Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Let the Record show the request has been made. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 822 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia for those very complimentary remarks. I wonder if it would be too presumptuous to list him as a cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation on a flat tax. This, of course, is a famous day, April 15, the day when Federal income tax returns are due. Across this land for many days, many weeks, some months, Americans have been struggling with their tax returns. As we speak, some may have on C-SPAN2 quietly while they are working on their returns at this very moment. I recall seeing long lines at the Philadelphia post office near midnight on income tax day when cars were lined up and people were dropping off their tax returns at the post office to beat the filing deadline. This is a good occasion to talk about the flat tax which permits taxpayers to report their income on a postcard. It can actually be done in the course of some 15 minutes. I filed my tax return and sent it off yesterday. It is very complicated. They say it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a tax return. I think it takes more than a Philadelphia lawyer to fill out a Federal income tax return, and we have labored under the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code for far too long. I first introduced this legislation in March of 1995. I was the second one in the Congress of the United States to introduce flat-tax legislation. The majority leader, Dick Armey, had introduced the flat tax in the House of Representatives the preceding fall. I studied it. I studied the model of Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka, two distinguished professors of economics and tax law at Stanford University, and concluded that America ought to have a flat tax and that we could, in fact, have a flat tax if the American people really understood what a flat tax was all about. The Hall-Rabushka model was revenue neutral at 19 percent. I have added 1 percent in order to allow for two deductions: one on charitable contributions up to $2,500 a year and a second on interest on home mortgages of borrowings up to $100,000 to take care of middle-class Americans, because I think without those two deductions, it would be a political impossibility to have a flat tax enacted. The advantage of the flat tax is that it does have the flatness with only those two deductions, so it is a very simple matter to return the tax return. Here is a sample tax return. You fill in your name and your address. You list your total wage, salary, or pension. There is a personal allowance, for a family of four. Up to $27,500 pays no tax at all. That constitutes about 53 percent of Americans. It has the two deductions for mortgage interest on debt up to $100,000 for an owner-occupied home and charitable contributions up to $2,500; total compensation multiplied by 20 percent, and that is that. The tax burden costs Americans about $224 billion a year of our gross national product, which is mired in complexity and unnecessary regulation. The flat tax seeks to bring equity into the tax payment by taxing only once so that the flat tax eliminates tax on net dividends, capital gains or estates because all of those items have already been taxed. It would enable Americans to accumulate a great deal more in capital which would help business expansion which would help the economy. And it is projected that the gross national product would be increased by some $2 trillion over 7 years by virtue of this flat tax proposal. The flat tax is a win-win situation all up and down the line because, by eliminating the loopholes, it eliminates the opportunities of very wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes at all. When you take a look at the returns of the very, very rich, with the practices of deductions and tax shelters, all of which is legal, the very, very wealthy avoid paying any tax at all. But this flat tax would have the advantages of capital accumulation, would have the advantage of increasing the gross national product, but most of all would have the simplicity of being able to file a tax return on a postcard. I think that as I speak--it is always problematic as to how many people are watching C-SPAN2--but I think as I speak there are many Americans across the land tonight who would like to be able to fill out a tax return in 15 minutes. And my view is that if it were better understood, that there would be a great public clamor to have a flat tax enacted. Mr. President, to reiterate, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to provide for a flat 20% tax on individuals and businesses. In the 104th Congress, I was the first Senator to introduce flat tax legislation and the first Member of Congress to set forth a deficit-neutral plan for dramatically reforming our nation's tax code and replacing it with a flatter, fairer plan designed to stimulate economic growth. My flat tax legislation was also the first plan to retain limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. As I traveled around the country and held town hall meetings across Pennsylvania and other states, the public support for fundamental tax reform was overwhelming. I would point out in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: (1) my copy of the Constitution; and (2) a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard--many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates. Support for the flat tax is growing as more and more Americans embrace the simplicity, fairness and growth potential of flat tax reform. An April 17, 1995, edition of Newsweek cited a poll showing that 61 percent of Americans favor a flat tax over the current tax code. Significantly, a majority of the respondents who favor the flat tax preferred my flat tax plan with limited deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Well before he entered the 1996 Republican presidential primary, publisher Steve Forbes opined in a March 27, 1995, Forbes editorial about the tremendous appeal and potency of my flat tax plan. Congress was not immune to public demand for reform. Jack Kemp was appointed to head up the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform and the Commission soon came out with its report recognizing the value of a fairer, flatter tax code. Mr. Forbes soon introduced a flat tax plan of his own, and my fellow candidates in the 1996 Republican presidential primary began to embrace similar versions of either a flat tax or a consumption-based tax system. Unfortunately, the politics of that Presidential campaign denied the flat tax a fair hearing and momentum stalled. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. While my flat tax proposal was favorably received at town hall meetings in Pennsylvania, Congress failed to move forward on any tax reform during the 105th Congress. I tried repeatedly to raise the issue with leadership and the Finance Committee to no avail. I think the American people want this debate to move forward and I think the issue of tax reform is ripe for consideration. In this period of opportunity as we commence the 106th Session of Congress, I am optimistic that public support for tax reform will enable us to move forward and adopt this critically important and necessary legislation. That is why today I am again introducing my Flat Tax Act of 1999. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20% tax rate for all individuals and businesses. It will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-line postcard. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic growth. Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Before I introduced my flat tax bill early in the 104th Congress, I had discussions with Congressman Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, about his flat tax proposal. In fact, I testified with House Majority Leader Richard Armey before the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees, as well as the Joint Economic Committee and the House Small Business Committee on the tremendous benefits of flat tax reform. Since then, and both before and after introducing my original flat tax bill, my staff and I have studied the flat tax at some length, and have engaged in a host of discussions with economists and tax experts, including the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to evaluate the economic impact and viability of a flat tax. Based on those discussions, and on the revenue estimates supplied to us, I have concluded that a simple flat tax at a rate of 20% on all business and personal income can be enacted without reducing federal revenues. A flat tax will help reduce the size of government and allow ordinary citizens to have more influence over how their money is spent because they will spend it--not the government. By creating strong incentives for savings and investment, the flat tax will have the beneficial result of making available larger pools of capital for expansion of the private sector of the economy--rather than more tax money for big government. This will mean more jobs and, just as important, more higher-paying jobs. As a matter of federal tax policy, there has been considerable controversy over whether tax breaks should be used to stimulate particular kinds of economic activity, or whether tax policy should be neutral, leaving people to do what they consider best from a purely economic point of view. Our current tax code attempts to use tax policy to direct economic activity. Yet actions under that code have demonstrated that so-called tax breaks are inevitably used as the basis for tax shelters which have no real relation to solid economic purposes, or to the activities which the tax laws were meant to promote. Even when the government responds to particular tax shelters with new and often complex revisions of the regulations, clever tax experts are able to stay one or two steps ahead of the IRS bureaucrats by changing the structure of their business transactions and then claiming some legal distinctions between the taxpayer's new approach and the revised IRS regulations and precedents. Under the massive complexity of the current IRS Code, the battle between $500-an-hour tax lawyers and IRS bureaucrats to open and close loopholes is a battle the government can never win. Under the flat tax bill I offer today, there are no loopholes, and tax avoidance through clever manipulations will become a thing of the past. The basic model for this legislation comes from a plan created by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Their plan envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible. In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19% rate, is based on a well documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19% to 20% to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. A preliminary estimate in the 104th Congress by the Committee on Joint Taxation places the annual cost of the home interest deduction at $35 billion, and the cost of the charitable deduction at $13 billion. While the revenue calculation is complicated because the Hall-Rabushka proposal encompasses significant revisions to business taxes as well as personal income taxes, there is a sound basis for concluding that the 1% increase in rate would pay for the two deductions. Revenue estimates for tax code revisions are difficult to obtain and are, at best, judgment calls based on projections from fact situations with myriad assumed variables. It is possible that some modification may be needed at a later date to guarantee revenue neutrality. This legislation offered today is quite similar to the bill introduced in the House by Congressman Armey and in the Senate late in 1995 by Senator Richard Shelby, which were both in turn modeled after the Hall-Rabushka proposal. The flat tax offers great potential for enormous economic growth, in keeping with principles articulated so well by Jack Kemp. This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans. In the 104th Congress, we took some important steps toward reducing the size and cost of government, and this work is ongoing and vitally important. But the work of downsizing government is only one side of the coin; what we must do at the same time, and with as much energy and care, is to grow the private sector. As we reform the welfare programs and government bureaucracies of past administrations, we must replace those programs with a prosperity that extends to all segments of American society through private investment and job creation--which can have the additional benefit of producing even lower taxes for Americans as economic expansion adds to federal revenues. Just as Americans need a tax code that is fair and simple, they also are entitled to tax laws designed to foster rather than retard economic growth. The bill I offer today embodies those principles. My plan, like the Armey-Shelby proposal, is based on the Hall- Rabushka analysis. But my flat tax differs from the Armey-Shelby plan in four key respects: First, my bill contains a 20% flat tax rate. Second, this bill would retain modified deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions (which will require a 1% higher tax rate than otherwise). Third, my bill would maintain the automatic withholding of taxes from an individual's paycheck. Lastly, my bill is designed to be revenue neutral, and thus will not undermine our vital efforts to balance the nation's budget. The key advantages of this flat tax plan are three-fold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts, and as interest rates drop. Under this tax plan, individuals would be taxed at a flat rate of 20% on all income they earn from wages, pensions and salaries. Individuals would not be taxed on any capital gains, interest on savings, or dividends--since those items will have already been taxed as part of the flat tax on business revenue. The flat tax will also eliminate all but two of the deductions and exemptions currently contained within the tax code. Instead, taxpayers will be entitled to ``personal allowances'' for themselves and their children. The personal allowances are: $10,000 for a single taxpayer; $15,000 for a single head of household; $17,500 for a married couple filing jointly; and $5,000 per child or dependent. These personal allowances would be adjusted annually for inflation after 1999. In order to ensure that this flat tax does not unfairly impact low income families, the personal allowances contained in my proposal are much higher than the standard deduction and personal exemptions allowed under the current tax code. For example in the 1998 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,250 for a single taxpayer, $6,250 for a head of household and $7,100 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $2,700. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay tax on all income over $17,900 (personal exemptions of $10,800 and a standard deduction of $7,100). By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax only on income over that amount. My legislation retains the provisions for the deductibility of charitable contributions up to a limit of $2,500 and home mortgage interest on up to $100,000 of borrowing. Retention of these key deductions will, I believe, enhance the political salability of this legislation and allow the debate on the flat tax to move forward. If a decision is made to eliminate these deductions, the revenue saved could be used to reduce the overall flat tax rate below 20%. With respect to businesses, the flat tax would also be a flat rate of 20%. My legislation would eliminate the intricate scheme of complicated depreciation schedules, deductions, credits, and other complexities that go into business taxation in favor of a much- simplified system that taxes all business revenue less only wages, direct expenses and purchases--a system with much less potential for fraud, ``creative accounting'' and tax avoidance. Businesses would be allowed to expense 100% of the cost of capital formation, including purchases of capital equipment, structures and land, and to do so in the year in which the investments are made. The business tax would apply to all money not reinvested in the company in the form of employment or capital formation--thus fully taxing revenue at the business level and making it inappropriate to re-tax the same monies when passed on to investors as dividends or capital gains. Let me now turn to a more specific discussion of the advantages of the flat tax legislation I am introducing today. The first major advantage to this flat tax is simplicity. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spend approximately 5.3 billion hours each year filling out tax forms. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5.6 million words in 1995. Whenever the government gets involved in any aspect of our lives, it can convert the most simple goal or task into a tangled array of complexity, frustration and inefficiency. By way of example, most Americans have become familiar with the absurdities of the government's military procurement programs. If these programs have taught us anything, it is how a simple purchase order for a hammer or a toilet seat can mushroom into thousands of words of regulations and restrictions when the government gets involved. The Internal Revenue Service is certainly no exception. Indeed, it has become a distressingly common experience for taxpayers to receive computerized print-outs claiming that additional taxes are due, which require repeated exchanges of correspondence or personal visits before it is determined, as it so often is, that the taxpayer was right in the first place. The plan offered today would eliminate these kinds of frustrations for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the five million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of tens of millions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules and regulations. The flat tax I have proposed can be calculated just by filling out a small postcard which would require a taxpayer only to answer a few easy questions. Filing a tax return would become a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. Along with the advantage of simplicity, enactment of this flat tax bill will help to remove the burden of costly and unnecessary government regulation, bureaucracy and red tape from our everyday lives. The heavy hand of government bureaucracy is particularly onerous in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, which has been able to extend its influence into so many aspects of our lives. In 1995, the IRS employed 117,000 people, spread out over countless offices across the United States. Its budget was in excess of $7 billion, with over $4 billion spent merely on enforcement. By simplifying the tax code and eliminating most of the IRS' vast array of rules and regulations, the flat tax would enable us to cut a significant portion of the IRS budget, including the bulk of the funding now needed for enforcement and administration. In addition, a flat tax would allow taxpayers to redirect their time, energies and money away from the yearly morass of tax compliance. According to the Tax Foundation, in 1996, the private sector spent over $150 billion complying with federal tax laws. According to a Tax Foundation study, adoption of flat tax reform would cut pre-filing compliance costs by over 90 percent. Monies spent by businesses and investors in creating tax shelters and finding loopholes could be instead directed to productive and job- creating economic activity. With the adoption of a flat tax, the opportunities for fraud and cheating would also be vastly reduced, allowing the government to collect, according to some estimates, over $120 billion annually. The third major advantage to a flat tax is that it will be a tremendous spur to economic growth. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates adoption of a flat tax like the one offered today would increase future national wealth by over $2 trillion, in present value terms, over a seven year period. This translates into over $7,500 in increased wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth also means that there will be more jobs--it is estimated that the $2 trillion increase in wealth would lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs. The economic principles are fairly straightforward. Our current tax system is inefficient; it is biased toward too little savings and too much consumption. The flat tax creates substantial incentives for savings and investment by eliminating taxation on interest, dividends and capital gains--and tax policies which promote capital formation and investment are the best vehicle for creation of new and high paying jobs, and for a greater prosperity for all Americans. It is well recognized that to promote future economic growth, we need not only to eliminate the federal government's reliance on deficits and borrowed money, but to restore and expand the base of private savings and investment that has been the real engine driving American prosperity throughout our history. These concepts are related--the federal budget deficit soaks up much of what we have saved, leaving less for businesses to borrow for investments. It is the sum total of savings by all aspects of the U.S. economy that represents the pool of all capital available for investment--in training, education, research, machinery, physical plant, etc.--and that constitutes the real seed of future prosperity. The statistics here are daunting. In the 1960s, the net U.S. national savings rate was 8.2 percent, but it has fallen to a dismal 1.5 percent. Americans save at only one-tenth the rate of the Japanese, and only one-fifth the rate of the Germans. This is unacceptable and we must do something to reverse the trend. An analysis of the components of U.S. savings patterns shows that although the federal budget deficit is the largest cause of ``dissavings,'' both personal and business savings rates have declined significantly over the past three decades. Thus, to recreate the pool of capital stock that is critical to future U.S. growth and prosperity, we have to do more than just get rid of the deficit. We have to very materially raise our levels of private savings and investment. And we have to do so in a way that will not cause additional deficits. The less money people save, the less money is available for business investment and growth. The current tax system discourages savings and investment, because it taxes the interest we earn from our savings accounts, the dividends we make from investing in the stock market, and the capital gains we make from successful investments in our homes and the financial markets. Indeed, under the current law these rewards for saving and investment are not only taxed, they are overtaxed--since gains due solely to inflation, which represent no real increase in value, are taxed as if they were profits to the taxpayer. With the limited exceptions of retirement plans and tax free municipal bonds, our current tax code does virtually nothing to encourage personal savings and investment, or to reward it over consumption. This bill will change this system, and address this problem. The proposed legislation reverses the current skewed incentives by promoting savings and investment by individuals and by businesses. Individuals would be able to invest and save their money tax-free and reap the benefits of the accumulated value of those investments without paying a capital gains tax upon the sale of these investments. Businesses would also invest more as the flat tax allowed them to expense fully all sums invested in new equipment and technology in the year the expense was incurred, rather than dragging out the tax benefits for these investments through complicated depreciation schedules. With greater investment and a larger pool of savings available, interest rates and the costs of investment would also drop, spurring even greater economic growth. Critics of the flat tax have argued that we cannot afford the revenue losses associated with the tremendous savings and investment incentives the bill affords to businesses and individuals. Those critics are wrong. Not only is this bill carefully crafted to be revenue neutral, but historically we have seen that when taxes are cut, revenues actually increase, as more taxpayers work harder for a larger share of their take-home pay, and investors are more willing to take risks in pursuit of rewards that will not get eaten up in taxes. As one example, under President Kennedy when individual tax rates were lowered, investment incentives including the investment tax credit were created and then expanded and depreciation rates were accelerated. Yet, between 1962 and 1967, gross annual federal tax receipts grew from $99.7 billion to $148 billion--an increase of nearly 50%. More recently after President Reagan's tax cuts in the early 1980's, government tax revenues rose from just under $600 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. In fact, the Reagan tax cut program helped to bring about one of the longest peacetime expansion of the U.S. economy in history. There is every reason to believe that the flat tax proposed here can do the same--and by maintaining revenue neutrality in this flat tax proposal, as we have, we can avoid any increases in annual deficits and the national debt. In addition to increasing federal revenues by fostering economic growth, the flat tax can also add to federal revenues without increasing taxes by closing tax loopholes. The Congressional Research Service estimates that for fiscal year 1995, individuals sheltered more than $393 billion in tax revenue in legal loopholes, and corporations sheltered an additional $60 billion. There may well be additional monies hidden in quasi-legal or even illegal ``tax shelters.'' Under a flat tax system, all tax shelters will disappear and all income will be subject to taxation. The growth case for a flat tax is compelling. It is even more compelling in the case of a tax revision that is simple and demonstrably fair. By substantially increasing the personal allowances for taxpayers and their dependents, this flat tax proposal ensures that poorer taxpayers will pay no tax and that taxes will not be regressive for lower and middle income taxpayers. At the same time, by closing the hundreds of tax loopholes which are currently used by wealthier taxpayers to shelter their income and avoid taxes, this flat tax bill will also ensure that all Americans pay their fair share. The flat tax legislation that I am offering will retain the element of progressivity that Americans view as essential to fairness in an income tax system. Because of the lower end income exclusions, and the capped deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, the effective tax rates under my bill will range from 0% for families with incomes under about $30,000 to roughly 20% for the highest income groups. My proposed legislation demonstrably retains the fairness that must be an essential component of the American tax system. The proposal that I make today is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are: Simplicity: A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 5.3 billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance. Cuts Government: The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5.6 million words and 12,000 pages currently. It would also allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of 117,000 employees. Promotes Economic Growth: Economists estimate a growth of over $2 trillion in national wealth over seven years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs. Increases Efficiency: Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater economic expansion. Reduces Interest Rates: Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings. Lowers Compliance Costs: Americans would be able to save up to $224 billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance. Decreases Fraud: As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud, which now amounts to over $120 billion in uncollected revenue annually. Reduces IRS Costs: Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on the $7 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal Revenue Service. Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within seven years of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6 percent increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and prosperity. The legislation I introduce today will afford Americans such a tax system.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am advised by my staff that it would be appropriate to ask for some time off the bill. I ask for an additional 15 minutes off the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Yesterday evening, the pending amendment which had been offered on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, as principal sponsors, on the National Institutes of Health, was debated shortly before 8 p.m., when voting started on four items. I believe the order was that we would resume consideration today with that pending amendment. My inquiry is, is that correct?

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. That seems not correct to me. I debated this issue for maybe 10 minutes at the most yesterday. Isn't there an hour allotted to each side on each amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. A half-hour for each side for all first-degree amendments?

Mr. SPECTER. We did not use 24 minutes yesterday, Madam President.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Madam President, to briefly recapitulate, this amendment seeks to add $1.4 billion to the allocation for the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is the crown jewel of the Federal Government, having made really phenomenal advances on medical research in its drive to conquer so many of the maladies confronting mankind today. Last year the budget for NIH was increased by $2 billion and, in the view of the Members, at least the chairman and the ranking, on the appropriations subcommittee having jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services, $2 billion are absolutely necessary by way of increase of the existing budget for NIH, which now is $15.6 billion. There have been really remarkable advances in so many lines, with the research on stem cells having been completed, posing the opportunity for curing so many of the very, very serious ailments. Testimony was given before the appropriations subcommittee that with diseases like Parkinson's, the cure may be in the range of 5 to 10 years. Great strides have been made on Alzheimer's, on cancer, and so many very other serious matters. We have an offset to cover the $1.4 billion by changing the rules on deductibility from the tobacco settlement. Madam President, after consulting with the managers on the second slot, which had been reserved, it is my intention to offer a sense-of- the-Senate resolution on behalf of Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Schumer, and myself which would increase the funding to the Department of Justice on the prosecution of gun cases from $5 to $50 million. We have seen examples, in Richmond, VA, in Philadelphia, PA, and in Boston, MA, where gun cases have been handled with great success. This follows the passage in 1984 of the armed career criminal bill which provided that any career criminal, someone with three or four major convictions, found in possession of a firearm, would receive a sentence up to life imprisonment. In 1988, there was an experiment with a program called Trigger Lock in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which produced extraordinary results, again, focusing on guns. It was a national model. More recently, in Richmond, VA, there has been experience with prosecutions as to guns and also a special program again in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, coordinated with New Jersey across the river, with $1.5 million going to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and $800,000 to New Jersey--again, very remarkable results. In this year's budget, the Department of Justice has allocated only $5 million to this important function. An important hearing was held on Monday of this week, presided over jointly by Senator Thurmond and Senator Sessions, on two Judiciary Committee subcommittees. And there the evidence was very forceful about the effectiveness of this gun program. Madam President, I am not going to offer this amendment at this time, but I did want to utilize just a few moments, as I have, this morning to explain the purpose of the amendment. It will be offered in due course. How much time remains, Madam President?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I wonder if I might make an inquiry of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, if I might have the attention of Senator Domenici. The second slot was reserved, Mr. Chairman, and has been used for a sense of the Senate on guns, as I have just explained. I wonder if it would be acceptable to the managers if the amendment was sent to the desk and offered at this time, or would it be preferable to wait until a later point to make the submission for the Record?

Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to accommodate the chairman's schedule.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I also thank the Chair for the additional time. And I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished President pro tempore. On behalf of our distinguished majority leader, I have been asked to make the following announcement. This morning the Senate will immediately resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 20. There are now 10 hours remaining for consideration of the bill. As announced last night, there will be no rollcall votes this morning prior to 11:00 a.m. However, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout the remainder of today's session as the Senate attempts to complete action on the budget bill. All Members will be notified of the voting schedule today as it becomes available. Also, the leader has announced that if the Senate completes action on the budget resolution today, there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session. Finally, all Senators are reminded that pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement reached yesterday, all first-degree amendments must be offered by 12 noon today. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Thurmond, and also Senator Tim Hutchinson as cosponsors.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as an original cosponsor. We have surveyed our committee members. Senator Thurmond, may we list you as an original cosponsor?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been accorded the opportunity to offer this amendment slightly out of turn, and I had already asked my distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, to come to the floor. The amendment is with Senator Harkin as the principal cosponsor. The thrust of this amendment is to provide the financial base to increase funding in the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion this year. The budget resolution had increased the budget authority by $600 million. This amendment seeks to increase that budget authority by another $1.4 billion and applies as an offset to the provision to disallow tax deductions from the settlement of cigarettes, which would yield in excess of $1.4 billion, the amount which is covered in this amendment. In November 1998, 46 States agreed to a settlement with the tobacco industry requiring the tobacco companies to pay the States some $206 billion over 25 years. Four other States had settled separate lawsuits with the tobacco companies. The Internal Revenue Service considers those settlement payments as tax deductible business expenses, and this deduction effectively reduces the amount tobacco companies pay by 25 to 30 percent. Obviously, the tobacco companies will write off these payments as business expenses on their Federal tax returns. The amount of funding for next year, the year 2000, is $1.8 billion. When we look for offsets to fund matters like increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, it is obviously a very difficult matter with the type of budget constraints that we are under. And in searching the nooks and crannies of the potential offsets, a very diligent staff came up with the idea that the deductibility of these payments was of lesser public policy importance than to increase the funding for the National Institutes of Health. Now, public policy obviously depends upon someone's vantage point, and to have a change in law that would deny a tax deduction is not easy for anyone concerned. But where you have the kinds of funds that are involved in the tobacco settlement, and where you had a much larger figure being talked about for the Federal settlement, and where you have all of the money going to the States, and the Federal Government doesn't get any of the funds as determined by the emergency appropriations bill that we voted on last week on an amendment that Senator Harkin and I offered, I think that all factors considered, it is a fair and just and equitable consideration. That is especially true in a context where you have tobacco being the cause of so many major health ailments in the United States. So in searching for a way to find an offset, we have come up with the idea of disallowing this as a tax deduction, which would provide the full funding in fiscal year 2000 for this $1.4 billion. Now, with respect to the justification for increasing NIH funding, Mr. President, I think that is a matter which virtually speaks for itself. The National Institutes of Health is the crown jewel of the Federal Government. The advances that have been made in the National Institutes of Health covering a range of ailments is just nothing short of marvelous. It is worth just a moment to run through the list of ailments that NIH is studying where such magnificent progress has been made: Alcoholism; Alzheimer's disease; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, also called Lou Gehrig's disease; AIDS; arthritis; asthma; autism; cancers of so many different classifications, such as breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostate cancer, and other cancers; cystic fibrosis; deafness and communications disorders; dental diseases; diabetes; digestive disease; epilepsy; heart disease; hemophilia; hepatitis; Huntington's disease; kidney ailments; liver disorders; lung disease; macular degeneration; osteoporosis; Parkinson's disease; schizophrenia; scleroderma; stroke; sudden infant death syndrome. That is not even a complete list. I might comment, Mr. President, that the efforts made by various interest groups, where people suffer from a variety of ailments, is really overwhelming as those groups come to Washington to lobby for an increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health. We had a resolution introduced by the distinguished Senator from Florida, Senator Mack, several years ago calling for the doubling of NIH over the course of 5 years, and it passed 98-0. Two years ago, when Senator Harkin and I sought to increase the budget resolution by $1.1 billion, we found it was defeated by 63-37. Last year, when we offered an increase in the budget resolution by $2 billion, it was defeated, my recollection is, by a vote of 57-41. When it comes to translating druthers to dollars, we have not seen the kind of support for NIH funding that I think is really warranted, given all the facts of the case. We have some 19 cosponsors on the resolution to increase funding by some $2 billion. But, in the course of soliciting our colleagues for cosponsorship on this amendment, we found substantially less than that number stepping forward. When it comes to illness, when you have a loved one with Parkinson's, or a parent with Alzheimer's, or a family member with cancer, or one of the ailments yourself such as heart disease, no sum of money within conception is too much, and is really not enough to really move to conquer that disease. At the National Institutes of Health they do perform miracles. In the course of last November, NIH came out with disclosures on research on stem cells, which has the potential to be a veritable fountain of youth. The estimate has been given on Parkinson's disease, to be within the range of conquering Parkinson's within 5 years, perhaps 10 years at the outside. As these stem cells replace other disease cells in the body, the sky is the limit as to what can be accomplished. But all of this takes money. There are still a limited number of research grants which are awarded by the National Institutes of Health, and an increase of $2 billion will be the best spent money which the Federal Government could allocate. We all know we have a budget in excess of $1.7 trillion, a staggering sum of money. And it is a question of priorities. This, I suggest, is at the top of the line. Mr. President, if I may, I see my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, has come to the floor. But recognition is determined by the Chair, so I simply yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I congratulate the Department of Veterans Affairs on its 10th anniversary of becoming a cabinet level department of the federal government. On March 15, 1989, the new Department of Veterans Affairs was established, headed by a Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Over the past ten years, VA has worked hard to fulfill its commitments to our nation's veterans by providing benefits and health care to millions of Americans who have given so much to protect and defend our country and its liberties. Among VA's many contributions: VA research scientists and practitioners have led in the advancement of medical research and health care delivery; VA benefits such as home loans, life insurance and educational support have been immensely helpful in transitioning active duty military members back into civilian life; and VA disability payments aid veterans injured in the line of duty as partial compensation by a grateful nation for their many sacrifices. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I will help ensure that VA sustains these many programs to meet the myriad needs of an aging veteran population. I am certain my colleagues share that commitment as well. The mission of the VA, as enunciated by President Abraham Lincoln, is ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' Congratulations to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and may it continue to serve our nation well for years to come.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, several weeks ago, I filed a resolution for the use of airstrikes in Kosovo. This was essentially a vehicle to move the Senate of the United States to take up the issue of the use of force, to debate it and to decide the question. It has always been my view, as expressed in 1991 in the debate on the use of force in the Persian Gulf and, before that in 1983, where we debated the War Powers Act with respect to deployment of marines in Lebanon, that the constitutional issue of Congress' sole authority to declare war is of paramount importance. I congratulate our leadership today for moving through a procedural morass, where we had a cloture vote--that is, a vote to cut off debate--on the resolution pending by the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith. Afterwards, in consultation, this resolution was crafted so the Senate could vote yes or no on this important issue. As noted by others, we did have a bipartisan vote of 58-41 in favor of the use of force, with some 17 Republicans joining 41 Democrats, making a total of 58, and 38 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting in the negative. There is a strong bipartisan showing by these figures. It would have been vastly preferable, Mr. President, had President Clinton taken this issue to the American people at a much earlier stage so the American people could be aware of the consequences of this very, very important decision. The President did address the matter in the opening remarks on his press conference on Friday. I concurred with what the Senator from Delaware said yesterday--when he and I debated or discussed the subject for about a half hour--this was most appropriately a subject for a 30-minute Presidential speech. The president should lay out the issue in great detail. There is a large concern on my part, and on the part of many others, that the American people are not really prepared for the consequences as to what may occur in Kosovo. There have been forceful statements that the risks are very, very high, and that the air defenses in Serbia are very strong. It is important that the American people understand the substantial risks involved so we do not retreat as we did in Somalia. The way to guard against that is to build up a public understanding as to what the scenario is in Kosovo with as forceful an articulation as possible, and I repeat, much more forceful than the President's letter today. The President should articulate in great detail about the savagery of the assaults on people and the brutality and the ethnic cleansing which has gone on in Kosovo. Those details, I think, are a concern to the American people but they have not been stated in a way which really brings forth the magnitude of the human catastrophe in Kosovo so the American people would be willing to accept and undertake the risks that are involved in this matter. But all of that is prologue. Now we have the authorization by the Senate for the use of force. On a very difficult question, I think it is the lesser of the undesirable alternatives, and featuring prominently is the desire of keeping NATO intact. We seem to have more support from our European allies on this matter than at any time in the past. Our precarious position on NATO has occurred because the administration has moved us into a position without congressional authorization to an executive commitment really, in effect, to support the NATO decision to use force in Kosovo. To that extent, so that we do not have a breach of making NATO look bad and do not have a breach of making the United States look bad, which would in effect be a backdown, we are in a sense backing into the issue. But the more important aspect is the fact that the President did come to the Senate. I was interested in the discussion with our distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and to hear his comment where he had expressed to the President today the view that the President should not lean so heavily on Presidential prerogatives but should ask the Congress of the United States for authority to use force. The President has done so. Now we have a very significant precedent which should be a clarion call to future Presidents not to exercise their authority as Commander in Chief and unilaterally engage the United States in war. The President should take this issue to the Congress of the United States and to the American people. The President should do this at an early time so the issue can be fully debated, not on a short time limit, as we had this evening. It must be a source of some wonderment to people who were watching on C-SPAN II to see such an important issue debated in such a brief period of time with 2 minutes allotted to Senators to speak on the subject and 1 minute taken by the manager, the Senator from Delaware. There had been extensive debate yesterday, but we could have used even more time. Unfortunately, we were caught in the press with the budget resolution, which is first on the docket for tomorrow. I thank the Chair for setting this extra overtime. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have remained after the conclusion of the vote to comment about the vote and about a very significant historical precedent which was established tonight. The Senate of the United States took up its constitutional responsibility to make a decision as to whether Congressional authority would be given for the United States to commit an act of war in Kosovo following a request by the President of the United States for such a vote. In modern times, we have seen the erosion of the congressional authority to declare war. Tonight in the Senate, we reaffirmed the basic constitutional responsibility and authority of the Congress on that very subject, after the President had made a significant request for authorization to use force. This action tonight follows the situation in January of 1991 when the Congress of the United States authorized the use of force in the Persian Gulf following a similar request by President Bush. I believe that this is of great importance historically as a precedent, to guide the future Presidents, that their authority as Commander in Chief does not extend to involving the United States in war. Where acts of war are involved, it is a matter for the Congress of the United States and not the unilateral action of the President of the United States. On the merits of this evening's vote, it was a very difficult vote. It was the choice of two very undesirable alternatives. In voting aye and supporting the use of force, I chose what I considered to be the lesser of the undesirable alternatives. The President in his letter today said that the United States national interests are clear and significant. I disagree with that conclusion by the President. The President then went on in his letter to amplify those national interests. Yet the absence of a very strong purpose and reason underscores my conclusion that this is an extremely difficult question on U.S. national interests. The President's letter continues, the first line of the second paragraph says, ``The United States national interests are clear and significant.'' The second line says, ``The ongoing effort by President Milosevic to attack and repress the people of Kosovo could ignite a wider European war with dangerous consequences to the United States. This is a conflict with no natural boundaries. If it continues it will push refugees across borders and draw into neighboring countries.'' That is a statement of possibility, but we know that this is intervention by NATO, including the United States, in what is essentially a civil war. The President then went on in the second paragraph to say, ``NATO has authorized airstrikes against the former Yugoslavia to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and to address the threat to peace and security of the Balkan region and Europe.'' The President relies quite substantially upon the ``humanitarian catastrophe'', he may really be saying the use of force for humanitarian purposes, and it may be that this standard is a one which ought to be adopted. But I do suggest that this may be a departure from what has previously been recognized as U.S. policy to use force where there is a vital United States national security interest. If we look for humanitarian catastrophes, we can find them all around the world, and we have been criticized for not doing more at an earlier stage in Bosnia. We have been criticized for not doing more in Rwanda. There have been many criticisms leveled against the United States and the civilized world for not intervening on prior occasions. It may be that with such a thin statement of vital national interests, the authorization to use force in Kosovo really reflects a shifting standard. As the President articulates, ``to prevent a human catastrophe.'' (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the Chair.)