Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be delighted to clarify the intent and content of my amendment for the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have been working with all parties involved on the majority side and the minority side, and with the various committees involved with the issue, regarding rails and trails. I understand that this amendment has been agreed to and will be accepted by all of the various people involved. Today I offer an amendment that will increase local input in community planning regarding recreational rail-trails. Today, while a railroad is in the process of petitioning to abandon railroad tracks, outside groups may take over that right of way--and the local government may have no say in the matter whatsoever. Railroads and private groups may make decisions as to how large portions of land are used, and property owners and local governments are not even consulted. Under current law, a right-of-way for a railroad that is about to be abandoned may be used to establish a recreational rail-trail, thereby preserving the rail corridor in the case that the right-of-way is needed in future. The decision making authority for establishing a rail-trail lies solely with the railroad, the Surface Transportation Board, and private groups advocating trail development. A fatal flaw is that there is no component for local community involvement, including the input of those who own property adjacent to railroad corridors and who are most directly affected by the change in use of the right-of- way. The process of creating rail trails from old railroad lines begins when a railroad petitions the Surface Transportation Board to abandon a line. Normally, if the STB determines that a line may be abandoned, it issues the railroad a certificate of abandonment. However, under the National Trails System Act, once a railroad files a petition to abandon groups may suspend the abandonment by requesting to enter negotiations with the railroad to establish a trail. These trail groups may purchase the corridor or ``railbank'' it--in other words, convey the right-of- way with the provision that it will return to the railroad if it resumes service in the future. If the trail group signs a statement of willingness to assume responsibility for the right of way, and it comes to an agreement with the railroad on the terms under which the land will be conveyed, then the Surface Transportation Board is obligated to allow the group to develop the rail corridor. This negotiation takes place not in the communities where the proposed trails are, but rather behind closed doors here in Washington. At no point is there an opportunity for meaningful citizen participation in making the determination of the best use of the land. Many community members have learned of proposed rail trails not by reading the newspaper or by attending a community meeting, but by looking in their backyards. This is wrong. The issue of rail trail development is an extremely divisive issue in Kansas--perhaps more so than in any other state in the country. One reason that this issue has become so inflammatory is because Kansas state law provides that ownership of an abandoned railroad right-of-way will revert to the original property owners. However, Federal law preempts Kansas State law and prevents property owners' rights to regain possession of the land where there is a group ready to establish a trail. Mr. President, my goal here is not to take sides in this emotionally charged issue. I empathize with private property owners who believe that trails give rise to trespassers and crime, and lower the value of their property. Moreover, I believe it is a valid assertion that trail development, where reversionary property rights exist, constitutes a taking of private property for which just compensation should be paid. In fact, this opinion was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in November 1996. Private property owners have legitimate concerns. However, I also understand the beliefs of trail advocates, who view trail development as a means of economic growth and who strive to improve the quality of life for communities. My goal here is not to ``kill railbanking.'' This amendment does not kill railbanking and does not impede the ability of groups to propose rail-trail projects during normal abandonment proceedings. In fact, I maintain that opposition to rail trails by property owners might not be so solidified if the property owners were more engaged in the decision making process. As it stands, the resentment they feel for having trail development forced upon them fuels their anger and strengthens their resolve to oppose both current and future trail development. My goal here, in fact, is to improve the process so that people on both sides of this issue will receive an equitable opportunity to air their views before any designation of a trail is made. This is not an issue of whether rail-trails are good or bad; it is an issue of whether it is the role of the federal government to engage in community planning. I contend that it is not. The federal government has authorized the development of trails on railroad rights of way, and I do not seek to dismantle that authorization. I simply believe that it should be at the discretion of the local government whether that authorization should be utilized. In fact, one of the hallmarks of the ISTEA legislation that we are debating today is that it through Metropolitan Planning Organizations it incorporates the concept of local involvement in transportation planning, which, prior to 1991, was largely absent from the federal program. I simply want to correct the disconnect that exists between provisions of the National Trails System Act and the philosophical underpinnings of the ISTEA legislation. Mr. President, I do not have an objection to the Rails to Trails program. In fact, my amendment does not limit rail-trail funding or prohibit rail-trails from being developed where they are wanted by the local community. I do, however, have an objection to a process whereby railroads, private groups, and federal bureaucrats can make sweeping land use decisions, while private property owners and local authorities are shut out. Let's improve that process by giving local governments a decision-making role. Mr. President, with that I urge adoption of the amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the manager of this bill, who has been extraordinarily patient with us in working this through. We have worked closely with Senator Bumpers' staff. It was several days working this out. It was our understanding they had no difficulty and they were in agreement with this language. I also thank the Senator from New York for his kind comments. This simply does provide for a modicum of local input, to try to provide some means for people locally to comment on this. It doesn't affect existing trails. That is why we proposed this. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for all of his efforts, along with those of the Senator from Montana, too. I hope we can get this resolved within the next 10 minutes if possible. I will stay here on the floor, so maybe while we are considering this next amendment, we could get this resolved right after that, if that is at all possible.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, that is correct. The intent behind this amendment is to ensure that in instances specified in the amendment, a forum can be created for local public dialogue with the Surface Transportation Board. Finally, I would add that we have worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle and with private interest groups including the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Livestock Association, and the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK. You are correct. The amendment will not affect any corridor for which a certificate or notice of interim trail use has been issued by the Surface Transportation Board prior to the date of enactment of this law.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. This amendment does not seek to encroach in any way, shape, or form, abandonment procedures established under the Interstate Commerce Act. Those procedures are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board and the Senate Commerce Committee, as the authorizing agency overseeing these rules and procedures.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Although I think our views of the world are similar on many issues and actually quite a bit similar on this particular issue, we end up coming at it, in the end conclusion, a bit differently. I appreciate the Senator from New Mexico yielding me 5 minutes for this purpose. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote, of course, on an amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky on the ISTEA bill. As the bill stands, it mandates that ``not less than 10 percent'' of Federal highway and transit funds may be allocated to ``disadvantaged business enterprises.'' I want to speak specifically about this amendment that does away with racial set-asides and replaces it with an outreach program to emerging small businesses. I have really struggled with this vote. I find this a very difficult issue, not because I support quotas or because I believe racial set-asides will help bring about racial reconciliation, which is really my point of view and my difficulty with this because we desperately need racial reconciliation in this country. We need that to take place. We need that process to start in earnest, to move forward with the hearts and souls of people in this country. My problem is that I don't think quotas and set-asides alleviate the disadvantages many Americans face or to increase their ability to compete on a level playing field, nor do I really believe it is going to help us out with this racial reconciliation that our country so desperately needs. Nevertheless, this has been a hard decision to make. It will be a hard vote to cast. I would like to explain why I will vote in favor of Senator McConnell's amendment and why I have misgivings about doing so. First, I believe that quotas are unconstitutional. Each of us, in serving in this body, has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court's ruling in Adarand is very clear. I took my oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. I could not, in good conscience, vote for a measure that I believe, and the Court has ruled, violates the highest law of this land. Second, I do not think quotas are the answer to the problems that divide us and deny equal opportunity. Quotas do nothing to address the problems that we face as a country, of not having a colorblind society. Indeed, it actually perhaps makes us more aware of the differences, rather than less aware of the differences. It doesn't address some of the underlying problems such as the break-up of families, which is the single greatest predictor of opportunities and income later in life-- coming from a solid family that cares and loves the children. Quotas do not help the millions of children who attend schools where violence is commonplace and drug use is rampant. They do not help children to read, write, do arithmetic, or have the basic skills in society that we are having so much trouble with. Finally, I believe that set-asides are not only ineffective in bringing about racial reconciliation--this is my key point; I don't think they bring about racial reconciliation. Indeed, I think they have been counterproductive. The last several years have shown that quotas in some cases, indeed many, are an acid that further divides our Nation and corrodes the principles of equality. More than 30 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., shared his dream of a society where men and women would be judged ``on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.'' We all, as a country, saw those words as electric and true. This is a dream that almost all Americans continue to share--that we be judged on the content of our character, not on the color of our skin. Although we may disagree on the best means of getting there, I cannot believe that the best way to achieve a colorblind society is to call more attention to race, to count by race, and to divide by race. That said, the reason I have struggled with this vote is I believe that it is incumbent upon us to open the doors of opportunity to all and reach out to those Americans who have been denied those opportunities. Unfortunately, the way this debate has been spun, a vote for quotas has been equated to show concern for the disadvantaged--a portrayal both false and destructive, I think. We need to do more to extend a helping hand to those in need and to open the doors of opportunity and not only level but expand the playing field for all Americans. The Senator from Michigan has spoken and the Senator presiding, the Senator from Indiana, has spoken frequently about initiatives of the Renewal Alliance. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to these efforts. I think this is a serious effort at reaching out and truly showing that the way to racial reconciliation is to truly level the playing field and to expand the playing field in the areas where we are having the most opportunity. So the work in the inner cities and the work of the Renewal Alliance has been key in that. I think this work of the Renewal Alliance is critical because, as I have struggled with this debate--and the reason I have struggled with this vote is not because I believe quotas are the answer, because they just are not, they are not constitutional--is that if we don't have a colorblind society, what do we go to if we don't think quotas are right or constitutional? Then what? I don't think we have answered that question yet in this body. How do we address the needs to create a colorblind society? That is where I think the Renewal Alliance is reaching out and doing that and saying, here are some ways we can truly develop in inner cities, and reach out and say: We care, we want these places, we want you to have opportunity and growth and hope. It is just that we aren't going to do it by acid tests that we have talked about in these quotas and that we can really reach Martin Luther King's vision of a colorblind society if we try to bid out and to reach out and to hold. I ask my colleagues to look at the work of Senator Coats from Indiana and other people that have truly put their hearts into this and said, here is a way we can go, this is what we can do, this is not constitutional quotas. It is just not going to be. But this is what we can do, and let's do that, and let's reach out as Americans and bind arms together, of all creeds, of all kinds, of all races, of all religions, and make a bigger, better playing field in this country. That is why, Mr. President, I will be voting for this amendment. It is a difficult vote. And I really hope and pray that we will revisit this issue along the lines of what has been put forward as a way of expanding the hope and opportunity. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the southwest Kansas radio station KJIL 99.1 FM for being awarded the ``Station of the Year'' by Focus on the Family radio ministry. KJIL is a 100,000 watt Christian radio station based in Meade, Kansas. Although it has been on the air for only five years, it has played a significant and positive role in the community and throughout the western region of Kansas. Last year alone, the station sponsored several family-oriented concerts, helped organize transportation for community members to the Promise-Keepers rally in Washington, and expanded its network for 16 different translator stations. I particularly wish to commend Don Hughes, the station manager of KJIL, for his leadership and vision. And I am particularly pleased that an organization as worthy as Focus on the Family Radio ministries has recognized the station's achievements. It is a great honor, but no great surprise, that KJIL has received the ``Station of the Year'' award.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks on our current Tax Code and the Tax Code Termination Act which Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas and I are introducing today, along with 24 cosponsors here in the Senate and the entire Senate leadership. We just held a press conference on this topic, and Senator Hutchinson, I believe, will be joining me shortly to talk about this provision. Mr. President, with this bill we will pull the current Tax Code up by its roots. And that is no small feat. This is a Tax Code that has roots that are down deep in the soil. I think they are hooked into bedrock. Some people believe they are there and cannot be pulled up. But they can, and they need to be for us to create another American century. We heard last fall, when the Senate Finance Committee held its hearings on IRS reviews, a horror across the country as people stood up to say that is what happened to them--``Let me tell you what happened to me''-- with the IRS abuses that have to be changed. But underlying the IRS is the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Service complies with the Revenue Code. The Tax Code of this land has nearly 3 million words. These are words that govern our lives. They are words that micromanage our economic and personal decisions. These are the words of Washington causing us to do certain things, or not to do certain things. There is too much social manipulation involved in the Tax Code. One of the leading ways that Washington uses to manipulate people's lives is the tax policy that we have. There are three basic ways. One is by regulation; another one is by subsidy. You can either regulate something to stop it, or you can subsidize something to try to grow it, or tax it, or to try to create an exception for somebody to try to fit their lives into it so they can get this economic treat at the end, or tax it here to stop people from doing something, to the point that our Tax Code now is more about social manipulation than it is about raising revenue for the Federal Government. To prove that point, you can just look at the cost of compliance with this Tax Code--this 2.8-million-word Tax Code that is backed up by 10 million words of regulation. It costs over $150 billion a year just to comply with this Tax Code. That is before a single cent is paid on taxes. It costs over $150 billion a year to comply with this Code. To give people an idea about how much that is, basically, if we took every car made in America and drove them into the ocean, that would be about the equivalent of what takes place with this. That is how much economic activity we are talking about; not that we should begrudge those people who make their livelihood by figuring taxes. They are good, honest, hard-working Americans. We shouldn't have so many people involved in that, and we shouldn't have a Tax Code that requires so much that people live in fear of it. I want another American century. I want it for my children who are 11, 9 and 7. And I think we have the time and the moment in history now to start creating, to build that next American century. I don't think you can do it with this Tax Code which micromanages economic and personal decisions out of Washington. Let people in Kansas decide how to invest their money and decide how to take care of their families instead of taking all their money from them. They can make better decisions than people in Washington. It is a fundamental premise upon which I have run, and there are a lot of people associated with this body that have run on that--that people make better personal decisions than, as in a lot of times, the Government forces them to make through the Tax Code. We need to get back to a Tax Code that is fairer, simpler, flatter, and, I might add as well, freer as far as allowing more freedom to the average American to be able to make their own personal decisions-- making the decisions about what is best for them. The bill that Senator Hutchinson and I am introducing is to sunset the current Tax Code. It does not say what we should go to from this point. There are a lot of options that are out there. You can look at a national tax. You can look at a consumption-based tax. You can look at a national sales tax. You can look at some sort of tax simplification, although I have to say when I go around Kansas talking about tax simplification, they say, ``I get that joke. You tried that one on us before and it didn't simplify anything.'' But there are options, I think some of which we can still consider, that are out there. By this bill, we are not saying which options should be taken. We are simply saying by this bill, let us start the great national debate about what sort of tax system we ought to go to and do away with this one; let us drive a stake through heart of this one; let us salt the soil around where the plant grew up so it cannot grow back again; and let us debate what other sorts of systems can we go to. It is a very similar proposal that we made when we started to balance the budget 3 years ago. We said at that point in time, let us balance the budget within 7 years. There are lots of different plans out there on how to balance the budget. We did not identify at the outset that this is the way we are going to do it or that is the way. We say, by this date we will have balanced the budget. Let us start the great national debate about how we get there. It is the same thing we are doing here. We are saying by the end of the year 2001--we hopefully will have a balanced budget this year--by the year of 2001, let's have a new Tax Code and let's start the great national debate. Should it be a national tax? Should it be a sales tax? Should it be a simplified system? Should it be another option that is yet to be identified? And let us have that out there aggressively being talked about. We do not do anything to Social Security or Medicare chapters within the Tax Code; we leave those alone. That is a debate for another day in another arena. But, otherwise, let us have this great debate talking about what we are going to replace this onerous, complex burdensome, system with. The Tax Code has had its place in history. This Tax Code has. Now let's make it history. Americans are ``taxed to the max.'' I believe that we need to start the clock on the Tax Code and start the process of providing Americans with that flatter, simpler, fairer, freer Tax Code system based upon which they can make a lot more of their economic decisions. I think it is fundamental for us to create this next American century by having a different system than the onerous one we have today which people cannot understand--that regularly each year Money magazine will send a hypothetical taxpayer to 50 different accountants and get 50 different answers; or, you can ask an IRS agent. Call five of them up on the same question, and you will get five different answers. It is not that these people are not intelligent; it is that the Tax Code is unintelligible. I have to admit that I went to law school. I have to ask forgiveness for that of a lot of people. I took every tax course, except one, that I could in law school. This Tax Code is unintelligible. My tax law professor, the Dean of the Kansas University School of Law, had the case for driving a stake through and giving capital punishment to this Tax Code, because he says, ``Look; I have spent 20 years studying this thing, and it still doesn't make sense, and it is still something that is far too burdensome, and people don't understand it, nor is it free of the American people.'' You have to wonder why we have evolved such a system. But it is because we have taken into this Code far more the notion of behavior modification than we have of raising revenue for the Federal Government--that behavior modification that seems now to drive more of our tax policy than for what we need to raise revenue for the Federal Government. It comes from both the left and from the right. So, Mr. President, as the current Tax Code is anti-American and anti- government, it needs to go the way of history. Let's start this great national debate about which way we need to go. Let's involve all the people across this great land on what they think we need to do. I might add one other point. A number of people are concerned, who say, ``OK; if you accept this Tax Code, I have made decisions based on this Tax Code, and some of these are 15-year or 20-year decisions.'' They involve depreciation schedules; they involve investment decisions; they involve any number of factors. I think we will probably have to put in place substantial transition mechanisms similar to what we did on the farm bill when we changed the farm bill and we had a 7-year transition period. When we go into trade agreements, a lot of times we have 10- to 15-year transition periods, so that people that have made decisions based on this Tax Code are allowed the opportunity to say, ``OK; I have a transition time period that I need to get to something else.'' So they need not fear that they are going to be driven into some sort of economic chaos or that the country will by changing the Tax Code. We need to have a long and appropriate period for transition so we do not create that economic difficulty or chaos. This needs to be a very thoughtful and a very learned debate. And that is why Senator Hutchinson and I have introduced this bill, along with 24 cosponsors, that simply says sunset it by the end of the year 2001 so we can have plenty of time to talk about a different system to go to. And it is time. I would love to give to my children in the next millennium, as they go into it, a Tax Code where they don't have to worry, regarding every decision they make, what are its tax implications. But, rather, they just have a certain level of burden that is fair, that is low, that is appropriate, and that is one that they can feel is a system that leads to some justice. I am delighted we introduced this bill and I am delighted to join Tim Hutchinson in this effort to sunset the Tax Code, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in this effort and on this bill to sunset the Tax Code. To reiterate, this is a tax code that the annals of history will record as one of the most onerous burdens ever faced by the American people. Our bill aims to make this code history, and by moving our legislation we will take the first steps in sunsetting a tax code that has become a method by which policy makers have confiscated family income and attempted to redistribute it for the sake of big government. This must come to an end. I am convinced that we cannot have another American Century with this tax code. It is anti-family and anti-growth. It cannot be saved--it must be scrapped. Americans demand tax reform, we have promised tax reform, and now is time to deliver on that promise to the American people. Some, of course, will argue that we have to be careful about any radical changes to our tax laws. I agree. I believe that we must carefully weigh alternative plans, debate the macro and micro effects of each, and then arrive at a thoughtful and reasoned solution that is equitable and just. However, as it should be clear to anyone, what we now have in place is neither just nor equitable. If, as is often said, our tax code is fair why are the defenders so quiet? Let's have the debate. The bottom line is this: The tax code we now have in place punishes good investment decisions and distorts the labor market as well as our rates of national savings. It manipulates behavior by adding incentives to do one thing while punishing those who do something else. A quick look at some of the inadequacies in our code should make the case for reform clear. For example if your are a chronic gambler you can deduct your gambling losses. But if you are a homeowner who made an unlucky investment and the value of your home declined you have no recourse to the tax code because you cannot claim a deduction for a capital loss. The question is: why can someone deduct a loss associated with a bad game of blackjack but not a loss associated with their primary residence in which they were the unfortunate victim rather than a willing participant? The code is full of inconsistencies like the one I just mentioned. Sure, we could try and fix these problems within our tax code--and we should--but the fact of the matter is our tax code is riddled with these inconsistencies which leads me to the conclusion that we cannot reform our code, we must get rid of it. The bill I am sponsoring today will move us in the direction of making some of these basic changes. We must move to a tax system where individuals are not punished for their investments and where the national rate of savings is not distorted through unintended consequences. It is often argued that the federal government has an economic obligation to correct for market externalities where the marginal social cost exceeds the marginal social benefit. Unfortunately, the government has become a marginal externality and in so doing has created deadweight economic loss through policies which distort economic behaviour and shift incentives away from savings and investment. Economically this just doesn't make sense. In fact, I challenge anyone within hearing to find ten credible economists who will defend our current tax code. A tax system should not discriminate against the only component of our national income that provides for future economic growth--Investment. But ours does. Some will disagree. But this is the precise issue upon which we must focus our debate. We must decide where we want the tax to be imposed; and further, we must fully understand what effect the imposition of the tax will have on the health of the economy. However this debate takes shape we should have as our goal a tax system that does not distort behaviour and create deadweight loss, rather we must have as our goal a pro-growth tax system that encourages growth and increases in our national rate of savings--the true vehicle to long-run sustainable growth. We should have as our model something that is simpler, fairer and yes, flatter. The Hutchinson-Brownback Tax Code Elimination Act will start the great national debate on how best to change our tax code in favor of one that is more equitable to all taxpayers and less complicated for everyone. Also, our bill will enable this debate to take place outside of the realm of petty demagoguery because it protects the important funding mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare. I believe that we have a commitment to ensure that we have a full, honest and open debate--our bill will give the Senate that opportunity. I look forward to this important and historic debate as we prepare for the millennium and to a new century that I hope will provide the American people with a renewed sense of the American dream, with a renewed sense of what it means to be an American and what it means to live in America. And now as we begin this process we should keep one other thing in mind: America is watching.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you, very much. (The remarks of Mr. Brownback and Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of S. 1673 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks on our current Tax Code and the Tax Code Termination Act which Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas and I are introducing today, along with 24 cosponsors here in the Senate and the entire Senate leadership. We just held a press conference on this topic, and Senator Hutchinson, I believe, will be joining me shortly to talk about this provision. Mr. President, with this bill we will pull the current Tax Code up by its roots. And that is no small feat. This is a Tax Code that has roots that are down deep in the soil. I think they are hooked into bedrock. Some people believe they are there and cannot be pulled up. But they can, and they need to be for us to create another American century. We heard last fall, when the Senate Finance Committee held its hearings on IRS reviews, a horror across the country as people stood up to say that is what happened to them--``Let me tell you what happened to me''-- with the IRS abuses that have to be changed. But underlying the IRS is the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Service complies with the Revenue Code. The Tax Code of this land has nearly 3 million words. These are words that govern our lives. They are words that micromanage our economic and personal decisions. These are the words of Washington causing us to do certain things, or not to do certain things. There is too much social manipulation involved in the Tax Code. One of the leading ways that Washington uses to manipulate people's lives is the tax policy that we have. There are three basic ways. One is by regulation; another one is by subsidy. You can either regulate something to stop it, or you can subsidize something to try to grow it, or tax it, or to try to create an exception for somebody to try to fit their lives into it so they can get this economic treat at the end, or tax it here to stop people from doing something, to the point that our Tax Code now is more about social manipulation than it is about raising revenue for the Federal Government. To prove that point, you can just look at the cost of compliance with this Tax Code--this 2.8-million-word Tax Code that is backed up by 10 million words of regulation. It costs over $150 billion a year just to comply with this Tax Code. That is before a single cent is paid on taxes. It costs over $150 billion a year to comply with this Code. To give people an idea about how much that is, basically, if we took every car made in America and drove them into the ocean, that would be about the equivalent of what takes place with this. That is how much economic activity we are talking about; not that we should begrudge those people who make their livelihood by figuring taxes. They are good, honest, hard-working Americans. We shouldn't have so many people involved in that, and we shouldn't have a Tax Code that requires so much that people live in fear of it. I want another American century. I want it for my children who are 11, 9 and 7. And I think we have the time and the moment in history now to start creating, to build that next American century. I don't think you can do it with this Tax Code which micromanages economic and personal decisions out of Washington. Let people in Kansas decide how to invest their money and decide how to take care of their families instead of taking all their money from them. They can make better decisions than people in Washington. It is a fundamental premise upon which I have run, and there are a lot of people associated with this body that have run on that--that people make better personal decisions than, as in a lot of times, the Government forces them to make through the Tax Code. We need to get back to a Tax Code that is fairer, simpler, flatter, and, I might add as well, freer as far as allowing more freedom to the average American to be able to make their own personal decisions-- making the decisions about what is best for them. The bill that Senator Hutchinson and I am introducing is to sunset the current Tax Code. It does not say what we should go to from this point. There are a lot of options that are out there. You can look at a national tax. You can look at a consumption-based tax. You can look at a national sales tax. You can look at some sort of tax simplification, although I have to say when I go around Kansas talking about tax simplification, they say, ``I get that joke. You tried that one on us before and it didn't simplify anything.'' But there are options, I think some of which we can still consider, that are out there. By this bill, we are not saying which options should be taken. We are simply saying by this bill, let us start the great national debate about what sort of tax system we ought to go to and do away with this one; let us drive a stake through heart of this one; let us salt the soil around where the plant grew up so it cannot grow back again; and let us debate what other sorts of systems can we go to. It is a very similar proposal that we made when we started to balance the budget 3 years ago. We said at that point in time, let us balance the budget within 7 years. There are lots of different plans out there on how to balance the budget. We did not identify at the outset that this is the way we are going to do it or that is the way. We say, by this date we will have balanced the budget. Let us start the great national debate about how we get there. It is the same thing we are doing here. We are saying by the end of the year 2001--we hopefully will have a balanced budget this year--by the year of 2001, let's have a new Tax Code and let's start the great national debate. Should it be a national tax? Should it be a sales tax? Should it be a simplified system? Should it be another option that is yet to be identified? And let us have that out there aggressively being talked about. We do not do anything to Social Security or Medicare chapters within the Tax Code; we leave those alone. That is a debate for another day in another arena. But, otherwise, let us have this great debate talking about what we are going to replace this onerous, complex burdensome, system with. The Tax Code has had its place in history. This Tax Code has. Now let's make it history. Americans are ``taxed to the max.'' I believe that we need to start the clock on the Tax Code and start the process of providing Americans with that flatter, simpler, fairer, freer Tax Code system based upon which they can make a lot more of their economic decisions. I think it is fundamental for us to create this next American century by having a different system than the onerous one we have today which people cannot understand--that regularly each year Money magazine will send a hypothetical taxpayer to 50 different accountants and get 50 different answers; or, you can ask an IRS agent. Call five of them up on the same question, and you will get five different answers. It is not that these people are not intelligent; it is that the Tax Code is unintelligible. I have to admit that I went to law school. I have to ask forgiveness for that of a lot of people. I took every tax course, except one, that I could in law school. This Tax Code is unintelligible. My tax law professor, the Dean of the Kansas University School of Law, had the case for driving a stake through and giving capital punishment to this Tax Code, because he says, ``Look; I have spent 20 years studying this thing, and it still doesn't make sense, and it is still something that is far too burdensome, and people don't understand it, nor is it free of the American people.'' You have to wonder why we have evolved such a system. But it is because we have taken into this Code far more the notion of behavior modification than we have of raising revenue for the Federal Government--that behavior modification that seems now to drive more of our tax policy than for what we need to raise revenue for the Federal Government. It comes from both the left and from the right. So, Mr. President, as the current Tax Code is anti-American and anti- government, it needs to go the way of history. Let's start this great national debate about which way we need to go. Let's involve all the people across this great land on what they think we need to do. I might add one other point. A number of people are concerned, who say, ``OK; if you accept this Tax Code, I have made decisions based on this Tax Code, and some of these are 15-year or 20-year decisions.'' They involve depreciation schedules; they involve investment decisions; they involve any number of factors. I think we will probably have to put in place substantial transition mechanisms similar to what we did on the farm bill when we changed the farm bill and we had a 7-year transition period. When we go into trade agreements, a lot of times we have 10- to 15-year transition periods, so that people that have made decisions based on this Tax Code are allowed the opportunity to say, ``OK; I have a transition time period that I need to get to something else.'' So they need not fear that they are going to be driven into some sort of economic chaos or that the country will by changing the Tax Code. We need to have a long and appropriate period for transition so we do not create that economic difficulty or chaos. This needs to be a very thoughtful and a very learned debate. And that is why Senator Hutchinson and I have introduced this bill, along with 24 cosponsors, that simply says sunset it by the end of the year 2001 so we can have plenty of time to talk about a different system to go to. And it is time. I would love to give to my children in the next millennium, as they go into it, a Tax Code where they don't have to worry, regarding every decision they make, what are its tax implications. But, rather, they just have a certain level of burden that is fair, that is low, that is appropriate, and that is one that they can feel is a system that leads to some justice. I am delighted we introduced this bill and I am delighted to join Tim Hutchinson in this effort to sunset the Tax Code, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in this effort and on this bill to sunset the Tax Code. To reiterate, this is a tax code that the annals of history will record as one of the most onerous burdens ever faced by the American people. Our bill aims to make this code history, and by moving our legislation we will take the first steps in sunsetting a tax code that has become a method by which policy makers have confiscated family income and attempted to redistribute it for the sake of big government. This must come to an end. I am convinced that we cannot have another American Century with this tax code. It is anti-family and anti-growth. It cannot be saved--it must be scrapped. Americans demand tax reform, we have promised tax reform, and now is time to deliver on that promise to the American people. Some, of course, will argue that we have to be careful about any radical changes to our tax laws. I agree. I believe that we must carefully weigh alternative plans, debate the macro and micro effects of each, and then arrive at a thoughtful and reasoned solution that is equitable and just. However, as it should be clear to anyone, what we now have in place is neither just nor equitable. If, as is often said, our tax code is fair why are the defenders so quiet? Let's have the debate. The bottom line is this: The tax code we now have in place punishes good investment decisions and distorts the labor market as well as our rates of national savings. It manipulates behavior by adding incentives to do one thing while punishing those who do something else. A quick look at some of the inadequacies in our code should make the case for reform clear. For example if your are a chronic gambler you can deduct your gambling losses. But if you are a homeowner who made an unlucky investment and the value of your home declined you have no recourse to the tax code because you cannot claim a deduction for a capital loss. The question is: why can someone deduct a loss associated with a bad game of blackjack but not a loss associated with their primary residence in which they were the unfortunate victim rather than a willing participant? The code is full of inconsistencies like the one I just mentioned. Sure, we could try and fix these problems within our tax code--and we should--but the fact of the matter is our tax code is riddled with these inconsistencies which leads me to the conclusion that we cannot reform our code, we must get rid of it. The bill I am sponsoring today will move us in the direction of making some of these basic changes. We must move to a tax system where individuals are not punished for their investments and where the national rate of savings is not distorted through unintended consequences. It is often argued that the federal government has an economic obligation to correct for market externalities where the marginal social cost exceeds the marginal social benefit. Unfortunately, the government has become a marginal externality and in so doing has created deadweight economic loss through policies which distort economic behaviour and shift incentives away from savings and investment. Economically this just doesn't make sense. In fact, I challenge anyone within hearing to find ten credible economists who will defend our current tax code. A tax system should not discriminate against the only component of our national income that provides for future economic growth--Investment. But ours does. Some will disagree. But this is the precise issue upon which we must focus our debate. We must decide where we want the tax to be imposed; and further, we must fully understand what effect the imposition of the tax will have on the health of the economy. However this debate takes shape we should have as our goal a tax system that does not distort behaviour and create deadweight loss, rather we must have as our goal a pro-growth tax system that encourages growth and increases in our national rate of savings--the true vehicle to long-run sustainable growth. We should have as our model something that is simpler, fairer and yes, flatter. The Hutchinson-Brownback Tax Code Elimination Act will start the great national debate on how best to change our tax code in favor of one that is more equitable to all taxpayers and less complicated for everyone. Also, our bill will enable this debate to take place outside of the realm of petty demagoguery because it protects the important funding mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare. I believe that we have a commitment to ensure that we have a full, honest and open debate--our bill will give the Senate that opportunity. I look forward to this important and historic debate as we prepare for the millennium and to a new century that I hope will provide the American people with a renewed sense of the American dream, with a renewed sense of what it means to be an American and what it means to live in America. And now as we begin this process we should keep one other thing in mind: America is watching.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today's article from today's Washington Post is yet more indication, unfortunately, of the bad faith with which Russia has been dealing with us on the transfer of sensitive technology to rogue nations, particularly, dual use and missile technology. I am on the Foreign Affairs Committee and chair the Middle East Subcommittee. And something that has been very troubling to me is the introduction into the Middle East, particularly into Iran and into Iraq, of technology that can be used for missile development, for use of the delivery of weapons of mass destruction, even the development of weapons of mass destruction like biological warfare, biological and chemical warfare weapons. Evidence was in the Washington Post, again, today, that once again-- not just the first time--but once again Russian companies, with links to the Government, were involved in violating the U.N. authorized embargo on sales to Iraq of dual-use equipment. And this is outrageous. And it is preposterous that they would be doing it. The transfer to Iraq--which is a rogue nation, with a leader who does not operate under internationally recognized civilized codes--of any dual-use technology is unacceptable. And yet once again today we have another example. The transfer of equipment, such as the fermentation equipment, which was alluded to today, which can be used to develop biological weapons, and the possible collusion with the Iraqis against UNSCOM to hide technology and weapons, is proof of a cynical bad faith which is untenable. If this information is true--and I am told it is well grounded--the Russians are making a mockery of a very serious issue, and, more importantly, they are putting U.S. forces at increased risk. This type of behavior has immense implications for a policy towards Iran as well and the administration's efforts to curb these sales of equipment that can be used to deliver or to develop weapons of mass destruction. This cynicism should not be rewarded. I understand that we have been holding up Senate bill 1311, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, in deference to the Russians to give them time to prove their good faith and in deference to the Vice President's meeting with them in March. In view of the latest developments and this information, I believe such deference is misplaced. I request that Senate bill 1311 be moved up on the Senate calendar. I will make that request known to the leadership and ask that they proceed forward because this ``good faith'' that we are offering has obviously been received in a way of making bad-faith steps by the Russians and is further proof today this cannot be allowed to continue. Every day it is allowed to continue, more and more U.S. lives are at risk. It cannot be allowed to continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, and further that Senator Dorgan have the 1 hour that has been allotted to him following at the end of my 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on the matter of human cloning. I believe that as the Senate debates this issue that is so fundamental to the meaning and the essence of what it means to be a person we must consider very carefully the moral implications associated with the issue of human cloning. Certainly there is no moral prohibition, nor could one effectively be argued, against the cloning of plants or even animals--there is something fundamentally different. Also, no one is arguing against tissue research or other important research. The issue today is strictly limited to the use of technologically feasible methods to create and manipulate new life through a process of human cloning. And beyond that, the issue is whether or not it is morally permissible to clone human beings. This issue demands the public attention because it implicitly revolves around the meaning of human dignity and the inalienable rights that belong to every person. But before discussing this in particular I think it is necessary to engage in a discussion on an even more fundamental level. What is even more fundamental in this discussion is the question of the place occupied by the birth of a new child in our society. First it is worth noting that there is a symmetrical quality to the current debate in our culture. And although the underlying philosophical premise is the same, the outcomes are radically different. I believe it is one of the tragedies of our times that in the midst of a culture which has allowed over 35 million abortions to be performed over the last twenty-five years, we now desire to create human life by our own hands. On the one hand, we deny God's creation, on the other, we seek to create life in our own image and deny God yet again. This is tragic on both counts. I personally believe, and 2,000 years of Western tradition support this belief, that the birth of any child is an unmerited gift from God to a man and woman. Some in recent years, have given us a notion of a child as an object merely for the fulfillment of a man and woman's personal desire. It should be reasserted though that a child is not and can never be an object merely for the fulfillment of a man and woman's personal desire. A child is a precious and unmerited gift from God. God alone gives human life--but human cloning usurps that role. And I do not believe that we can ever do that. The creation of new life outside of man and woman is a gross distortion of the moral natural law. Human cloning distorts the relationship between man and woman by negating the necessity of either one in the creation of new life and consequently also usurps the role of God in the creation of new life. Fundamentally, it alters the view of the child to the world in such a way that the child is seen as something which can fulfill the needs of an individual physically, emotionally or spiritually. This is an incorrect view and is a gross violation of our duty to protect the human dignity of each and every person. It reduces a child to a means to an end and denies them the dignity they deserve to be treated not as a means but as an end in and of themselves. And this notion is precisely where the disagreement on this issue exists between the Administration and the cloning bill before us today. Some will argue that the issue simply needs to be studied before any research begins--a notion which does not rest on the supposition of a child as a gift. This is wrong. There is no research that can ever justify the willful technological manipulation and creation of human life through the process of human cloning for the furtherance of science--or even for the preservation of humanity. The White House doesn't want a permanent ban--they want a limited moratorium. This indicates that they believe there may be a use for this technology as it relates to the issue of human cloning. But no such use exists. The act of cloning a human being for the purposes of study, or for the purpose of bringing new life into the world is intrinsically evil and should be absolutely prohibited. Also, there is another dimension to this debate which is fraught with problems and that is the rationale that will develop should cloning be allowed. But what few have mentioned in this discourse is that implicit in the rush to begin cloning human beings is the eugenic rationale that will ultimately develop in support of it. Already, there are stories--what I would call horror stories--of people asking for specific genetic attributes when deciding to participate in in vitro fertilization. And when we are able to shop for a baby in the same way that we shop for a car; by whimsically creating new life based solely on our own personal convenience and satisfying our own personal desire, we effectively say: ``God we do not need You anymore, we can do this ourselves.'' And that is just wrong. Mr. President, it would be a serious mistake and an abdication of our duty as responsible legislators to allow the devaluation of human life that would take place if we allowed for human cloning. There should be no human cloning. Period. Mr. President, as we continue to debate this issue I would urge my colleagues to examine the role of our government in this debate and to then reach the only conclusion possible: that human cloning seriously threatens the dignity of human beings and it is our responsibility to absolutely prohibit human cloning and in so doing decisively end debate on this issue once and for all.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 73 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee and I note, last night an attempt was made on the life of President Eduard Shevardnadze of The Republic of Georgia by assailants who have yet to be identified. President Shevardnadze survived the attack without injury. Unfortunately several members of his personal security detail were killed, and number of others were wounded. The Republic of Georgia is one of the key linchpins of the new Eurasia. It is the most democratic of all of the states that succeeded the Soviet Union. Under President Shevardnadze's inspired leadership a civil war has been put to rest, criminals have been jailed, private armies have been disarmed, and economic decline has been reversed. In 1997, Georgia's economy grew by nearly 8 percent, inflation was held in check and the Georgian currency remained rock solid. Democracy has flourished. Indeed, if democracy is allowed to fail in Georgia, it is unlikely to succeed anywhere in the region. Any attempt to kill Shevardnadze must be seen in those context. It is an attempt to derail a successful democratic process, and an effort to compromise the growing number of U.S. economic and strategic interests in Georgia and the region. According to Georgian authorities, the attempted assassination was well-planned and well-executed by as many as 30 well-trained assailants. They were armed with rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons. The Georgians are asking, as we must ask: How could a group this size operate undetected in the capital of Georgia? Where did they receive arms and ammunition? Who trained them? Where did they disappear to in the aftermath? And most importantly: Whose interests do they represent? Georgian authorities make it clear that they suspect outside powers of this attempt on the life of their president. They are not alone. Azerbaijan's president Aliyev was also the object of an assassination attempt in recent days, which Azerbaijani authorities believe was planned and executed by outsiders. We should be mindful that these two cowardly acts may be part of a plan to destabilize the Caucasus with the intention of scaring off American and other investors who seek to bring the Caspian's great energy wealth west to international markets. Who benefits from promoting instability in the Southern Caucasus at this time? Russia is everyone's leading candidate as the outside power with the most to gain. Russia has long raged and conspired to thwart Caspian energy from flowing any direction but north through Russia. Most parts of Russia's political elite still view Caspian wealth as their own. The suspected perpetrator of an earlier assassination attempt on Shevardnadze remains under Russian care despite vociferous demands from Georgia that he be extradited. Russia still has bases in Georgia from which yesterday's attack could be planned and staged. None of this is proof of Russian complicity, but the strong suspicion of Russian involvement will not go away quickly. The U.S. Government should make every effort to learn the truth. More than this, we must articulate in clear and forceful terms to those outside powers who might be tempted to destabilize the Caucasus some simple truths: First, the United States has vital interests in the Caucasus which these attacks threaten. Second, our support for President Shevardnadze and the other Caucasian leaders is unbending. Third, we will do everything we can to facilitate democracy and free markets in the region. Fourth, oil and gas will flow west. And finally, we must make it painfully evident that outside states that seek to destabilize America's friends in the Caucasus are not states we will favor with political and economic aid and other forms of assistance. The attempt to kill President Shevardnadze, one of America's most valued friends, is intolerable and will have consequences. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.