Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Capital Gains Simplification Act of 1998. This legislation will significantly improve the tax treatment of capital gains and would benefit all Americans. It would restore the one-year holding period (from the current 18 month requirement) to qualify for the lower capital gains tax rates the Republican Congress enacted last year. This simple change would dramatically reduce tax compliance costs, lessen the punitive lock-in effect on capital, and yield additional federal revenue in the first two years. Capital investment is the key to economic growth and our future standard of living. That's why we successfully fought to give the American people significant tax relief on their savings and investments last year. We reduced the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent. Typical taxpayers in the 15 percent tax bracket had their capital gains tax rate lowered even more--to 10 percent. Unfortunately, in order for taxpayers to qualify for lower capital gains tax rates, the Clinton Administration dictated an increase in the holding period from one year to 18 months when the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was in conference. This arbitrary new holding period creates an awkward rate structure in which gains held between 12 and 18 months are taxed at higher rates. This dramatically and unnecessarily complicates tax calculations and compliance costs for taxpayers, investment firms, and the IRS. For most Americans, their tax accounting and investment changes are timed on a one year basis, thus making the new 18-month holding period out of sync with investment and tax filing standards. This longer holding period also reduces economic efficiency and the flow of capital by artificially locking-in investments for longer durations. Additionally, Americans who may need to sell an investment before holding it 18 months--for instance, to pay a tuition bill or medial expense--are punished with higher tax rates under current law. This makes little sense and must be corrected. My bill would restore a straightforward one-year holding period for capital gains. It would greatly simplify the tax compliance burden, reduce punitive taxation, and improve economic efficiency. Simply stated, it would make it easier and more rewarding for Americans to save and invest for their futures. New entrepreneurial activity that boosts economic growth takes money, and the demands for capital are the greatest they have been in decades. New technologies are opening the door to greater productivity gains and new products. We must ensure that the adequate savings and investment needed to fuel new technologies and productivity gains are available. Any tax on capital gains represents punitive double taxation, and often taxes illusory gains due simply to inflation. And capital gains are not just for the ``rich.'' According to IRS tax return data, 54 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains have incomes below $50,000--meaning more than 8 million households earning less than $50,000 can benefit from the capital gains tax relief Congress provided last year. Many senior citizens depend on cashing in their capital gains as their major source of income during retirement. More than 80 percent of capital gains are reported by households with less than $100,000 in income. It's no secret that a large and growing number of ordinary middle- income Americans are directly or indirectly invested in the stock market. They invest directly by buying shares themselves or indirectly through savings in mutual funds, IRA accounts, or pension plans at work. The proportion of families who own stocks has increased dramatically. By simplifying the tax treatment of capital gains, this legislation would encourage families to save even more and would make it easier for them to buy a home, prepare for retirement, or pay for their children's education. Let's not forget that capital gains taxes are largely a voluntary tax, since investors decide when they sell their assets. Investors should be allowed to freely move their money into new investments without paying punitive tax rates due to arbitrary holding periods. Locking up capital with longer holding periods can only diminish our chances of achieving our greatest growth potential. By returning the capital gains holding period to one year, the Capital Gains Simplification Act would cut tax compliance costs, but more importantly, it would help unleash greater investment opportunities, create jobs, and boost growth to the benefit of all Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Capital Gains Simplification Act of 1998. This legislation will significantly improve the tax treatment of capital gains and would benefit all Americans. It would restore the one-year holding period (from the current 18 month requirement) to qualify for the lower capital gains tax rates the Republican Congress enacted last year. This simple change would dramatically reduce tax compliance costs, lessen the punitive lock-in effect on capital, and yield additional federal revenue in the first two years. Capital investment is the key to economic growth and our future standard of living. That's why we successfully fought to give the American people significant tax relief on their savings and investments last year. We reduced the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent. Typical taxpayers in the 15 percent tax bracket had their capital gains tax rate lowered even more--to 10 percent. Unfortunately, in order for taxpayers to qualify for lower capital gains tax rates, the Clinton Administration dictated an increase in the holding period from one year to 18 months when the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was in conference. This arbitrary new holding period creates an awkward rate structure in which gains held between 12 and 18 months are taxed at higher rates. This dramatically and unnecessarily complicates tax calculations and compliance costs for taxpayers, investment firms, and the IRS. For most Americans, their tax accounting and investment changes are timed on a one year basis, thus making the new 18-month holding period out of sync with investment and tax filing standards. This longer holding period also reduces economic efficiency and the flow of capital by artificially locking-in investments for longer durations. Additionally, Americans who may need to sell an investment before holding it 18 months--for instance, to pay a tuition bill or medial expense--are punished with higher tax rates under current law. This makes little sense and must be corrected. My bill would restore a straightforward one-year holding period for capital gains. It would greatly simplify the tax compliance burden, reduce punitive taxation, and improve economic efficiency. Simply stated, it would make it easier and more rewarding for Americans to save and invest for their futures. New entrepreneurial activity that boosts economic growth takes money, and the demands for capital are the greatest they have been in decades. New technologies are opening the door to greater productivity gains and new products. We must ensure that the adequate savings and investment needed to fuel new technologies and productivity gains are available. Any tax on capital gains represents punitive double taxation, and often taxes illusory gains due simply to inflation. And capital gains are not just for the ``rich.'' According to IRS tax return data, 54 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains have incomes below $50,000--meaning more than 8 million households earning less than $50,000 can benefit from the capital gains tax relief Congress provided last year. Many senior citizens depend on cashing in their capital gains as their major source of income during retirement. More than 80 percent of capital gains are reported by households with less than $100,000 in income. It's no secret that a large and growing number of ordinary middle- income Americans are directly or indirectly invested in the stock market. They invest directly by buying shares themselves or indirectly through savings in mutual funds, IRA accounts, or pension plans at work. The proportion of families who own stocks has increased dramatically. By simplifying the tax treatment of capital gains, this legislation would encourage families to save even more and would make it easier for them to buy a home, prepare for retirement, or pay for their children's education. Let's not forget that capital gains taxes are largely a voluntary tax, since investors decide when they sell their assets. Investors should be allowed to freely move their money into new investments without paying punitive tax rates due to arbitrary holding periods. Locking up capital with longer holding periods can only diminish our chances of achieving our greatest growth potential. By returning the capital gains holding period to one year, the Capital Gains Simplification Act would cut tax compliance costs, but more importantly, it would help unleash greater investment opportunities, create jobs, and boost growth to the benefit of all Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I also inquire at this time as to how much time we each have.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, many times in the past, as I have talked about foreign policy and national defense issues, I have gone back to what I believe is the fundamental principle that has served as the foundation of our Nation, and that is the discussion about freedom. I have said over and over again that I believe freedom is the core of all human progress, that the message of freedom is the message of hope. Again, thinking of individuals who would find themselves imprisoned in China today, I, too, have heard them say that the knowledge that there are people around the world--particularly people in the United States--who will say it's important enough to confront the leadership in China on the issue of human rights gives them hope that there are people in the world who care about them. So the message of freedom is a message of hope. I want to quote a comment that was made by Mr. Wei in November of last year when he came to the United States. This is what he had to say: Democracy and freedom are among the loftiest ideals of humanity, and they are the most sacred rights of mankind. Those who already enjoy democracy, liberty, and human rights in particular, should not allow their own personal happiness to numb them into forgetting the many others who are still struggling against tyranny, slavery, and poverty, and all of those who are suffering from unimaginable forms of oppression, exploitation, and massacre. What would it be like to be imprisoned? I have also read some of the writings, such as the book of Harry Wu, for example. I have heard the stories of the conditions in which other human beings have found themselves and I wonder myself, could I survive that? Would I have the human drive, the human will to survive? Probably, if I felt that I was alone, with no concern for me whatsoever, maybe the will would disappear. Maybe the will for Mr. Wu would have disappeared. Maybe the will for Mr. Wei would have disappeared. But there was a belief that there were those out there who cared for them. Now, the point has been raised several times: Why China? Why only China? I think the Senator from Minnesota will agree with me that there is a condition that exists now as a result of a decision made by President Clinton not long ago to delink the issue of trade and human rights. Now, there are rational points on both sides of that debate. But the point is, that decision was made. So then the question then comes, if we are not going to engage in a debate over human rights with the issue of trade, where are we going to do it? It seems to me it is a reasonable, rational position to take that the debate ought to take place in the United Nations about violations of human rights. So we are very simply saying to our colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and to the President of the United States, we believe now is the time to move forward to condemn China for its human rights violations and to make it a cause. I am not shy about saying that. I believe we should do it. I don't think that, in any way, we are going to make things tougher for the people of China as a result of it. In fact, everyone we have had the opportunity to talk with has indicated to us that their treatment improves when the United States raises these concerns. So, Mr. President, I hope we do have a strong vote for this resolution, and I believe we will. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. And those opposed?

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I would like to inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues, I have nothing but the greatest of respect for each of you as well. We all know that we come to the floor with different interests in this debate. I suspect if the addition of the 4.3 cents that I believe Senator Chafee added during this debate on the underlying bill, that probably, if that 4.3 cents had gone back to each individual State as the money was contributed, it would be much harder for me to be here today offering an amendment to repeal it. But I think it is fair to say from the perspective of a donor State-- and I might add, a donor State for the past 41 years--that we are just kind of saying the time has arrived in which we think there ought to be greater equity in the allocation of funds and we believe that our States, and again the 29 donor States, would be better off with the 4.3 cents coming back to their individual States for them to make a determination about how it should be spent. I just happen to believe, and many transportation economists support it, that the dollars spent in States themselves are more efficiently used, more effectively used, the purchasing power is much greater. Again, I respect the perspective that my colleagues on the other side of this issue raise, but I have a totally different viewpoint. The second point I raise is that the comment was made a few moments ago that somehow or another if I were to be successful in this amendment--and I think we all know before we have a vote what the outcome is going to be. I make a point that if we were to repeal this, to then assume that all of these funds would then not be spent for highway construction is fundamentally flawed. I indicated in my opening comments that State after State has raised their own gasoline taxes to be spent at home, and I say those States-- and I suspect mine would be one of them because we do have tremendous needs with respect to transportation, whether that be mass transit or whether that be highway construction--have tremendous needs and I am confident that the State legislatures would, in fact, address the issue of the 4.3-cent repeal. Again, the budget's bottom line is the 29 donor States would be much better off if, in fact, they were able to collect this money and set their own priorities. So that is, again, one of the reasons that I have offered this amendment. The last point I make before I yield to others is that the original bill had been crafted without this new funding. Any funding attributable to the 4.3 cents has been provided as a totally separate section of the committee's original bill. I don't think we are destroying the underlying work. I say to my colleagues, I look at this in a sense as two different packages. One, there is the underlying bill; and then the other has to do with how the 4.3 cents is divided up. Again, my intention here is not to destroy the work that the committee has so diligently done, and in no way do I mean to imply by the offering of this amendment that I don't appreciate the work you have done to try to accommodate us. Each of us knows there is a point at which we have to stand up for our own beliefs, and the time has arrived with respect to this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. I would inform the Senate, to my knowledge, we have only one more speaker. Should there be no speakers on the other side, I will be prepared to yield back the remainder of time at the conclusion of the comments of Senator Nickles.

Mr. MACK. Madam President, before I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for a waiver of the Budget Act, I cannot help but respond to my delightful colleague from Alaska. First of all, with respect to Eisenhower, if you go back and read the record, Eisenhower indicated that he was in favor of repealing the gas tax when the interstate system was completed. So I think if he had the opportunity, we would know where he stood on this issue. In respect to the comments made about Florida and Alaska and oil and so forth, I remind my colleagues, I am talking about 4.3 cents of the gasoline tax. That is point 1. Point 2, we have supported the interstate system for 41 years, and there will be sufficient funds to, in fact, maintain the interstate system after the repeal of the 4.3 cents. I just could not let those comments go without responding. At this point, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. If I may take a couple of minutes to respond, and then I think my colleague, Senator Graham, will seek recognition, I think it is fair to say that the so-called donor States, some of the more densely populated States, have recognized the needs of western States. I grant that there are unique situations that exist among the different States of our Nation. I might just say I don't think in my wildest imagination that if this amendment would pass, we would have created, then, 50 nations, but I understand the point that my colleague is trying to make. We understand and I think that, by our actions in the past, we recognize that. But the concept, when the Interstate Highway System was put into effect, in fact, was an interstate system. It was done for a national or Federal purpose. That is, in fact, why the formulas were initially created. But I again make the argument that--and I think most people would agree--for all intents and purposes, the Interstate System has been completed. While I probably would go much further than this amendment, all I am suggesting is that we take the 4.3-cent gasoline tax, which was originally passed for the purpose of deficit reduction, and eliminate that. I think it is fair to say that we do have an interstate system that is in place. States like mine recognize the needs of other States around the Nation. We helped build those, pay for those, and maintain those. But now it's time to recognize that there is a new era, that things have in fact changed. The Interstate System is built. There is no longer a deficit--at least, we are being told that--and it is safe to assume that, for as far as we can see, there will be surpluses. There ought to be a repeal of the tax. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, consistent with a prior UC agreement, I call up for consideration amendment No. 1906.

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

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this amendment is straightforward. It calls for repealing the 4.3-cent gas tax, while ensuring deficit-neutrality through a corresponding reduction in overall spending caps. So the first point I want to make to my colleagues is that this is, in essence, budget neutral. In 1993, when President Clinton and a Democratic Congress raised the gas tax 4.3 cents, they did so for deficit reduction purposes. Again, I do not think I have to remind my colleagues it was a pretty contentious debate. The underlying bill ended up passing, I believe, by one vote. However, it seems clear now that this tax is no longer needed. All the estimates that we are receiving from many, many different sources would indicate that we are going to see surpluses out for many years to come. However, rather than to return this tax, the Congress is on the verge of retaining this tax for increased transportation spending, having succumbed to a multiyear campaign by the transportation industry. The industry vehemently maintains that the gas tax's user fee is paid by a consumer who believes gas taxes will be used for transportation purposes. However, this is simply not the case. Gas taxes being used for deficit reduction is not a unique event. What many do not know, or simply will not acknowledge, is that the gas tax was created for deficit reduction purposes, and for the first 20 years had been used for that purpose. It was for the same purpose that the 4.3-cent gas tax was enacted in 1993. However, this Congress is one that is committed to fiscal restraint and providing tax relief to America's working men and women. It is much different than the Congresses of the last several decades, which were all too willing to commit and spend taxpayers' dollars. It seems to me that this Congress ought to return to the taxpayer this now unnecessary deficit reduction gas tax, and, in so doing, we can provide tax relief directly to the men and women who need it most--America's working class who drive on our Nation's roads every day. This tax should be repealed. The American people were asked to contribute more money at the pump so that we might achieve a balanced budget. And we did. But nobody has gone back to the American people and asked them if their money can be kept for increased spending. It seems to me this is a question which ought to be asked. I am confident that almost all of us have heard from our States claiming that they need more transportation dollars. They have asked for more flexibility in spending their transportation dollars, and they have complained about the bureaucratic red tape which accompanies gas tax dollars funneled through Washington. Repeal of the 4.3 cents offers the Congress a way of meeting all of these goals. First, it keeps the faith with the taxpaying public by returning a deficit reduction tax which is no longer needed. Again, I remind everyone, there was a very strong debate about this, passing a 4.3-cent gasoline tax for the purpose of deficit reduction. It was almost implied--in fact, I guess if I went back and pulled up the various speeches, I am sure that there were those who said, when there is, in fact, no longer a deficit, this tax will be repealed and returned to the taxpayer. Secondly, it gives States the opportunity to replace this tax with one of their own. This gives the taxpaying public ample opportunity to have their voices heard on the issue of whether this gas tax should be lowered again or kept in place for increased transportation spending. Finally, should the States and the respective taxpayers support using the gas tax for increased transportation spending, it would be free from Federal strings and available for the States' priorities, not Washington's. Estimates from transportation economists and several State secretaries of transportation suggest that without Federal interference, mandates, and restrictions, a State could get as much as 20 to 40 percent more for their gas tax dollars. As a final point, according to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, since 1990, two-thirds of all States have increased their own gas taxes. This clearly indicates that our Nation's States have the will and the ability to increase their own gas taxes should they need them and should their citizens choose to do so. So I say to my colleagues, let us repeal this 4.3-cent gas tax which we told the American people would be used to achieve a balanced budget. Let us give them a chance to consider, with their State legislators, whether they are willing to see this tax used for increased transportation spending. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague such time as he may require.

Mr. MACK. I am of the opinion we will not have any more speakers, but I will reserve that judgment until that time arrives. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. MACK. I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Arizona.

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I move to waive the Budget Act for consideration of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Confidentiality Act of 1998. This bill corrects an inequity in the way that taxpayers are treated by the IRS. Under current law, communications between taxpayers and their lawyers concerning tax advice can often be protected from disclosure to the IRS by the common law attorney-client privilege. Many taxpayers choose to obtain their tax advice from practitioners who are not attorneys. Under federal law, there are other categories of tax practitioners to whom these taxpayers can turn for tax advice-- certified public accountants, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, and attorneys providing advice in the role of a tax practitioner. These tax practitioners are subject to federal regulation, and are authorized to provide tax advice and to represent taxpayers before the IRS. But under current law, communications with these other tax practitioners cannot be protected from disclosure to the IRS by a client privilege. The very same words on the very same piece of paper that would be beyond the reach of the IRS if they were the advice of an attorney at law would have to be turned over to the IRS if they came from a certified public accountant or an enrolled agent. This is an unfair penalty to impose on a taxpayer based on their choice of tax advisor, particularly since many taxpayers do not have the financial resources to hire legal counsel. The Taxpayer Confidentiality Act of 1998 fixes this unjust situation, and provides taxpayers with the confidence of knowing that their tax advice communications with any federally-authorized tax practitioners are afforded equal confidentiality protections in dealings with the IRS. This bill does not unduly restrict the ability of the IRS to gather information. The IRS will still be able to discover the facts. The taxpayer can protect from disclosure only tax advice communications that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege if the advisor were acting as an attorney. The client privilege extends only to communications and does not cover the taxpayer's business records. Also, courts have widely held that information used to prepare a tax return is not subject to a privilege and thus, under the Act, would remain subject to disclosure. The bill will not hinder criminal investigations and prosecutions, as taxpayers can assert the privilege only in noncriminal matters before the IRS and noncriminal judicial proceedings arising from these matters. And existing exceptions to the attorney-client confidentiality privilege would also apply to the protections under the bill. Thus, communications in the furtherance of a crime or a fraud would not be protected. And the bill does not affect the ability of anyone other than the IRS--including other federal or state agencies, and private individuals involved in civil litigation--to obtain access to information that they have the right under current law to obtain. It is just a narrowly- tailored, common-sense solution to the problem of treating taxpayers differently based on the tax advisor they employ. Taxpayers should have a right to privacy in the tax advice they receive from qualified tax practitioners. The Taxpayer Confidentiality Act of 1998 does not modify the attorney-client privilege in any way, and does not expand the authority of federally-regulated tax practitioners in any way. It merely provides equal treatment for all taxpayers who receive tax advice from federally-authorized sources. The Act curbs unwarranted IRS intrusiveness, and must be included in our IRS reform efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Confidentiality Act of 1998. This bill corrects an inequity in the way that taxpayers are treated by the IRS. Under current law, communications between taxpayers and their lawyers concerning tax advice can often be protected from disclosure to the IRS by the common law attorney-client privilege. Many taxpayers choose to obtain their tax advice from practitioners who are not attorneys. Under federal law, there are other categories of tax practitioners to whom these taxpayers can turn for tax advice-- certified public accountants, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, and attorneys providing advice in the role of a tax practitioner. These tax practitioners are subject to federal regulation, and are authorized to provide tax advice and to represent taxpayers before the IRS. But under current law, communications with these other tax practitioners cannot be protected from disclosure to the IRS by a client privilege. The very same words on the very same piece of paper that would be beyond the reach of the IRS if they were the advice of an attorney at law would have to be turned over to the IRS if they came from a certified public accountant or an enrolled agent. This is an unfair penalty to impose on a taxpayer based on their choice of tax advisor, particularly since many taxpayers do not have the financial resources to hire legal counsel. The Taxpayer Confidentiality Act of 1998 fixes this unjust situation, and provides taxpayers with the confidence of knowing that their tax advice communications with any federally-authorized tax practitioners are afforded equal confidentiality protections in dealings with the IRS. This bill does not unduly restrict the ability of the IRS to gather information. The IRS will still be able to discover the facts. The taxpayer can protect from disclosure only tax advice communications that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege if the advisor were acting as an attorney. The client privilege extends only to communications and does not cover the taxpayer's business records. Also, courts have widely held that information used to prepare a tax return is not subject to a privilege and thus, under the Act, would remain subject to disclosure. The bill will not hinder criminal investigations and prosecutions, as taxpayers can assert the privilege only in noncriminal matters before the IRS and noncriminal judicial proceedings arising from these matters. And existing exceptions to the attorney-client confidentiality privilege would also apply to the protections under the bill. Thus, communications in the furtherance of a crime or a fraud would not be protected. And the bill does not affect the ability of anyone other than the IRS--including other federal or state agencies, and private individuals involved in civil litigation--to obtain access to information that they have the right under current law to obtain. It is just a narrowly- tailored, common-sense solution to the problem of treating taxpayers differently based on the tax advisor they employ. Taxpayers should have a right to privacy in the tax advice they receive from qualified tax practitioners. The Taxpayer Confidentiality Act of 1998 does not modify the attorney-client privilege in any way, and does not expand the authority of federally-regulated tax practitioners in any way. It merely provides equal treatment for all taxpayers who receive tax advice from federally-authorized sources. The Act curbs unwarranted IRS intrusiveness, and must be included in our IRS reform efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I just want to address myself to comments that were made by Senator Levin a little earlier with respect to, frankly, those of us who are considered donor States. We are still looking for more information. I understand from your point of view we have all the information that there is to have, and we ought to have sufficient data to make decisions about where we are on this amendment. I would say to the distinguished Senator that last evening several of us met with our staffs, going over, asking questions about what the impact of the amendment would be to our individual States. There was no clarity last night. We called and asked for a meeting this morning with individuals from the highway department, to come down and go over the data with us. They did so this morning. We asked for additional information. They are working on getting that information back to us. We hope sometime this afternoon that information would be available to us. We will then be in a better position to evaluate just exactly where we are. I must say, maybe it is because I am dealing from a position of real extreme frustration, representing a State that we believe under the old proposal had about 77 cents back for what we had contributed in the past, in the last year. I remember the debates and the discussions that we had 5 years ago, kind of saying, ``This is never going to happen to us again,'' that is being a donor State to the extent that we have been. So we are concerned and we do not feel that we have enough data to make a decision. We think it is unfair to say, let's just go ahead and move this amendment at this time. We do not have, and have not had, the time that you all have had over these last several months to be working on this bill. We have this opportunity now to try to evaluate what the amendment does. We are making a reasonable request. We are not trying to delay the bill. So, I ask the amendment be set aside until we have an opportunity to get this information and we can then discuss how we proceed.

Mr. MACK. Again, I appreciate the response. I understand. Each of us has had the opportunity to manage a bill. We know how we want to keep that bill moving. The longer it lays out there, the more difficulties it attracts. So I understand the concerns of the managers. Give us a few moments, those of us who are the donor States, an opportunity to take a look at this and see how we might proceed.

Mr. MACK. We might have a several-hour debate on what the definition of ``moment'' is.