Bob Kerrey: “First of all, as to ``unconscionable,'' we are just following the lead of the chairman of the Budget Committee who…”

“First of all, as to ``unconscionable,'' we are just following the lead of the chairman of the Budget Committee who apparently is unconscionable as well. He had the same proposal in his budget. Second, let me say this is not to fund the operation of the IRS. This basically funds a tax cut. That is what we are talking about. We have new innocent spouse provisions in this bill and a burden of proof shift that will result in a reduction of taxes of some American taxpayers. That is what this pay-for is set up to do. Let me say these taxes are not imposed until the year 2002. This gives the Environment and Public Works Committee nearly 3 additional years. They had 3 rac{1}{2} years now already since this bill expired. My presumption is 3 years is plenty. I can find an additional offset, perhaps, and push it back to 2003 if you want an additional year to get this bill authorized. This takes care of a second 5-year problem. Again, I say to colleagues, we are having to deal with this because the Finance Committee decided to spend $9 billion more, and that $9 billion is being spent to reduce some people's taxes who are going to pay higher taxes as a result of the innocent spouse provision and the burden-of-proof issue. We are reducing taxes in one area and we have to find an offset. It seems to me, Mr. President, that Senator Domenici's recommendation is correct.”