one or two steps ahead of the IRS bureaucrats by changing the structure of their business transactions and then claiming some legal distinctions between the taxpayer's new approach and the revised IRS regulations and precedents. Under the massive complexity of the current IRS Code, the battle between $500-an-hour tax lawyers and IRS bureaucrats to open and close loopholes is a battle the government can never win. Under the flat tax bill I offer today, there are no loopholes, and tax avoidance through clever manipulations will become a thing of the past. The basic model for this legislation comes from a plan created by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Their plan envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible. In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19% rate, is based on a well documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19% to 20% to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. A preliminary estimate in the 104th Congress by the Committee on Joint Taxation places the annual cost of the home interest deduction at $35 billion, and the cost of the charitable deduction at $13 billion. While the revenue calculation is complicated because the Hall-Rabushka proposal encompasses significant revisions to business taxes as well as personal income taxes, there is a sound basis for concluding that the 1% increase in rate would pay for the two deductions. Revenue estimates for tax code revisions are difficult to obtain and are, at best, judgment calls based on projections from fact situations with myriad assumed variables. It is possible that some modification may be needed at a later date to guarantee revenue neutrality. This legislation offered today is quite similar to the bill introduced in the House by Congressman Armey and in the Senate late in 1995 by Senator Richard Shelby, which were both in turn modeled after the Hall-Rabushka proposal. The flat tax offers great potential for enormous economic growth, in keeping with principles articulated so well by Jack Kemp. This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans. In the 104th Congress, we took some important steps toward reducing the size and cost of government, and this work is ongoing and vitally important. But the work of downsizing government is only one side of the coin; what we must do at the same time, and with as much energy and care, is to grow the private sector. As we reform the welfare programs and government bureaucracies of past administrations, we must replace those programs with a prosperity that extends to all segments of American society through private investment and job creation--which can have the additional benefit of producing even lower taxes for Americans as economic expansion adds to federal revenues. Just as Americans need a tax code that is fair and simple, they also are entitled to tax laws designed to foster rather than retard economic growth. The bill I offer today embodies those principles. My plan, like the Armey-Shelby proposal, is based on the Hall- Rabushka analysis. But my flat tax differs from the Armey-Shelby plan in four key respects: First, my bill contains a 20% flat tax rate. Second, this bill would retain modified deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions (which will require a 1% higher tax rate than otherwise). Third, my bill would maintain the automatic withholding of taxes from an individual's paycheck. Lastly, my bill is designed to be revenue neutral, and thus will not undermine our vital efforts to balance the nation's budget. The key advantages of this flat tax plan are three-fold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts, and as interest rates drop. Under this tax plan, individuals would be taxed at a flat rate of 20% on all income they earn from wages, pensions and salaries. Individuals would not be taxed on any capital gains, interest on savings, or dividends--since those items will have already been taxed as part of the flat tax on business revenue. The flat tax will also eliminate all but two of the deductions and exemptions currently contained within the tax code. Instead, taxpayers will be entitled to ``personal allowances'' for themselves and their children. The personal allowances are: $10,000 for a single taxpayer; $15,000 for a single head of household; $17,500 for a married couple filing jointly; and $5,000 per child or dependent. These personal allowances would be adjusted annually for inflation after 1999. In order to ensure that this flat tax does not unfairly impact low income families, the personal allowances contained in my proposal are much higher than the standard deduction and personal exemptions allowed under the current tax code. For example in the 1998 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,250 for a single taxpayer, $6,250 for a head of household and $7,100 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $2,700. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay tax on all income over $17,900 (personal exemptions of $10,800 and a standard deduction of $7,100). By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax only on income over that amount. My legislation retains the provisions for the deductibility of charitable contributions up to a limit of $2,500 and home mortgage interest on up to $100,000 of borrowing. Retention of these key deductions will, I believe, enhance the political salability of this legislation and allow the debate on the flat tax to move forward. If a decision is made to eliminate these deductions, the revenue saved could be used to reduce the overall flat tax rate below 20%. With respect to businesses, the flat tax would also be a flat rate of 20%. My legislation would eliminate the intricate scheme of complicated depreciation schedules, deductions, credits, and [[Page S3797]] other complexities that go into business taxation in favor of a much- simplified system that taxes all business revenue less only wages, direct expenses and purchases--a system with much less potential for fraud, ``creative accounting'' and tax avoidance. Businesses would be allowed to expense 100% of the cost of capital formation, including purchases of capital equipment, structures and land, and to do so in the year in which the investments are made. The business tax would apply to all money not reinvested in the company in the form of employment or capital formation--thus fully taxing revenue at the business level and making it inappropriate to re-tax the same monies when passed on to investors as dividends or capital gains. Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of the advantages of the flat tax legislation I am introducing today. The first major advantage to this flat tax is simplicity. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spend approximately 5.3 billion hours each year filling out tax forms. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5.6 million words in 1995. Whenever the government gets involved in any aspect of our lives, it can convert the most simple goal or task into a tangled array of complexity, frustration and inefficiency. By way of example, most Americans have become familiar with the absurdities of the government's military procurement programs. If these programs have taught us anything, it is how a simple purchase order for a hammer or a toilet seat can mushroom into thousands of words of regulations and restrictions when the government gets involved. The Internal Revenue Service is certainly no exception. Indeed, it has become a distressingly common experience for taxpayers to receive computerized print-outs claiming that additional taxes are due, which require repeated exchanges of correspondence or personal visits before it is determined, as it so often is, that the taxpayer was right in the first place. The plan offered today would eliminate these kinds of frustrations for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the five million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of tens of millions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules and regulations. The flat tax I have proposed can be calculated just by filling out a small postcard which would require a taxpayer only to answer a few easy questions. Filing a tax return would become a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. Along with the advantage of simplicity, enactment of this flat tax bill will help to remove the burden of costly and unnecessary government regulation, bureaucracy and red tape from our everyday lives. The heavy hand of government bureaucracy is particularly onerous in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, which has been able to extend its influence into so many aspects of our lives. In 1995, the IRS employed 117,000 people, spread out over countless offices across the United States. Its budget was in excess of $7 billion, with over $4 billion spent merely on enforcement. By simplifying the tax code and eliminating most of the IRS' vast array of rules and regulations, the flat tax would enable us to cut a significant portion of the IRS budget, including the bulk of the funding now needed for enforcement and administration. In addition, a flat tax would allow taxpayers to redirect their time, energies and money away from the yearly morass of tax compliance. According to the Tax Foundation, in 1996, the private sector spent over $150 billion complying with federal tax laws. According to a Tax Foundation study, adoption of flat tax reform would cut pre-filing compliance costs by over 90 percent. Monies spent by businesses and investors in creating tax shelters and finding loopholes could be instead directed to productive and job- creating economic activity. With the adoption of a flat tax, the opportunities for fraud and cheating would also be vastly reduced, allowing the government to collect, according to some estimates, over $120 billion annually. The third major advantage to a flat tax is that it will be a tremendous spur to economic growth. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates adoption of a flat tax like the one offered today would increase future national wealth by over $2 trillion, in present value terms, over a seven year period. This translates into over $7,500 in increased wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth also means that there will be more jobs--it is estimated that the $2 trillion increase in wealth would lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs. The economic principles are fairly straightforward. Our current tax system is inefficient; it is biased toward too little savings and too much consumption. The flat tax creates substantial incentives for savings and investment by eliminating taxation on interest, dividends and capital gains--and tax policies which promote capital formation and investment are the best vehicle for creation of new and high paying jobs, and for a greater prosperity for all Americans. It is well recognized that to promote future economic growth, we need not only to eliminate the federal government's reliance on deficits and borrowed money, but to restore and expand the base of private savings and investment that has been the real engine driving American prosperity throughout our history. These concepts are related--the federal budget deficit soaks up much of what we have saved, leaving less for businesses to borrow for investments. It is the sum total of savings by all aspects of the U.S. economy that represents the pool of all capital available for investment--in training, education, research, machinery, physical plant, etc.--and that constitutes the real seed of future prosperity. The statistics here are daunting. In the 1960s, the net U.S. national savings rate was 8.2 percent, but it has fallen to a dismal 1.5 percent. Americans save at only one-tenth the rate of the Japanese, and only one-fifth the rate of the Germans. This is unacceptable and we must do something to reverse the trend. An analysis of the components of U.S. savings patterns shows that although the federal budget deficit is the largest cause of ``dissavings,'' both personal and business savings rates have declined significantly over the past three decades. Thus, to recreate the pool of capital stock that is critical to future U.S. growth and prosperity, we have to do more than just get rid of the deficit. We have to very materially raise our levels of private savings and investment. And we have to do so in a way that will not cause additional deficits. The less money people save, the less money is available for business investment and growth. The current tax system discourages savings and investment, because it taxes the interest we earn from our savings accounts, the dividends we make from investing in the stock market, and the capital gains we make from successful investments in our homes and the financial markets. Indeed, under the current law these rewards for saving and investment are not only taxed, they are overtaxed--since gains due solely to inflation, which represent no real increase in value, are taxed as if they were profits to the taxpayer. With the limited exceptions of retirement plans and tax free municipal bonds, our current tax code does virtually nothing to encourage personal savings and investment, or to reward it over consumption. This bill will change this system, and address this problem. The proposed legislation rev

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999
(Senate - April 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3790-S3814] THE SAFE SENIORS ASSURANCE STUDY ACT OF 1999 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Safe Seniors Assurance Study Act of 1999.'' I am joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada. This bill would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services conduct a study and analyze the impact of physician supervision, or lack of physician supervision, on death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia services. Since the [[Page S3791]] Medicare program began, the Health Care Financing Adminstration's (HCFA) standards for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers have required that a physician either provide the anesthesia care or supervise the anesthesia care provided by nurse anesthetists. This requirement has also applied to the Medicaid program. The very old and the very young, both covered by these two federal insurance programs, represent the segments of our population that, on average, face the highest anesthesia risks. The two programs cover over 40 million Americans. In December 1997, HCFA proposed changes to its standards for hospitals and surgical centers. Included in these proposed changes was the elimination of the physician supervision requirement, leaving to state governments the decision whether physician supervision of nurse anesthetists was necessary. In issuing its proposed changes, HCFA offered no scientific data indicating that anesthesia safety would not be impaired as a result of the changed rule, and has offered no such data to this day. In 1992, HCFA considered a similar change, but rejected it. After reviewing the studies available at the time showing anesthesia outcomes, HCFA concluded: ``In consideration of the risks associated with anesthesia procedures, we believe it would not be appropriate to allow anesthesia administration by a non-physician anesthetist unless under supervision by an anesthesiologist or the operating practitioner.'' HCFA also declined to adopt as a ``national minimum standard of care, a practice that is allowed in only some states.'' In the only comparative anesthesia outcome study published since 1992, researchers found that outcomes were better in hospitals having Board-certified anesthesiologists on staff. In the Fall of last year, an abstract of a University of Pennsylvania study of 65,000 Medicare surgical cases indicated that mortality and `failure to rescue' rates significantly improved when a nurse anesthetist was supervised by an anesthesiologist rather than the operating surgeon. This latter study is expected to be published in final form later this year. The Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations measure recommended that HCFA ``base retaining or changing the current requirement of physician supervision. . .on scientifically valid outcomes data.'' The Report suggested ``an outcome approach that would examine, using existing operating room anesthesia data, mortality and adverse outcomes rates by different anesthesia providers, adjusted to reflect relevant scientific variables.'' A bill was introduced in the House in early February by Representatives Dave Weldon and Gene Green that would require HCFA to undertake the congressionally-recommended outcome study of Medicare patients, and complete it by June 30, 2000. That bill currently has about 37 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue about safety. The bill that I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Harry Reid today, is very similar to the Weldon/ Green bill in the House. Our Senate version would only require that the Secretary of HHS consider the results of the June 2000 study in deciding whether or not to implement its 1997 proposal. Physician anesthesiologists personally provide, or supervise anesthesia administration by a qualified non-physician, 90% of the anesthesia care in this country. In the rest of the cases, supervision is provided by the operating practitioner. Under the Medicare program, there is no additional cost for having an anesthesiologist provide or supervise the anesthesia care versus having a non-physician provide the anesthesia under the supervision of the operating practitioner. The proposed HCFA rule change does not, therefore, generate any cost savings. Anesthesiologists are physicians who, after four years of pre-medical training in college, have completed eight years of medical education and specialized residency training. This is in contrast to the 24 to 30 months of training received by nurse anesthetists after nursing school--in fact, about 37% of nurse anesthetists have not graduated from college. The American Medical Association's House of Delegates last December approved a resolution supporting legislation requiring that an appropriately licensed and credentialed physician administer or supervise anesthesia care. National surveys of Medicare beneficiaries performed by the Tarrance Group in January 1998 and 1999 show that 4 out of 5 seniors oppose the elimination of the current physician supervision requirement. Let's err on the side of safety and caution by requiring that the Secretary of HHS conduct a study on the mortality and death rates of Medicare patients associated with the administration of anesthesia care by different providers. Analyzing the impact of physician supervision on anesthesia care and requiring the Secretary to simply consider the results of that study in determining whether or not to change current regulations to allow unsupervised nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia services, is the very least we can do to ensure that we are making safe changes to existing regulations--changes that HCFA rejected in 1992 when studies of anesthesia outcomes were up-to-date and available. If HCFA is going to now change its policy in 1999, we should ask HCFA to show us the scientific and clinical data behind its decision to ensure that the safety of our most vulnerable populations--our children and our elderly--are adequately protected. None of us--including HCFA-- is in a position to judge the merits of this proposed rule change without first gathering and then analyzing up-to-date scientific evidence. Only then can patients be confident in the safety and quality of their anesthesia care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. ______ By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Reid): S. 819. A bill to provide funding for the National Park System from outer Continental Shelf revenues; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. National Park Preservation Act Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Member of the Senate, I am today introducing the National Park Preservation Act with my colleague Senator Reid of Nevada. This legislation will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitats, and cultural and other core park resources within our National Park System. As you are all aware, the National Park Service has a presence in virtually every state in the nation. There are a total of 345 units in the national park system spread throughout the nation. My home state of Florida is home to three National Parks--Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas; two National Preserves--Big Cypress and Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve; two National Seashores--Canaveral and Gulf Islands; two National Monuments--Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas; and two National Memorials--DeSoto and Fort Caroline. Although these National Parks are treasured throughout the nation, everyday activities often threaten the resources of our park system. For example, in Yellowstone National Park an inadequate sewage system frequently discharges materials into precious resources such as Yellowstone Lake. Development surrounding Mojave National Park threatens the park's desert wilderness. Ground-level ozone accumulating at Great Smoky Mountains National Park threatens the park's core resource--visibility. Manipulation of the natural hydrologic system impacts water quality and water availability in Everglades National Park. The Graham-Reid National Park Preservation Act will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. The bill will establish a permanent account using Outer Continental Shelf revenues to provide $500 million annually to the Department of Interior to protect and preserve these resources. These funds will be made available for projects such as land acquisition, construction, grants to state or local governments, or partnerships with other federal agencies that seek to combat identified threats to ecosystems, critical habitats, cultural resources, and other core park resources. In this legislation, I [[Page S3792]] also continue my longstanding efforts to protect Florida's coastal resources by making revenues from any new oil and gas leases or from development of any existing leases in a moratorium area ineligible for expenditure in this account. Thirty percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring within the unit such as sewage treatment at Yellowstone Park. Seventy percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside of the unit, such as degradation of water resources at Everglades National Park. Of these funds, the legislation specifically provides $75 million to the Everglades restoration effort as the keynote project of the legislation. The Everglades National Park is one component of the Everglades ecosystem which stretches from the Kissimmee River basin near Orlando and all the way to Florida Bay and Keys. It is the only ecosystem of its kind in the world. It is the largest wetland and subtropical wilderness in the United States. It is home to a unique population of plant and wildlife. The water in this system is the lifeblood of the freshwater aquifer that provides most of Florida's drinking water. For more than a century, this ecosystem has been altered to facilitate development and protect against hurricanes and droughts. Today, almost 50% of the original Everglades has been drained or otherwise altered. The remaining Everglades, and in particular, the regions located within Everglades National Park, are severely threatened by nutrient-rich water, interrupted hydrology, decreased water supply, exotic plants, and mercury contamination. On July 1 the Army Corps of Engineers will submit to Congress an Everglades restoration plan, termed the ``Restudy'' by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This plan reviews the original Central and South Florida Flood Control project which was initiated in the 1940s by the Army Corps and has been the source of the ecosystem manipulation that occurred in Florida since that time. The Restudy outlines the basic elements of a plan to restore the Everglades as closely to their natural state as possible. This is a difficult and complex task since the original area of the Everglades was reduced by 50% with the development of both coasts as large metropolitan areas. Costs of execution of this plan will be shared on a 50-50 basis with the state of Florida. There has never been a restoration project of this size in the history of the United States or the world. This is an opportunity to preserve a national treasure that was destroyed by our own actions in the past. The bill we will introduce today will provide dedicated funds for the federal share of the land acquisition portions of this project which is so critical to the nation. I look forward to working with each of you as we seek to protect and preserve the ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 819 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Act to Sustain the National Parks''. SEC. 2. DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. (a) Definitions.--In this Act: (1) Leased tract.--The term ``leased tract'' means a tract leased under section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) for the purpose of drilling for, developing, and producing oil and natural gas resources, consisting of a block, a portion of a block, or a combination of blocks or portions of blocks, as specified in the lease and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagram. (2) Outer continental shelf.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331). (3) Outer continental shelf revenues.-- (A) In general.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' means all amounts received by the United States from leased tracts, less-- (i) such amounts as are credited to States under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)); and (ii) such amounts as are needed for adjustments or refunds of overpayments for rents, royalties, or other purposes. (B) Inclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' includes royalties (including payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net profit share payments, and related late-payment interest from natural gas and oil leases issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for a leased tract. (C) Exclusions.--The term ``outer Continental Shelf revenues'' does not include amounts received by the United States under-- (i) any lease issued on or after the date of enactment of this Act; (ii) any lease under which no oil or gas production occurred before January 1, 1999; or (iii) any lease in an area for which there is in effect a moratorium on leasing or drilling on the outer Continental Shelf. (b) Separate Account.--Of the amount of outer Continental Shelf revenues received by the Secretary of the Interior during each fiscal year, $500,000,000 shall be deposited in a separate account in the Treasury of the United States and shall, without further Act of appropriation, be available to the Secretary of the Interior in subsequent fiscal years until expended. (c) Threatened Park Resources.-- (1) In general.--The amounts made available under subsection (b) shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System that have ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources that are threatened or impaired. (2) Identified threats.--The amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) shall be used only to address identified threats and impairments described in paragraph (1), including use for land acquisition, construction, grants to State, local, or municipal governments, or partnerships with other Federal agencies or nonprofit organizations; and (B) shall not be directed to other operational or maintenance needs of units of the National Park System. (3) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (b)-- (A) 30 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring inside the unit; and (B) 70 percent shall be available for expenditure in units of the National Park System with ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources, or other core park resources threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside the unit (including $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2015 for the Federal share of the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration project under the comprehensive plan developed under section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767)). (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended by striking ``All rentals'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 2 of the National Park Preservation Act, all rentals''. ______ By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Jeffords); S. 820. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 4.3- cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and inland waterway transportation which remain in the general fund of the Treasury; to the Committee on Finance. the transportation tax equity and fairness act Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Breaux and Jeffords, to correct an inequity that currently exists with the taxes imposed on transportation fuels. In 1990 Congress extended fuel taxes beyond their traditional role as transportation user fees by introducing a 2.5 cents-per-gallon federal deficit reduction tax on railroad and highway fuels. These taxes were enacted as part of legislation that was designed to reduce the federal budget that existed at that time. In 1993, Congress increased these ``deficit reduction fuel taxes'' and extended them to inland waterway users and commercial airlines. The taxes imposed on barges went into effect immediately, while those affecting the airlines were delayed for 2 years. As a result of these two pieces of legislation a deficit reduction fuel tax of 6.8 cents per gallon was imposed on railroads and trucks, 4.3 cents per gallon on barges, and a suspended 4.3 cents per gallon tax on airlines. Beginning in 1995, however, Congress began to redirect these taxes for other uses. The first step was taking 2.5 cents of the amount paid by highway users and transferring it to the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund, [[Page S3793]] as many of my colleagues know, is the principal source of money used for highway infrastructure. Taxes paid into this trust fund by highway users results in a direct benefit to them by being recycled back into improvements to our nation's roads and bridges. Recognizing that this transfer would place the railroad industry--a direct competitor of the trucking industry--at a competitive disadvantage, Congress reduced the deficit reduction tax paid by railroads by 1.25 cents. As a result of these changes, then, highway users, commerical airlines and inland waterway users paid a deficit reduction tax of 4.3 cents while railroads paid a tax of 5.55 cents. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act further disadvantaged the railroad and inland waterway sectors by relieving highway users and commercial airlines from the remaining 4.3 cent deficit reduction fuel tax. Instead of these funds going into the General Fund of the Treasury, the taxes paid by these sectors were redirected to their respective trust funds. I have a chart that I will ask be included with my statement that shows the evolution of deficit reduction fuel excise taxes over the past decade. Today, two sectors of the transportation industry--railroads and inland waterway users--pay ``deficit reduction'' taxes even though we no longer have a deficit. Furthermore, these sectors are required to continue paying these taxes even though their competitors do not. There is absolutely no policy rationale for railroads and barge operators to pay deficit reduction fuel taxes while motor carriers and commerical airlines are required to pay nothing. We believe the time has come to correct this unfairness. This bill levels the playing field by repealing the remaining 4.3 cent tax paid by the railroads and inland waterway users. I urge all of my colleagues to our legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the chart be included in the Record. The chart follows: DEFICIT REDUCTION FUEL EXCISE TAXES PAID BY THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION SECTORS BY YEAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1990 1993 1995 1997 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Highway Users........................ 2.5 6.8 4.3 0 0 Railroads............................ 2.5 6.8 5.55 5.55 4.3 Barges............................... 0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Commercial Airlines.................. 0 0 4.3 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______ By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Torricelli): S. 821. A bill to provide for the collection of data on traffic stops; to the Committee on the Judiciary. traffic stops statistics study act of 1999 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help our nation deal with the problem of racial profiling during traffic stops. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feingold, Kennedy, and Torricelli. Across the country, too many motorists fear that they will be stopped by law enforcement for nothing more than the color of their skin. The offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``Driving While Black'' is well known to minorities, and the fact that this term has entered the common vocabulary demonstrates the pervasiveness of the problem. In my home state and other states along the Interstate-95 corridor, there have been many serious and credible allegations of racial profiling. For example, statistics recently released by the state of New Jersey, reveal that 73 percent of motorists arrested on the New Jersey turnpike in early 1997 were minorities. Similarly, a court- ordered study in Maryland found that more than 70 percent of drivers stopped on Interstate-95 were African American though they made up only 17.5 percent of drivers. Not surprisingly, the practice of racial profiling has led to litigation. In the case of State versus Soto, a state court judge ruled that troopers were engaging in racial profiling on the southernmost segment of the New Jersey Turnpike. That decision spurred the United States Department of Justice to begin a ``pattern and practice'' investigation, in December 1996, to determine whether the New Jersey State Police had violated the constitutional rights of minority motorists. The Department of Justice is also investigating police agencies in Eastpointe, Michigan, and Orange County, Florida. Additionally, a number of individuals and organizations have filed private lawsuits seeking to end the inappropriate use of racial profiling. While litigation may bring about limited reforms, it is clear that Congress must develop a nationwide approach. The legislation I am introducing today will help define the scope of the problem, increase police awareness, and suggest whether additional steps are necessary. It would require that the Attorney General collect data on traffic stops and report the results to Congress. Because better relations between police and citizens will help ease racial tensions, the measure will also authorize grants to law enforcement agencies for the development of better training programs and policing strategies. In recent decades, we have made great progress in strengthening the civil rights of all Americans. Many dedicated law enforcement officials have contributed greatly to this effort by applying the law fairly and working to strengthen the bonds of trust in the communities they serve. To their credit, some police agencies have spoken out against the practice of racial profiling. In New Jersey, the State Troopers Fraternal Association, the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and the State Troopers Superior Officers Association have stated that ``anyone out there using racial profiling or in any way misusing or abusing their position, must be identified and properly dealt with.'' But we cannot allow the actions of some police officials to undermine these achievements, and we should work to ensure that minority motorists are no longer subjected to unwarranted traffic stops. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and help protect the civil rights of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 821 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY. (a) Study.-- (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by law enforcement officers. (2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an initial analysis of existing data, including complaints alleging and other information concerning traffic stops motivated by race and other bias. (3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial analysis under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall then gather the following data on traffic stops from a nationwide sample of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions identified in the initial analysis: (A) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop. (B) Identifying characteristics of the driver stopped, including the race, gender, ethnicity, and approximate age of the driver. (C) Whether immigration status was questioned, immigration documents were requested, or an inquiry was made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with regard to any person in the vehicle. (D) The number of individuals in the stopped vehicle. (E) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop and whether consent was requested for the search. (F) Any alleged criminal behavior by the driver that justified the search. (G) Any items seized, including contraband or money. (H) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop. (I) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop or the search and the justification for the arrest. (J) The duration of the stop. (b) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of its initial analysis to Congress, and make such report available to the public, and identify the jurisdictions for which the study is to be conducted. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the data collected under this Act to Congress, a copy of which shall also be published in the Federal Register. SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM. In order to complete the study described in section 2, the Attorney General may provide grants to law enforcement agencies to collect and submit the data described in section 2 to the appropriate agency as designated by the Attorney General. [[Page S3794]] SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA. Information released pursuant to section 2 shall not reveal the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law enforcement officer involved in a traffic stop. SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement agency'' means an agency of a State or political subdivision of a State, authorized by law or by a Federal, State, or local government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal laws, or a federally recognized Indian tribe. (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe. SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) in introducing the Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999. This legislation represents a substantial step toward ending an insidious form of discrimination that is plaguing African-American and Hispanic drivers on our roadways-- racial profiling. Most law enforcement officers do their best to respect and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, but it has become undeniable that racial profiling has become a disturbingly common practice. Racial profiling is the practice of pulling over African American, Hispanic, and other minority drivers for routine traffic stops as a premise for conducting a search for drugs. They might be driving just like any ordinary driver, and so they might be surprised to be pulled over. ``Was I speeding?'' they ask. Often, they are told that they have committed some minor traffic infraction that most people are not even aware of--sometimes, the infraction is just a pretext--they might be told that their tire tread is not of the correct depth, or that they have a bumper sticker affixed incorrectly. Any such infraction can be alleged in order to pull over a target of racial profiling, and as a premise to ask for a search. Many people are not aware that they have the right to refuse a search, and many innocent people are afraid that saying no will make them look guilty. The reality is, if they do refuse a search, victims can sometimes look forward to being detained anyway while a canine unit comes out to sniff for drugs. That is what happened to attorney Robert Wilkins and his family as they returned to Maryland by car from his grandfather's funeral in Chicago. Mr. Wilkins was fortunate enough to be an attorney who knew his rights, and proceeded to join with the ACLU and other groups to sue the Maryland State Police. As a result of that lawsuit, Maryland has conducted its own study of traffic stops, and the results indicate that over 75 percent of those people stopped and search on I- 95 are African-American, even though African-Americans make up only 17 percent of the state's population. The innocent people who are inevitably caught in these racially motivated stops feel like they are being punished for what is now called ``DWB''--``Driving While Black,'' or ``Driving While Brown.'' Mr. President, by and large when minorities are stopped by law enforcement officers, they are not attorneys, and they may not know or assert all of their rights--they are scared and they are resentful. And rightly so, when they have been the victim of racial profiling. Is this the way we want to stop the flow of drugs in America? By randomly targeting racial and ethnic minorities who are doing nothing more suspicious than driving their cars? Do we want law-abiding American citizens to feel as though they are living in a police state, scared and reluctant to travel in their cars for fear of being stopped and searched for no reason? While African-Americans make up under 20% of the American population, several local studies like the Maryland one I mentioned earlier indicate that they make up a much greater percentage of all routine traffic stops, and are far more likely to be searched and subsequently arrested. In my own home state of Wisconsin, a 1996 study by the Madison Capital Times revealed that African-Americans receive 13% of Madison's traffic tickets, despite the fact that they make up only 4% of the city's population, In Florida, the Orlando Sentinel newspaper obtained more than 140 hours of videotapes from police patrol cars showing drivers being stopped on Interstate 95. About 70% of the drivers stopped were black or Hispanic, even though they made up only 5% of all drivers on the road. And in New Jersey, a recent study suggests that African Americans are almost five times as likely to be stopped for speeding as drivers of other races. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' As Americans, we should all feel threatened when any one of us is denied our personal liberty. Just last week, the United States Supreme Court took yet another step toward eradicating our Fourth Amendment rights against the invasion of our privacy. It held in Wyoming versus Houghton that police can search the personal belongings of all passengers inside a car when looking for criminal evidence against the driver. I fear that this will send a message to some law enforcement officers that they can now expand racial profiling to include not only the driver of a passing car, but also the passengers. And if you happen to be a passenger in a car that was pulled over because of the color of the driver's skin, you can now look forward to having your personal belongings searched through and pored over. The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999 will begin to shed light on the practice of racial profiling. By analyzing the data that the Justice Department obtains over the next two years, we will get a clear picture of the prevalence of the practice of pulling people over because of their skin color or apparent ethnicity. A version of this bill passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. The simultaneous introduction of this bill in the Senate and the House shows that we are serious about sending this to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with us to enact this legislation. It is high time to put a stop to this blatant and offensive practice, which is taking some law enforcement officers, and the rest of us, down a dangerous and discriminatory road. ______ By Mr. SPECTER: S. 822. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a flat tax only on individual taxable earned income and business taxable income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. flat tax act of 1999 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation on a flat tax. This, of course, is a famous day, April 15, the day when Federal income tax returns are due. Across this land for many days, many weeks, some months, Americans have been struggling with their tax returns. As we speak, some may have on C-SPAN2 quietly while they are working on their returns at this very moment. I recall seeing long lines at the Philadelphia post office near midnight on income tax day when cars were lined up and people were dropping off their tax returns at the post office to beat the filing deadline. This is a good occasion to talk about the flat tax which permits taxpayers to report their income on a postcard. It can actually be done in the course of some 15 minutes. I filed my tax return and sent it off yesterday. It is very complicated. They say it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a tax return. I think it takes more than a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a Federal income tax return, and we have labored under the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code for far too long. I first introduced this legislation in March of 1995. I was the second one in the Congress of the United States to introduce flat-tax legislation. The majority leader, Dick Armey, had introduced the flat tax in the House of Representatives the preceding fall. I studied it. I studied the model of Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka, two distinguished professors of economics and tax law at Stanford University, and concluded that America ought to have a flat tax and that we could, in fact, have a flat tax if the American people really understood what a flat tax was all about. The Hall-Rabushka model was revenue neutral at 19 percent. I have added 1 percent in order to allow for two deductions: one on charitable contributions up to $2,500 a year and a second on interest on home mortgages of [[Page S3795]] borrowings up to $100,000 to take care of middle-class Americans, because I think without those two deductions, it would be a political impossibility to have a flat tax enacted. The advantage of the flat tax is that it does have the flatness with only those two deductions, so it is a very simple matter to return the tax return. Here is a sample tax return. You fill in your name and your address. You list your total wage, salary, or pension. There is a personal allowance, for a family of four. Up to $27,500 pays no tax at all. That constitutes about 53 percent of Americans. It has the two deductions for mortgage interest on debt up to $100,000 for an owner-occupied home and charitable contributions up to $2,500; total compensation multiplied by 20 percent, and that is that. The tax burden costs Americans about $224 billion a year of our gross national product, which is mired in complexity and unnecessary regulation. The flat tax seeks to bring equity into the tax payment by taxing only once so that the flat tax eliminates tax on net dividends, capital gains or estates because all of those items have already been taxed. It would enable Americans to accumulate a great deal more in capital which would help business expansion which would help the economy. And it is projected that the gross national product would be increased by some $2 trillion over 7 years by virtue of this flat tax proposal. The flat tax is a win-win situation all up and down the line because, by eliminating the loopholes, it eliminates the opportunities of very wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes at all. When you take a look at the returns of the very, very rich, with the practices of deductions and tax shelters, all of which is legal, the very, very wealthy avoid paying any tax at all. But this flat tax would have the advantages of capital accumulation, would have the advantage of increasing the gross national product, but most of all would have the simplicity of being able to file a tax return on a postcard. I think that as I speak--it is always problematic as to how many people are watching C-SPAN2--but I think as I speak there are many Americans across the land tonight who would like to be able to fill out a tax return in 15 minutes. And my view is that if it were better understood, that there would be a great public clamor to have a flat tax enacted. Mr. President, to reiterate, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to provide for a flat 20% tax on individuals and businesses. In the 104th Congress, I was the first Senator to introduce flat tax legislation and the first Member of Congress to set forth a deficit-neutral plan for dramatically reforming our nation's tax code and replacing it with a flatter, fairer plan designed to stimulate economic growth. My flat tax legislation was also the first plan to retain limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. As I traveled around the country and held town hall meetings across Pennsylvania and other states, the public support for fundamental tax reform was overwhelming. I would point out in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: (1) my copy of the Constitution; and (2) a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard--many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates. Support for the flat tax is growing as more and more Americans embrace the simplicity, fairness and growth potential of flat tax reform. An April 17, 1995, edition of Newsweek cited a poll showing that 61 percent of Americans favor a flat tax over the current tax code. Significantly, a majority of the respondents who favor the flat tax preferred my flat tax plan with limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Well before he entered the 1996 Republican presidential primary, publisher Steve Forbes opined in a March 27, 1995, Forbes editorial about the tremendous appeal and potency of my flat tax plan. Congress was not immune to public demand for reform. Jack Kemp was appointed to head up the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform and the Commission soon came out with its report recognizing the value of a fairer, flatter tax code. Mr. Forbes soon introduced a flat tax plan of his own, and my fellow candidates in the 1996 Republican presidential primary began to embrace similar versions of either a flat tax or a consumption-based tax system. Unfortunately, the politics of that Presidential campaign denied the flat tax a fair hearing and momentum stalled. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. While my flat tax proposal was favorably received at town hall meetings in Pennsylvania, Congress failed to move forward on any tax reform during the 105th Congress. I tried repeatedly to raise the issue with leadership and the Finance Committee to no avail. I think the American people want this debate to move forward and I think the issue of tax reform is ripe for consideration. In this period of opportunity as we commence the 106th Session of Congress, I am optimistic that public support for tax reform will enable us to move forward and adopt this critically important and necessary legislation. That is why today I am again introducing my Flat Tax Act of 1999. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20% tax rate for all individuals and businesses. It will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-line postcard. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic growth. Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Before I introduced my flat tax bill early in the 104th Congress, I had discussions with Congressman Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, about his flat tax proposal. In fact, I testified with House Majority Leader Richard Armey before the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees, as well as the Joint Economic Committee and the House Small Business Committee on the tremendous benefits of flat tax reform. Since then, and both before and after introducing my original flat tax bill, my staff and I have studied the flat tax at some length, and have engaged in a host of discussions with economists and tax experts, including the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to evaluate the economic impact and viability of a flat tax. Based on those discussions, and on the revenue estimates supplied to us, I have concluded that a simple flat tax at a rate of 20% on all business and personal income can be enacted without reducing federal revenues. A flat tax will help reduce the size of government and allow ordinary citizens to have more influence over how their money is spent because they will spend it--not the government. By creating strong incentives for savings and investment, the flat tax will have the [[Page S3796]] beneficial result of making available larger pools of capital for expansion of the private sector of the economy--rather than more tax money for big government. This will mean more jobs and, just as important, more higher-paying jobs. As a matter of federal tax policy, there has been considerable controversy over whether tax breaks should be used to stimulate particular kinds of economic activity, or whether tax policy should be neutral, leaving people to do what they consider best from a purely economic point of view. Our current tax code attempts to use tax policy to direct economic activity. Yet actions under that code have demonstrated that so-called tax breaks are inevitably used as the basis for tax shelters which have no real relation to solid economic purposes, or to the activities which the tax laws were meant to promote. Even when the government responds to particular tax shelters with new and often complex revisions of the regulations, clever tax experts are able to stay one or two steps ahead of the IRS bureaucrats by changing the structure of their business transactions and then claiming some legal distinctions between the taxpayer's new approach and the revised IRS regulations and precedents. Under the massive complexity of the current IRS Code, the battle between $500-an-hour tax lawyers and IRS bureaucrats to open and close loopholes is a battle the government can never win. Under the flat tax bill I offer today, there are no loopholes, and tax avoidance through clever manipulations will become a thing of the past. The basic model for this legislation comes from a plan created by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Their plan envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible. In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19% rate, is based on a well documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19% to 20% to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. A preliminary estimate in the 104th Congress by the Committee on Joint Taxation places the annual cost of the home interest deduction at $35 billion, and the cost of the charitable deduction at $13 billion. While the revenue calculation is complicated because the Hall-Rabushka proposal encompasses significant revisions to business taxes as well as personal income taxes, there is a sound basis for concluding that the 1% increase in rate would pay for the two deductions. Revenue estimates for tax code revisions are difficult to obtain and are, at best, judgment calls based on projections from fact situations with myriad assumed variables. It is possible that some modification may be needed at a later date to guarantee revenue neutrality. This legislation offered today is quite similar to the bill introduced in the House by Congressman Armey and in the Senate late in 1995 by Senator Richard Shelby, which were both in turn modeled after the Hall-Rabushka proposal. The flat tax offers great potential for enormous economic growth, in keeping with principles articulated so well by Jack Kemp. This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans. In the 104th Congress, we took some important steps toward reducing the size and cost of government, and this work is ongoing and vitally important. But the work of downsizing government is only one side of the coin; what we must do at the same time, and with as much energy and care, is to grow the private sector. As we reform the welfare programs and government bureaucracies of past administrations, we must replace those programs with a prosperity that extends to all segments of American society through private investment and job creation--which can have the additional benefit of producing even lower taxes for Americans as economic expansion adds to federal revenues. Just as Americans need a tax code that is fair and simple, they also are entitled to tax laws designed to foster rather than retard economic growth. The bill I offer today embodies those principles. My plan, like the Armey-Shelby proposal, is based on the Hall- Rabushka analysis. But my flat tax differs from the Armey-Shelby plan in four key respects: First, my bill contains a 20% flat tax rate. Second, this bill would retain modified deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions (which will require a 1% higher tax rate than otherwise). Third, my bill would maintain the automatic withholding of taxes from an individual's paycheck. Lastly, my bill is designed to be revenue neutral, and thus will not undermine our vital efforts to balance the nation's budget. The key advantages of this flat tax plan are three-fold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts, and as interest rates drop. Under this tax plan, individuals would be taxed at a flat rate of 20% on all income they earn from wages, pensions and salaries. Individuals would not be taxed on any capital gains, interest on savings, or dividends--since those items will have already been taxed as part of the flat tax on business revenue. The flat tax will also eliminate all but two of the deductions and exemptions currently contained within the tax code. Instead, taxpayers will be entitled to ``personal allowances'' for themselves and their children. The personal allowances are: $10,000 for a single taxpayer; $15,000 for a single head of household; $17,500 for a married couple filing jointly; and $5,000 per child or dependent. These personal allowances would be adjusted annually for inflation after 1999. In order to ensure that this flat tax does not unfairly impact low income families, the personal allowances contained in my proposal are much higher than the standard deduction and personal exemptions allowed under the current tax code. For example in the 1998 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,250 for a single taxpayer, $6,250 for a head of household and $7,100 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $2,700. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay tax on all income over $17,900 (personal exemptions of $10,800 and a standard deduction of $7,100). By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax only on income over that amount. My legislation retains the provisions for the deductibility of charitable contributions up to a limit of $2,500 and home mortgage interest on up to $100,000 of borrowing. Retention of these key deductions will, I believe, enhance the political salability of this legislation and allow the debate on the flat tax to move forward. If a decision is made to eliminate these deductions, the revenue saved could be used to reduce the overall flat tax rate below 20%. With respect to businesses, the flat tax would also be a flat rate of 20%. My legislation would eliminate the intricate scheme of complicated depreciation schedules, deductions, credits, and [[Page S3797]] other complexities that go into business taxation in favor of a much- simplified system that taxes all business revenue less only wages, direct expenses and purchases--a system with much less potential for fraud, ``creative accounting'' and tax avoidance. Businesses would be allowed to expense 100% of the cost of capital formation, including purchases of capital equipment, structures and land, and to do so in the year in which the investments are made. The business tax would apply to all money not reinvested in the company in the form of employment or capital formation--thus fully taxing revenue at the business level and making it inappropriate to re-tax the same monies when passed on to investors as dividends or capital gains. Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of the advantages of the flat tax legislation I am introducing today. The first major advantage to this flat tax is simplicity. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spend approximately 5.3 billion hours each year filling out tax forms. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5.6 million words in 1995. Whenever the government gets involved in any aspect of our lives, it can convert the most simple goal or task into a tangled array of complexity, frustration and inefficiency. By way of example, most Americans have become familiar with the absurdities of the government's military procurement programs. If these programs have taught us anything, it is how a simple purchase order for a hammer or a toilet seat can mushroom into thousands of words of regulations and restrictions when the government gets involved. The Internal Revenue Service is certainly no exception. Indeed, it has become a distressingly common experience for taxpayers to receive computerized print-outs claiming that additional taxes are due, which require repeated exchanges of correspondence or personal visits before it is determined, as it so often is, that the taxpayer was right in the first place. The plan offered today would eliminate these kinds of frustrations for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the five million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of tens of millions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules and regulations. The flat tax I have proposed can be calculated just by filling out a small postcard which would require a taxpayer only to answer a few easy questions. Filing a tax return would become a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. Along with the advantage of simplicity, enactment of this flat tax bill will help to remove the burden of costly and unnecessary government regulation, bureaucracy and red tape from our everyday lives. The heavy hand of government bureaucracy is particularly onerous in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, which has been able to extend its influence into so many aspects of our lives. In 1995, the IRS employed 117,000 people, spread out over countless offices across the United States. Its budget was in excess of $7 billion, with over $4 billion spent merely on enforcement. By simplifying the tax code and eliminating most of the IRS' vast array of rules and regulations, the flat tax would enable us to cut a significant portion of the IRS budget, including the bulk of the funding now needed for enforcement and administration. In addition, a flat tax would allow taxpayers to redirect their time, energies and money away from the yearly morass of tax compliance. According to the Tax Foundation, in 1996, the private sector spent over $150 billion complying with federal tax laws. According to a Tax Foundation study, adoption of flat tax reform would cut pre-filing compliance costs by over 90 percent. Monies spent by businesses and investors in creating tax shelters and finding loopholes could be instead directed to productive and job- creating economic activity. With the adoption of a flat tax, the opportunities for fraud and cheating would also be vastly reduced, allowing the government to collect, according to some estimates, over $120 billion annually. The third major advantage to a flat tax is that it will be a tremendous spur to economic growth. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates adoption of a flat tax like the one offered today would increase future national wealth by over $2 trillion, in present value terms, over a seven year period. This translates into over $7,500 in increased wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth also means that there will be more jobs--it is estimated that the $2 trillion increase in wealth would lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs. The economic principles are fairly straightforward. Our current tax system is inefficient; it is biased toward too little savings and too much consumption. The flat tax creates substantial incentives for savings and investment by eliminating taxation on interest, dividends and capital gains--and tax policies which promote capital formation and investment are the best vehicle for creation of new and high paying jobs, and for a greater prosperity for all Americans. It is well recognized that to promote future economic growth, we need not only to eliminate the federal government's reliance on deficits and borrowed money, but to restore and expand the base of private savings and investment that has been the real engine driving American prosperity throughout our history. These concepts are related--the federal budget deficit soaks up much of what we have saved, leaving less for businesses to borrow for investments. It is the sum total of savings by all aspects of the U.S. economy that represents the pool of all capital available for investment--in training, education, research, machinery, physical plant, etc.--and that constitutes the real seed of future prosperity. The statistics here are daunting. In the 1960s, the net U.S. national savings rate was 8.2 percent, but it has fallen to a dismal 1.5 percent. Americans save at only one-tenth the rate of the Japanese, and only one-fifth the rate of the Germans. This is unacceptable and we must do something to reverse the trend. An analysis of the components of U.S. savings patterns shows that although the federal budget deficit is the largest cause of ``dissavings,'' both personal and business savings rates have declined significantly over the past three decades. Thus, to recreate the pool of capital stock that is critical to future U.S. growth and prosperity, we have to do more than just get rid of the deficit. We have to very materially raise our levels of private savings and investment. And we have to do so in a way that will not cause additional deficits. The less money people save, the less money is available for business investment and growth. The current tax system discourages savings and investment, because it taxes the interest we earn from our savings accounts, the dividends we make from investing in the stock market, and the capital gains we make from successful investments in our homes and the financial markets. Indeed, under the current law these rewards for saving and investment are not only taxed, they are overtaxed--since gains due solely to inflation, which represent no real increase in value, are taxed as if they were profits to the taxpayer. With the limited exceptions of retirement plans and tax free municipal bonds, our current tax code does virtually nothing to encourage personal savings and investment, or to reward it over consumption. This bill will change this system, and address this problem. The proposed legislation reverses the current skewed incent