Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, immediately upon his return from Cuba, Pope John Paul II gave an audience at the Vatican where he discussed his historic Cuban pilgrimage. While Fidel Castro and others were working hard to distort the purpose of his visit, the Pope was unambiguous about the aims and purposes of his visit in Cuba. His Holiness said: ``I wish for our brothers and sisters on that beautiful island that the fruits of this pilgrimage will be similar to the fruits of that pilgrimage in Poland,'' referring to his June 1979 visit to his native Poland--a visit which is widely credited with inspiring the Polish people to throw off the shackles of their oppression, and embrace their God-given spiritual and political freedom. That visit marked the beginning of the end for Poland's communist dictatorship--just as, I believe, the Pope's historic visit to Cuba has marked the beginning of the end of Fidel Castro's despotic rule. With his Cuban pilgrimage, John Paul II has sown the seeds of spiritual and political liberation in the Cuban mind. The United States must now help the Cuban people to cultivate those seeds of liberation which His Holiness had planted in Cuba--just as the United States worked with him in helping the Polish people in their struggle against communist oppression nearly two decades ago. That is why today--along with more than 20 of my Senate colleagues--I am introducing legislation that will bring new energy and focus to the U.S. Cuba policy--``The Cuban Solidarity Act of 1998'' or ``SOLIDARIDAD'' Act. The buttons we are all wearing may look familiar to many watching today. Our buttons bear the logo of the Polish Solidarity movement--but with a Cuban twist. You see, we are calling this legislation the ``Cuban Solidarity Act'' for a reason. Our goal is to do today for the people of Cuba, what the United States did for the Solidarity movement in Poland during the 1980s: Give the Cuban people the resources they need to build a free, functioning civil society within the empty shell of Castro's bankrupt communist ``revolution.'' The Cuban Solidarity Act proposes to authorize $100 million over four years in U.S. government humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people-- donations of food and medicine, to be delivered through the Catholic Church and truly independent relief organizations in Cuba like Caritas. The legislation we are introducing today will authorize direct humanitarian flights to deliver both private and U.S. government donations to Cuba. And it will mandate a proactive U.S. policy to support the internal opposition in Cuba, just as the U.S. supported the Solidarity movement in Poland during the 1980s. This legislation is not about the Cuban embargo. It does not tighten the embargo; it does not loosen the embargo. What it does is add a new dimension to the U.S. policy regarding Cuba: With the enactment of this legislation, U.S. policy will no longer be simply to isolate the Castro regime, but to actively support those working to bring about change inside Cuba. As Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently put it, there are two embargoes in Cuba today: The U.S. embargo on the Castro regime, and Castro's embargo on his own people. We must, Secretary Albright said, maintain the first, while breaking the second. This legislation is designed to break Fidel Castro's brutal embargo on the Cuban people. The Cuban Solidarity Act has four central objectives: First, this bill will provide free food and medicine to Cubans most in need--those who cannot possibly afford to buy the necessities of life because they have no access to U.S. dollars. Second, it will strengthen those institutions delivering this aid by giving them the resources they need to expand their space in Cuba and nurture a nascent civil society on the island. Third, this bill will undermine the Castro regime's ability to stifle dissent through the denial of work and basic necessities. In Cuba today, anyone who dares to speak out against Castro's despotic rule can lose his or her job (or be thrown in jail) and thus lose their ability to feed their families. This bill will help undermine Castro's ability to maintain social control through deprivation, by helping build alternative sources of food and medicine in Cuba. And finally, this bill will take away Fidel Castro's excuses, by neutralizing Castro's propaganda which falsely blames the U.S. embargo for the hardships suffered by the Cuban people. This legislation puts Castro in a no-win situation. There is no way for him to be on the right side of denying the Cuban people access to free food and medicine from the United States. If Castro allows this food and medicine into Cuba, it will bring relief to millions of Cubans who cannot afford to buy basic necessities; it will remove his ability to use deprivation as a tool of oppression; and it will help independent institutions create space for themselves in Cuba society. But if he does not allow the food and medicine in, them 11 million Cubans will know exactly who is responsible for their daily suffering. They will know that the American people wanted to send them $100 million in food and medicine, but that Castro said ``No''. In addition to this humanitarian relief, the Cuban Solidarity Act also instructs the President to take a series of steps intended to hasten the liberation of the Cuban people. Among other provisions: The bill instructs the President to increase all forms of U.S. government support for ``democratic opposition groups in Cuba,'' who risk life and limb each day to challenge the regime. The bill also urges the President to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Fidel Castro to ``immediately respect all human rights, free all political prisoners, legalize independent political parties, allow independent trade unions, and conduct freely contested elections.'' The Cuban Solidarity Act also calls for creative measures to overcome Castro's blockade on information coming into Cuba instructing the President to commence ``freedom broadcasting'' through Radio and TV Marti from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, and other suitable sites around Cuba. The bill also requires the Administration to produce a series of reports on the plight of average Cubans, including conditions of human rights, workers' rights, and the apparent policy of coercing abortions among poor, less-educated Cuban women. And the bill will authorize increased personnel in the Treasury and Commerce Departments to facilitate licenses for American medical sales to Cuba--which have been fully legal since 1992--taking away Castro's excuses for his failure to provide American medicine and medical equipment for his people. The Cuban Solidarity Act is a bill that could and should be supported by all U.S. Senators, those for the Cuban embargo, and those opposed. All of us should unite behind a policy of providing free food and medicine to those trapped in Castro's Orwellian economy. I cannot imagine that anyone would disagree with the notion that the United States should bring the same intense commitment to its Cuba policy that made the difference in Poland's struggle with communist tyranny. Now some have suggested that we should not give the Cuban people free food and medicine--rather, we should sell it to them. My question is this: What exactly will they use to buy this American food and medicine? Soviet rubles? The Cuban people can't afford to buy American food and medicine! Today, in Cuba, food and medicine is available everywhere. In Havana, there are bakeries overflowing with fresh bread, pharmacies stocked with Western medicines, grocery stores brimming with foods. But these products are completely out of reach to most Cubans. Why? Castro allows them to be sold only for dollars, which the vast majority of Cubans don't have. Castro pays them in worthless Cuban pesos. The only Cubans who can afford to shop in these exclusive stores are cronies of the Castro regime, and those few lucky Cubans who get dollars from abroad--or those poor Cuban women and girls who are forced to prostitute themselves to foreign tourists from Canada and Europe in order to survive. Instead of trading with the Castro regime (and thus subsidizing the brutal state security apparatus which keeps him in power), our call today is: Let us unite to circumvent this monstrous system Castro has built; Let's give food and medicine directly to the Cuban people. The Cuban Solidarity Act will also encourage and facilitate increased private donations to Cuba. There are many in the private sector who have been enormously generous in their humanitarian efforts for the Cuban people, and we will be encouraging them to redouble their efforts. But we will also be issuing a challenge to all of our big-hearted friends in the corporate community who have been lobbying to lift the Cuban embargo. Since they claim to have so much concern for the Cuban people, we will be asking them: What are you willing to donate to help suffering Cubans who cannot afford to buy food and medicine for themselves? We'll see if the floodgates of generosity open up, showing corporate America's concern for Cuba's suffering people. Fidel Castro will never change his stripes. The Cuban Solidarity Act is based on the belief that we must do more than wait for Fidel Castro to die or ``get religion.'' We must do what was done for Lech Walesa and his courageous Polish brothers; that is, we must undertake a proactive policy under which the United States will lend decisive support to the cause of freedom in Cuba. The Pope's visit planted the seeds of liberation in Cuba. The Cuban Solidarity Act is the American people's way of cultivating those seeds for the benefit of Cubans and freedom-loving people everywhere. Let's get about it.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 13, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,492,157,484,525.10 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-two billion, one hundred fifty-seven million, four hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred twenty-five dollars and ten cents). One year ago, May 13, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,337,495,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-seven billion, four hundred ninety-five million). Five years ago, May 13, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,247,269,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred forty-seven billion, two hundred sixty-nine million). Ten years ago, May 13, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,510,149,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred ten billion, one hundred forty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, May 13, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,258,087,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred fifty-eight billion, eighty-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,234,070,484,525.10 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty-four billion, seventy million, four hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred twenty-five dollars and ten cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 12, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,491,841,497,777.68 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-one billion, eight hundred forty- one million, four hundred ninety-seven thousand, seven hundred seventy- seven dollars and sixty-eight cents). One year ago, May 12, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,334,445,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-four billion, four hundred forty-five million). Five years ago, May 12, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,245,570,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred forty-five billion, five hundred seventy million). Ten years ago, May 12, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,510,382,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred ten billion, three hundred eighty-two million). Fifteen years ago, May 12, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,258,875,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred fifty-eight billion, eight hundred seventy-five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,232,966,497,777.68 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty-two billion, nine hundred sixty-six million, four hundred ninety-seven thousand, seven hundred seventy-seven dollars and sixty-eight cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 8, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,485,869,171,398.56 (Five trillion, four hundred eighty-five billion, eight hundred sixty-nine million, one hundred seventy-one thousand, three hundred ninety-eight dollars and fifty-six cents). One year ago, May 8, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,330,417,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred thirty billion, four hundred seventeen million). Twenty-five years ago, May 8, 1973, the federal debt stood at $452,712,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-two billion, seven hundred twelve million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,033,157,171,398.56 (Five trillion, thirty-three billion, one hundred fifty-seven million, one hundred seventy-one thousand, three hundred ninety-eight dollars and fifty-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute's report for the week ending May 1, that the U.S. imported 8,773,000 barrels of oil each day, an increase of 667,000 barrels over the 8,106,000 imported daily during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 57.7 percent of their needs last week. There are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Politicians had better give consideration to the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the U.S.--now 8,287,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending legislation in the Senate is obviously not a panacea for everything that is wrong at the Internal Revenue Service. But, as the saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I believe this IRS reform bill is that first step, and I hope that its swift passage by the Senate will help spark the serious debate on tax policy the American people are waiting for. It is my hope--and my belief--that the Senate will begin in the very near future to respond to Americans' desire for real tax relief and real tax simplification. Exhibit 1 [From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, April 15, 1998] 737,734,941,858 Reasons...and Still Counting: Why a Flat Tax is Needed to Reform the IRS (By Daniel J. Mitchell) Last year, The Heritage Foundation released a publication, ``577,951,692,634 Reasons...And Counting: Why a Flat Tax Is Needed to Reform the IRS.'' Since that time, calls to reform the Internal Revenue Service have led to unprecedented hearings in Congress and outcry among the public. In 1997, however, Congress moved away from reform and approved a tax bill that adds even more complexity to the tax code. Because of that bill, as well as Heritage's continued research into the myriad nooks and crannies of the current tax code, 159,783,249,224 new reasons that the Internal Revenue Code should be replaced with a flat tax have come to light, bringing the total number of reasons to 737,734,941,858. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) frequently is cited as the most hated of all government agencies. This aversion goes well beyond a simple dislike of paying taxes. Many Americans feel the IRS uses its vast power capriciously to enforce a tax code that is unfair and incomprehensible. Indeed, a 1997 national voter survey finds that the majority of respondents would prefer to undergo a root canal than be audited by the IRS. And a 1990 magazine survey finds that the most frightening words people could imagine hearing when they answer the phone are ``This is the IRS calling.'' Although Americans have every right to be upset by the oppressive tax system, their anger should not be directed at the IRS. The vast majority of problems with the current tax system are the inevitable result of bad tax policy. The way to reduce the intense popular aversion to the IRS is to enact a flat tax. By wiping out all the complicated, obscure, and convoluted provisions of the current tax code, a flat tax will reduce compliance costs and ease the uncertainty and anguish that make April 15 everyone's least favorite day of the year. In the words of former IRS Commissioner Shirley Peterson, who directed the agency in 1992, ``We have reached the point where further patchwork will only complicate the problem. It is time to repeal the Internal Revenue Code and start over.'' As reported in The Wall Street Journal last year, ``A recent survey of 275 IRS workers around the nation, done by a national IRS restructuring commission headed by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Representative Portman of Ohio, found overwhelming support within the IRS for simplifying the law.'' As the following enumeration demonstrates, almost all the reasons cited for frustration with the IRS really constitute arguments against the tax laws approved by politicians over the past 80 years--and for a fair, simple, flat, tax. the federal government as a tax goliath The IRS is not only the most feared of government agencies, it also is one of the biggest and most expensive. The agency has more employees than the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Drug Enforcement Agency combined, and its budget makes it a bigger consumer of tax dollars than the Departments of Commerce, State, or the Interior. the numbers speak for themselves New Evidence 12,000 = The number of additional IRS employees needed to answer phone inquiries from confused taxpayers during tax filing season. Because taxpayers will need to know only the amount of their wages and size of their families under a flat tax, additional personnel are not needed. $1,000 = The hourly collection quota placed on IRS agents auditing individual taxpayers in the San Francisco office. Although collection quotas violate the law, the current system is so complex that the IRS assumes mistakes will be found on every return. Errors will be very few under a simple and transparent flat tax. 62,000,000 = The number of lines of computer code required by the IRS to manage the current tax code. A simple flat tax will ease the IRS's ongoing computer problems dramatically. 1,420 = The number of appraisals of works of art that an IRS panel performed in order to tax the assets of dead people. Because double taxation under a flat tax does not exist, the absurdity of having the IRS value art would disappear with the death (estate) tax. 3,200 = The number of threats and assaults IRS agents experience over a five-year period. A fair and simple tax system will reduce taxpayers' frustrations dramatically. What We Already Knew 136,000=The number of employees at the IRS and elsewhere in the government who are responsible for administering the tax laws. Because the number needed is dictated by the complexity of the tax code, fewer personnel will be needed under a flat tax, and the downsizing of the IRS will save taxpayers a significant amount of money. 13,700,000,000=The amount of tax money spent by the IRS and other government agencies to enforce and oversee the tax code. Both taxpayers and the economy will benefit from the spending reductions made possible by a flat tax. 17,000=The number of pages of IRS laws and regulations, not including tax court decisions and IRS letter rulings. This page count would be reduced significantly by a flat tax. 5,557,000=The number of words in the income tax laws and regulations. With a flat tax, there will be no need for a tax code that is nearly seven times longer than the Bible. the irs paper machine With so many employees, so much money, and such a cumbersome tax code, it should come as no surprise that the IRS is one of the country's biggest paper-pushers. New Evidence 820=The number of pages added to the tax code by the 1997 budget act. A flat tax will slash it to a fraction of its current size. 250=The number of pages needed to explain just one paragraph in the Internal Revenue Code. A simple flat tax will avoid needless IRS regulation. 271=The number of new regulations issued by the IRS in 1997. By putting an end to constant social engineering, a flat tax will halt the IRS's constant rewriting of the tax rules. 261=The number of pages of regulations needed to clarify the tax code's ``arms-length standard'' for international intercompany transactions. 569=The number of tax forms available on the IRS Web site. Only two postcard-size forms will be necessary under a flat tax: One for wages, salaries, and pensions, the other for business income. What We Already Knew 31=The number of pages of fine print in the instructions for filing out the ``easy'' 1996 1040EA individual tax form. By contrast, individuals will need just one page of instructions to fill out a flat tax postcard. 8,000,000,000=The number of pages in the forms and instructions the IRS sends out every year. Under a flat tax, the postcard-sized forms are virtually self-explanatory. 36=The number of times the paperwork the IRS receives would circle the earth each year. Complexity and paperwork will all but vanish under a simple flat tax that treats all citizens equally. 293,760=The number of trees it takes each year to supply the 8 billion pages of paper used to file income taxes in the United States. A flat tax using two simple postcards obviously will be more friendly to the environment. 1,000,000,000=The number of 1099 forms sent out each year to help the IRS track taxpayers' interest and dividend income. Under a flat tax, business and capital income taxes will be collected at the source, thereby eliminating this paperwork conundrum. the irs briar patch Much to the chagrin of taxpayers, the IRS does not focus solely on generating paperwork. Tasked with enforcing the cumbersome tax code, the agency has numerous unwelcome contacts with taxpayers every year. New Evidence 33,984,689=The number of civil penalties assessed by the IRS in 1996. Because a flat tax will be so fair and simple, the IRS will have little reason to go after taxpayers. 10,000=The number of properties seized by the IRS in 1996. Part of this problems is caused by the government's trying to take too much money from people, and part is caused by complexity. A flat tax will reduce the government's take and eliminate complexity. 750,000=The number of liens issued by the IRS against taxpayers in 1996. A simple, low flat tax will result in fewer fights between the government and taxpayers. 2,100,000=The number of IRS audits conducted in 1996. Without all the complex provisions in the code under a flat tax, the IRS will have few returns to audit. 85=The percentage of taxpayers selected by the IRS for random audits who had incomes less than $25,000. A complicated tax code benefits the wealthy, who can fight back. A flat tax will be good news for those with more modest incomes. 47=The percentage of taxpayers living in just 11 southern states subject to random audits. Because audits will decline dramatically under a flat tax, so will discriminatory audit patterns like this one. What We Already Knew 10,000,000=The number of corrections notices the IRS sends out each year. With a simple and fair tax system like a flat tax, mistakes will become rare. 190,000=The number of disputes between the IRS and taxpayers in 1990 that required legal action. In a flat tax environment, there will be few potential areas of disagreement, and legal action will become scarce. 3,253,000=The number of times the IRS seized bank accounts or paychecks in 1992. 33,000,000=The number of penalty notices the IRS sent out in 1994. Because a flat tax will eliminate complex parts of the tax code, the number of disagreements between taxpayers and the agency will plummet. Do as They Say, Not as They Do The IRS is quite strict with taxpayers who make mistakes, but the following examples illustrate that it would have a hard time living up to the standards imposed on taxpayers. New Evidence 15=The number of years the IRS believes it will need to modernize its computer system. A simple, flat tax will not require complex computer systems. 1,000,000=The number of Americans who received tax forms with erroneous mailing labels in 1998. 20=The percentage error rate at the IRS for processing paper returns. Even children would be able to process postcard returns under a flat tax. 6,400=The number of computer tapes and cartridges lost by the IRS. Once a flat tax is implemented, these tapes and cartridges could remain lost. 22=The percentage of times reporters for Money magazine received inaccurate or incomplete information in 1997 when calling the IRS's toll-free hot line. To file a return under a flat tax, Americans will need to know only the size of their families and the amount of their wages, salaries, and pensions; they will not need to call the IRS. 40=The percentage of times Money magazine reporters received wrong answers in 1997 in face-to-face visits at IRS customer service offices. A flat tax will be so simple that such mistakes will become almost non-existent. $800,000,000=The estimated cost to update the IRS's computers for the year 2000. Scrapping the tax code for a flat tax will allow the government to institute a simpler computer system. 500,000=The number of address changes made to correct the master file by IRS employees each year. 78=The percentage of IRS audit assessments on corporations that eventually are disqualified. A flat tax will replace the onerous corporate tax with a simple, postcard-based system. What We Already Knew 8,500,000=The number of times the IRS gave the wrong answer to taxpayers seeking help to comply with the tax code in 1993 (taxpayers still are held responsible for errors that result from bad advice from the IRS). A flat tax will be so simple that taxpayers rarely--if ever--will need to call the IRS. 47=The percentage of calls to the IRS that resulted in inaccurate information, according to a 1987 General Accounting Office study. A flat tax will free IRS personnel from the impossible task of deciphering the convoluted tax code. 5,000,000=The number of correction notices the IRS sends out each year that turn out to be wrong. An error rate of 50 percent will be impossible under a flat tax. 40=The percentage of revenue that is returned when taxpayers challenge penalties. Under a flat tax, penalties will become rare, so fewer penalties will be assessed incorrectly. $500,000,000=The amount of money that taxpayers were overcharged for penalties in 1993. After a flat tax goes into effect, such injustice will all but disappear. 3,000,000=The number of women improperly fined each year because they have divorced or remarried. Taxing income at the source under a flat tax will eliminate such travesties. 10,000,000=The number of taxpayers who will receive lower Social Security benefits because the IRS failed to inform the Social Security Administration about tax payments. A simple flat tax is likely to free enough IRS time and resources to fix this problem. $200,000,000,000=The amount of misstated taxpayer payments and refunds on the books of the IRS. The IRS is no more able to administer tax laws that defy logic than is the average taxpayer. A flat tax will rectify this problem. 64=The percentage of its own budget for which the IRS could not account in 1993, according to an audit by the U.S. General Accounting Office. $8,000,000,000=The amount the IRS spent to upgrade its computer system unsuccessfully. Under a flat tax, this money will be saved because the IRS no longer will need to track an impossibly complex and unfair tax system. $23,000,000,000=The total proposed price for the IRS's computerization and modernization plans by 2008. being compliant and miserable on april 15 Sending huge amounts of tax money to Washington, DC, is never pleasant. Having to incur huge compliance costs for the privilege of paying taxes, however, really rubs salt in the tax wound. New Evidence 6,400,000=The number of taxpayers who visited IRS customer service centers seeking answers to their tax questions in 1996. With a flat tax, few taxpayers will need help. 99,000,000=The number of taxpayers trying to comprehend the tax system who called IRS hotlines in 1996. So long as a taxpayer knows his income and the size of his family under a flat tax, he will have nothing to worry about. 30 years=The number of years a dispute can last between the IRS and a corporation. Even one-year disputes will be rare under a flat tax. 8,000,000=The increase in the number of taxpayers who will be subject to the alternative minimum tax by 2007. This absurd provision forces taxpayers to calculate their income two ways and then pay the government the higher of the two amounts. It will disappear under a flat tax. $134,347,500,000=The Clinton Administration's estimate of private-sector compliance costs. If the defenders of the status quo admit compliance costs are this high, the actual costs may well be even higher. 653=The number of minutes the IRS estimates it takes to fill out a 1040 form. A flax tax postcard can be filled out in five minutes. 72=The number of inches of height of the stack of tax forms in the Chrysler Corporation's tax return. A postcard return is only a fraction of one inch in height. 6,000,000=The number of unanswered phone calls made to the IRS in January and February 1998. Considering that answered calls frequently result in mistakes, taxpayers who fail to get through probably should feel lucky. 2,400,000=The number of phone calls to the IRS that resulted in busy signals in January and February 1998. A busy signal is better than a wrong answer because the IRS holds taxpayers liable for mistakes even if they are following IRS advice. 56=The percentage of calls to the IRS in 1997 that went unanswered. Again, no answer is better than a wrong answer. What We Already Knew $157,000,000,000=The amount spent by the private sector to comply with income tax laws. Under a flat tax, these costs will drop by more than 90 percent. $7,240=The average compliance cost incurred by all but the biggest 10 percent of corporations for every $1,000 of taxes paid in 1992. The radical simplification brought about by a flat tax will be a boon for small businesses that cannot maintain legal and accounting staffs to comply with the tax code. 50=The percentage of taxpayers who feel compelled to obtain assistance in filling out their taxes each year. 5,400,000,000=The number of hours it takes Americans to comply with federal tax forms. With only two postcard-sized forms, compliance under a flat tax will require minutes, not hours. 2,943,000=The number of full-time equivalent jobs spent on compliance. In the flat tax world, the cost of tax compliance will fall by more than 90 percent. $3,055,680,000=The market value of the tax preparation firm H&R Block, Inc., which opposes a flat tax. The company's opposition is understandable because a flat tax will allow anyone to fill out a tax return without paying an expert. even experts can't figure out the forms Jumping through all the tax hoops might not be so painful if taxpayers at least could be confident that the effort led to accuracy. The ultimate insult added to their injury, however, is that even ``expert'' advice is no guarantee of receiving correct answers to tax code questions. New Evidence $24,000,000,000=The difference between what corporations said they owed and what the IRS said they owed in 1992--a gap the government admits is due to ambiguity and complexity in the code. A flat tax will eliminate the confusion embedded in the current system. 46=The number of wrong answers Money magazine received in 1998 when it asked 46 different tax experts to estimate a hypothetical family's 1997 tax liability. Professional assistance will not be necessary with a simple, flat tax. $34,672=The difference in liability between the highest and lowest incorrect answers among the 46 professionals who failed to calculate the tax liability of Money magazine's hypothetical family. Such responses will be all but impossible under a flat tax. $610=The amount the hypothetical family would have overpaid on its 1997 taxes if it had used the answer that came closest to the actual tax liability (assuming, of course that Money magazine's expert had filled out the tax return correctly). Any mistakes, especially large ones, will be unlikely under a flat tax. 45=The number of professional tax preparers who came up with different answers when asked by Money magazine in 1997 to fill out a hypothetical family's 1996 tax return. 45=The number of professional tax preparers who came up with wrong answers when asked by Money magazine in 1997 to fill out a hypothetical family's 1996 tax return. 76=The percentage of professional tax preparers who missed the right answer by more than $1,000. This kind of result will be impossible under a flat tax. $58,116=The difference between the lowest estimate of the family's tax bill and the highest estimate in Money's survey of tax professionals. Because the complexities in the tax code will disappear under a flat tax, mistakes like this will, too. $81=The average hourly fee charged by the professional preparers who came up with the 45 wrong answers. Taxpayers will pay nothing to calculate their own taxes on postcards under a flat tax. What We Already Knew 50=The number of different answers that 50 tax experts gave Money magazine in 1988 when asked to estimate a hypothetical family's tax liability. Under a flat tax, taxpayers will not need to consult tax preparers, much less run the risk of paying penalties for wrong answers. 50=The number of different answers Money magazine received in 1989 when it asked 50 different tax experts to estimate a hypothetical family tax liability. 48=The number of wrong answers Money magazine received in 1990 when it asked 50 different tax experts to estimate a hypothetical family's tax liability. 49=The number of different answers Money magazine received in 1991 when it asked 50 different tax experts to estimate a hypothetical family's tax liability. 50=The number of wrong answers Money magazine received in 1992 when it asked 50 different tax experts to estimate a hypothetical family's tax liability. 41=The number of wrong answers Money magazine received in 1993 when it asked 50 different tax experts to estimate a hypothetical family's tax liability (9 of the original volunteers did not bother even to respond). the never-ending shell game The needless complexity of the current tax code helps explain the reasons that both the IRS and private tax experts frequently make mistakes. Another reason that taxpayers have a problem complying with the law is that politicians have made the tax code a moving target. New Evidence 824=The number of changes in the tax code accompanying the 1997 tax cut. A flat tax will put an end to constant social engineering. 285=The number of new sections in the tax code created by the 1997 budget act. A flat tax will eliminate most of the tax code. 3,132=The number of pages needed by the Research Institute of America to explain the changes in the tax law in 1997. Flat tax postcards needed just one page of instructions. 11,410=The number of tax code subsection changes between 1981 and 1997. A flat tax will eliminate most of those subsections. 160=The percentage increase in the stock value of tax preparation firms in the three-month period during and after enactment of the 1997 budget. 54=The number of lines on the new capital gains form, up from 23 before the 1997 budget deal. Because double taxation will end under a flat tax, the capital gains form will disappear. What We Already Knew 878 = The number of times major sections of the tax code were amended between 1955 and 1994. A flat tax will eliminate today's confusingly complex tax code and replace it with a simple system that does away with constant tinkering and social engineering. 100 = The increase in the number of forms between 1984 and 1994. A flat tax will eliminate all 100 forms. 9,455 = The number of tax code subsections changed between 1981 and 1994. Under a flat tax, politicians will not be able to use the tax code to micromanage economic or social behavior. 578 = The percentage increase in the number of tax code sections between 1954 and 1994 that deal with major segments of tax law. Endless changes in tax law will grind to a halt under a flat tax. 5,400 = The cumulative number of changes in tax law since the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Most, if not all, of these changes add compliance costs to the economy--costs that a flat tax will reduce substantially or eliminate. $20,500,000,000 = The amount of lost income the economy suffered in 1993 as a result of the economic uncertainty in the business community caused by the constant manipulation of the tax code. To help prevent politicians from undermining business planning by constantly changing the tax laws, a flat tax law should include a supermajority provision blocking such tax rate increases. The Augean Stables The problem is not the IRS, but the politicians who created the incomprehensible tax code and those who refuse to reform the system. Politicians also are practically the only people in the country who benefit from a complex and constantly changing tax code. New Evidence $400,000,000 = The amount of the special tax break for one corporation inserted in the tax code in 1986 at the urging of Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), then chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. A flat tax will wipe out provisions for special-interest groups. What We Already Knew $413,072 = The average amount of political action committee contributions received by members of the House of Representatives tax-writing committee during the 1994 election cycle. A flat tax will reduce special-interest corruption and eliminate the ability of politicians to use the tax code to reward friends and punish enemies. 12,609=The number of special-interest organizations officially represented by congressional lobbyists. A flat tax will wipe out all special preferences, loopholes, deductions, credits, and tax shelters. $3,200,000,000=The total amount earned by Washington, D.C., lobbyists in 1993. By taking away the playing field for special-interest tinkering, a flat tax will clean up political pollution. 2=The number of IRS offices in Washington, D.C., made available to Members of Congress and their staffs. With someone else doing their taxes--free--it is little wonder that Members of Congress do not understand the public support for a flat tax. Why Johnny Refuses to Pay There comes a point at which taxpayers simply give up. Some are driven into the underground economy by the sheer complexity of the system. Others conclude that an unfair tax code has no moral legitimacy and simply refuse to comply. What We Already Knew $127,000,000,000=The amount of taxes not paid as a result of tax evasion. A fair, simple, flat tax will reduce tax evasion. 10,000,000=The number of people who unlawfully do not file tax returns. By reducing both the tax burden and compliance costs, a flat tax will bring people out of the underground economy. 3,500,000=The number of people who do not file who would be eligible for refunds. Perhaps more than any other number, the millions of people who fail to file in order to claim their tax refunds reveals just how intimidating the tax code has become. 4=The number of times a single dollar of income can be taxed under the current system, counting the capital gains tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax, and death (estate) tax. By eliminating double taxation, a flat tax will make sure the government treats all income equally and will end one of the biggest causes of tax evasion and complexity in the current tax code. 100,000=The number of Internet sites found by one search engine when queried for the phrase ``tax shelter.'' Because a flat tax will eliminate all discrimination in the tax code and allow people to keep a greater share of their income, tax shelters will almost vanish after reform. Enough is Enough The damage caused by the current tax code, both to the economy and to the body politic, is reaching crisis proportions. Insulated from the effects of their own handiwork, however, politicians are very likely to be the last ones to understand just how indefensible the system has become. Perhaps these real examples of IRS abuse will help them to understand the problem: New Evidence $3,500=The amount one woman was forced to pay twice, even though the IRS eventually admitted the debt had been owed-- and paid--by her former husband. $210,260=The amount the IRS tried to garnish from the wages of a woman for the back taxes her husband had owed before their marriage. $26=The amount the IRS seized from a 6-year-old's bank account because her parents owed money. $70,000=The amount demanded by an IRS agent who was threatening to send a couple to jail in a case that the tax court subsequently dismissed because the IRS's claim ``was not reasonable in fact or in law.'' $50,000=The amount the IRS was forced to pay a taxpayer after engaging in a vendetta against him, including putting the innocent man in jail for four months. $6,484,339=The amount demanded by the IRS from the family of a victim of Pan Am flight 103, based on the assumption of a future settlement. $900,000=The amount a small businessman was fined after being entrapped by his accountant, a paid informer for the

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the able Chairman of the Finance Committee (Mr. Roth), and to the distinguished ranking member (Mr. Moynihan) for their hard work and perseverance in bringing this IRS Reform legislation before the full Senate. For a very long time, it has been obvious that the Internal Revenue Service has a warped view of its intended role in the lives of Americans. The IRS exists, of course, not to harass any taxpayer or to find new and creative ways to abuse its authority, but to serve the American people who, each year, fill the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. The recent hearings held by the Finance Committee have made it crystal clear that the Internal Revenue Service is an abysmal failure in carrying out its mission. Frankly, I don't know whether to be more horrified by out-of-control IRS agents pursuing innocent taxpayers out of personal spite or double-dealing senior IRS managers trying to cover up such malicious conduct. It hardly matters which is worse, because even one abuse of taxpayer rights at and by the IRS is one abuse too many. So I am pleased that Congress is taking this modest action to make sure the worm turns. For the first time in a long time, the Senate appears ready to put the interests of the taxpayer above the demands of the federal bureaucracy for more and more revenue. And while I support this measure as a first step in the long road toward a more respectful treatment of the hapless American taxpayer, I trust that it is indeed only the beginning, because the root cause of all of the shenanigans at the IRS is the byzantine complexity of a U.S. tax code crying out for reform. Some years ago--in March of 1982, to be exact-- I introduced my initial proposal for a flat tax on income. This proposal, and other flat tax proposals that have followed, would eliminate the huge bureaucracy of the IRS--a bureaucracy whose size and scope make the abuses uncovered by Senator Roth and the Finance Committee as predictable as they are inevitable. I believe in the flat tax, and so do, Mr. President, the American people. A Money magazine poll released in January of this year indicated nearly two-thirds of Americans prefer a flat tax to our current system. I salute my colleagues, especially my distinguished friend from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), for their courage in continuing to make the case for tax simplification. And lest you think I'm overstating the absolute travesty that is the United State Tax Code, Mr. President, there's something that you and every other American should read. Dan Mitchell, one of the bright young economists who works around the corner at The Heritage Foundation, recently released a paper entitled ``737, 734, 941, 858 Reasons. . . and Still Counting: Why a Flat Tax is Needed to Reform the IRS.'' Mr. President, I do not exaggerate in saying that the statistics contained in this paper boggle the mind. Take note with me of just a couple of examples Mr. Mitchell has compiled to detail the economic cost of the tax code: The private sector spends $157 billion dollars to comply with income tax laws. The federal government spends $13.7 billion in, yes, taxpayer money to collect--what else?--taxpayer money. It takes an estimated 5.4 billion hours for Americans to comply with federal tax forms. In fact, the IRS itself estimates that it takes almost 11 hours to fill out a 1040 form. Then there's the sheer amount of paperwork required every time the law changes. Mr. Mitchell reports the following: There are 5,557,000 words in the income tax laws and regulations. That's 17,000 pages of paper. And get this: 820 additional pages were added to the tax code by the 1997 budget act. The IRS sends out an estimated 8 billion pages of forms and instructions to taxpayers annually. For my colleagues who are particularly interested in the environment, they should know that 293,760 trees were needed to supply the paper. It goes on and on, Mr. President. And I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr. Mitchell's paper be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 6, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,485,513,178,742.02 (Five trillion, four hundred eighty-five billion, five hundred thirteen million, one hundred seventy-eight thousand, seven hundred forty-two dollars and two cents). One year ago, May 6, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,337,029,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-seven billion, twenty-nine million). Five years ago, May 6, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,244,490,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred forty-four billion, four hundred ninety million). Ten years ago, May 6, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,517,049,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred seventeen billion, forty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, May 6, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,255,688,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred fifty-five billion, six hundred eighty-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,229,825,178,742.02 (Four trillion, two hundred twenty-nine billion, eight hundred twenty-five million, one hundred seventy-eight thousand, seven hundred forty-two dollars and two cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 5, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,486,129,027,438.95 (Five trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, one hundred twenty- nine million, twenty-seven thousand, four hundred thirty-eight dollars and ninety-five cents). One year ago, May 5, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,332,472,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-two billion, four hundred seventy-two million). Five years ago, May 5, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,243,813,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred forty-three billion, eight hundred thirteen million). Ten years ago, May 5, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,516,506,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred sixteen billion, five hundred six million). Fifteen years ago, May 5, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,255,471,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred fifty-five billion, four hundred seventy-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,230,658,027,438.95 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty billion, six hundred fifty-eight million, twenty-seven thousand, four hundred thirty-eight dollars and ninety-five cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it's fair to say that the so-called tobacco ``debate''--and I characterize most of the rhetorical chatter as ``so- called'' because it (1) has amounted to little more than posturing, and (2) has created enormous uncertainty and unease for the thousands of fine Americans who earn their living in the tobacco industry. The public health community (and its ``Amen corner'' in Congress) would delight in putting the tobacco companies out of business rather than seriously and honestly addressing the issues facing the hundreds of communities in North Carolina and other states that are economically dependant on the tobacco industry. Mr. President, it's unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized that usually rational members of Congress have been totally irrational in their exaggeration of the entire situation. Moreover, Mr. President, it is not anywhere in recorded history that anyone ever began smoking because a gun had been leveled at his or her head with orders to smoke, or else. There is no Senator who doesn't support efforts to curtail youth smoking, and not one parent has come forward asserting that Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man have more control over their children than they do. But all the pious, exaggerated political nonsense aside, farmers must continue to grow their legal crop in order to provide for the livelihood of their families. Sometime back, I promised the farm leaders of North Carolina that I would meet with the chief executives of all tobacco companies to encourage them to buy the maximum amount of U.S. tobacco possible in 1998. I have kept that commitment. I have indeed met with the leaders of all companies, one by one. Their concern for tobacco farmers, and for all other citizens who earn their livings ``in tobacco'', was immediate, impressive and sincere. There is no doubt in my mind, as a result of these meetings, that leaders of the tobacco companies do indeed intend to purchase as much U.S. tobacco as possible this marketing season. In fact, some CEOs assured me that they plan to purchase more U.S. tobacco this marketing season than they purchased in 1997. One company leader emphasized his company's plans to increase its purchases of U.S. leaf every year through 2002. The tobacco companies understand the need to purchase at least this year's effective quota in order to prevent another substantial decrease in quota next year. There will be a lot of personal bankruptcies in North Carolina if our farmers are faced with another 10 to 17 percent reduction in quota. But I am confident--and I do expect--that the tobacco companies will honor their commitment to me and the tobacco farmers of this country to purchase U.S. tobacco this marketing season. Mr. President, everyone in the tobacco community--particularly the tobacco companies--realizes that the tobacco farmers should have been included in the so-called ``National Tobacco Settlement'' in the first place. Tobacco farmers and manufacturers are at a crossroads that may very well define their destiny. They can either choose to work in good faith, or they can choose not to. If they choose to harbor ill-will and mistrust, the destruction rampant in this industry will be far greater than anything Congress could ever levy by politics or legislation. Mr. President, during these obviously difficult times in tobacco country, squadrons of politicians in Washington and elsewhere are eager for headlines back home at the expense of the farmers. No one knows what will happen with the McCain bill, nor with any other tobacco legislation that may come forward. But I can promise you this: there will continue to be a number of special interest groups that will try to exploit the fears of the tobacco farmer for their own gain. I can counsel our folks back home to avoid being disillusioned. If we work together and in good faith, the tobacco farmers of America will continue to have a future, no matter the threats and pleadings from the political chorus--which is becoming a little more discordant with every passing day. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 4, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,477,263,228,571.00 (Five trillion, four hundred seventy-seven billion, two hundred sixty-three million, two hundred twenty-eight thousand, five hundred seventy-one dollars and zero cents). Five years ago, May 4, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,240,752,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred forty billion, seven hundred fifty-two million). Ten years ago, May 4, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,514,920,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred fourteen billion, nine hundred twenty million). Fifteen years ago, May 4, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,262,026,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred sixty-two billion, twenty-six million). Twenty-five years ago, May 4, 1973, the federal debt stood at $452,347,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-two billion, three hundred forty- seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,024,916,228,571.00 (Five trillion, twenty-four billion, nine hundred sixteen million, two hundred twenty-eight thousand, five hundred seventy-one dollars and zero cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 1, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,501,155,718,728.09 (Five trillion, five hundred one billion, one hundred fifty-five million, seven hundred eighteen thousand, seven hundred twenty-eight dollars and nine cents). One year ago, May 1, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,338,453,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-eight billion, four hundred fifty-three million). Twenty-five years ago, May 1, 1973, the federal debt stood at $456,190,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-six billion, one hundred ninety million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,044,965,718,728.09 (Five trillion, forty-four billion, nine hundred sixty-five million, seven hundred eighteen thousand, seven hundred twenty-eight dollars and nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, April 30, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,499,894,559,513.94 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-nine billion, eight hundred ninety-four million, five hundred fifty-nine thousand, five hundred thirteen dollars and ninety-four cents). One year ago, April 30, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,353,971,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred fifty-three billion, nine hundred seventy-one million). Five years ago, April 30, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,254,084,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred fifty-four billion, eighty-four million). Twenty-five years ago, April 30, 1973, the federal debt stood at $457,063,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-seven billion, sixty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,042,831,559,513.94 (Five trillion, forty-two billion, eight hundred thirty-one million, five hundred fifty-nine thousand, five hundred thirteen dollars and ninety-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have examined the landscape, and it gets more complicated as the returns come in. Now we cannot vote until 7 o'clock, because several Senators are ``far afield.'' Then there is an agreement that was made without my knowledge--and nobody was required to get my knowledge, let alone consent--that the vote on the Bingaman amendment would not occur until the Ashcroft amendment was dealt with. So we are not going to be able to vote at 7 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent that sharply at 7 o'clock the vote begin on amendment No. 2320, and then we will proceed from there.

Mr. HELMS. Does the Senator want to ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before we proceed to a vote, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, if he is satisfied now with Ted Stevens' amendment?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I would like to send a modification to the desk so we can accept that.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate resumes consideration of the Conrad amendment numbered 2320, there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. I further ask that following the expiration of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Conrad amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. We will do that afterwards.

Mr. HELMS. Amendment No. 2320, and then followed by 2324?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there is a notable chorus of Senators congratulating the people of Israel and their government on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Israel's birth. There are few things that have not been said on the subject of Israel--friend, ally, democracy. The Congress has spoken on countless occasions about Jerusalem, our commitment to Israel's security, and to peace in the Middle East. In the end, however, all these expressions, as heartfelt as they are, pale beside the real miracle of the Jewish people, in exile for 2000 years, having returned to the land of Israel. And on that tiny piece of land, smaller than the State of New Jersey, an incredible nation has been built--a nation that has survived five wars, untold numbers of terrorist attacks, and the hostility of most of its neighbors. Israel has absorbed millions of immigrants, providing homes, and jobs, and schools and freedom. Year to year, day to day, Israel may not look precisely like a land of milk and honey, but for the Jews of Europe who survived the Holocaust, and the Russians who survived Communism, it is the Promised Land. Israel is great, not merely because its creation is the fulfillment of a biblical promise, or because it is a faithful friend to the United States. It is great because the people of Israel are great people. I congratulate my friend, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and all the people of Israel.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.