[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 151 (Monday, November 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11584-S11588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S11584]]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF CHARLES ROSSOTTI, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:45
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now go into executive session and
proceed to the nomination of Charles Rossotti, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Charles Rossotti, of the
District of Columbia, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for debate on the nomination shall be
limited to 3 hours, with 60 minutes under the control of the Democratic
leader or his designee, 90 minutes under the control of the Senator
from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and 30 minutes under the control of the
Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth].
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as we consider the nomination of Charles O.
Rossotti to become the new Commissioner of the IRS, it's appropriate
that we pause to take a good look at that agency as a whole. Let me say
from the beginning, that Mr. Rossotti--who came before the Finance
Committee just a little over 1 week ago--is uniquely suited to this
confirmation. I am impressed by him and his background. Mr. Rossotti is
a successful businessman--in touch with the needs, concerns, and risk-
taking mindset of entrepreneurs. He has made his mark as a management
consultant and expert on computer systems--a vital background at a time
when one of the agency's major setbacks is its dysfunctional
information system. I intend to vote for Mr. Rossotti's confirmation,
and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Having said this, I also want to say something about the Internal
Revenue Service and its current condition. September 23 to 25, the
Finance Committee held what will be the first in a series of hearings
to probe an agency that is cloaked in more secrecy than the FBI and the
CIA. What we learned in our initial hearings was so disturbing that the
IRS--its stories of abuses, mismanagement, lack of accountability and
perverse incentives--continues to captivate the attention of taxpayers
everywhere.
As last month ended, the House Ways and Means Committee, with the
support of the White House, moved legislation to restructure the IRS.
Chairman Archer is to be commended for his work. I compliment him on
the job he has done in reversing the White House's position on the
issue.
The growing effort to restructure and reform the IRS reflects the
growing concern about the agency. Congressional switchboards have been
inundated with calls from Americans who have their own tales of IRS-
induced woe. Likewise, we have received thousands of letters, faxes, e-
mails and notes--some of them hand delivered--each detailing another
story of power run amok. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll
shows that 21 percent of Americans report to have had some dealings
with the IRS, in addition to simply filing their taxes. Of these
Americans, a full 42 percent felt they were treated unfairly. Forty-two
percent. And as if these statistics aren't compelling enough, the poll
found that 70 percent of Americans believe that the incidents of abuse
and mistreatment by the IRS that we uncovered in our hearings occur on
a regular basis.
Mr. President, our hearings, these statistics--and the growing
consensus we're witnessing in Washington--make it clear that something
must be done to rechart the course of this powerful agency. On the
Tuesday following our hearings, the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service held a joint press
conference to introduce what has been called a list of mini-
initiatives. These included: keeping offices and telephone lines open
one Saturday a month to address taxpayer grievances; giving taxpayers
``customer feedback surveys''; and, rewriting taxpayer notices in plain
language.
Beyond these reforms, the agency, itself, has suspended four IRS
managers, demonstrating an increased awareness of the abuses disclosed
in our three-day hearings.
Each of these measures is a welcomed change. As Acting Commissioner
Michael Dolan told the committee--that the IRS has made mistakes,
handled taxpayer cases very badly, and caused Americans to suffer in
ways they should not have. Acting Commissioner Dolan testified that the
Internal Revenue Service has disrupted . . . lives without excuse.
My concern, Mr. President, is that these initiatives--though
welcomed--may still be insufficient to meet all the problems that
affect the IRS. To understand how the Government can collect the
necessary and proper amount of taxes in a way that does not harass,
abuse or overly burden the American taxpayer will take a thorough
examination--one that engages not only Congress, but the agency and the
administration.
Such a thorough examination will require 6103 authority--the
authority granted to only two Members of Congress. Only by
appropriately using that authority can we have a complete understanding
of what must be done to properly restructure and reform the IRS.
The hearings we held a few weeks ago were intended as a solid
beginning in a process that must be comprehensive. It is likely that we
will get only one shot at restructuring the Internal Revenue Service.
We must make certain that reform legislation addresses all the problems
that we are in the process of discovering.
The problems--administratively and culturally--within the agency are
the culmination of a history where power has been left unchecked, where
objectives have been misapplied and priorities misplaced. They exist
despite past reform efforts. And unless they are appropriately
addressed this time around, they will continue to plague the agency.
Despite past efforts at reform, Lord Acton's phrase about absolute
power is still given frightening clarity in an agency that--as we have
shown--resorts to unethical or illegal tactics in dealing with
taxpayers. Our hearings showed how IRS employees use pseudonyms,
despite the fact that they are prohibited according to the agency's
manual. We showed how blue sky assessments are made against Americans--
assessments that have no basis in fact or tax law. We showed how they
are used to hurt the taxpayer, or simply to raise the individual
statistics of an IRS employee. We showed how statistics and quotas are
used to rate employees, despite the fact that such usage is strictly
prohibited, and how levies and seizures are used to measure employee
performance.
We listened to heartbreaking testimony by courageous witnesses--
private citizens whose lives have been torn apart by the IRS, as well
as current employees of the agency who speak of horrific tactics and
practices within the agency. One witness has disclosed how IRS abuse
led to suicides, the break up of families, the destruction of
businesses, and loss of financial credit and personal reputation.
Employees testified concerning a culture of secrecy, vindictiveness,
abuse, and retribution that exists within the agency, itself--often
targeted against employees, themselves. And let me say here, Mr.
President, the vast number of IRS employees are good, hard-working,
honest men and women. Without the help of the employees themselves, our
hearings would have been impossible. We discovered that IRS employees
want change. They understand that change is necessary. They are
performing an extremely difficult duty--an important duty--under
extremely difficult circumstances.
We heard of false allegations of wrongdoing against targeted
employees. We learned about one senior agent who discovered an
electronic listening device in the IRS employee break room, the area
where agency employees are supposed to be able to relax and hold
informal conversations. The room, Mr. President, had been bugged.
Buttons were found under the desks of several IRS managers who were
listening to their employees--violating their privacy. And as if this
discovery wasn't bad enough, the senior agent who had discovered and
reported the bugging devices was the one who was investigated. Our
hearings, Mr. President, struck a chord with the American people. They
struck a chord because Americans fear the IRS. It touches the life
[[Page S11585]]
of every family--of every business. And our hearings struck a chord
because Americans believe Congress is serious about reforming the
agency--reform that must be thorough enough to address the problems
that we are continuing to uncover.
As I said when I opened the hearings, Congress has given the IRS
awesome power in an effort to help the agency carry out its tremendous
responsibility. In that Congress has given such power, it is also
Congress' responsibility to ensure that it is being used prudently,
constructively, and with regard for the taxpayer and employees of the
agency. Working together, we must help the IRS get back to its mission
statement--to collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the least
cost; serve the public by continually improving the quality of our
products and services; and perform in a manner warranting the highest
degree of public confidence in [the IRS's] integrity, efficiency, and
fairness.''
Toward achieving this, we must answer three fundamental questions
that I posed during the Committee hearings:
First, does the IRS have too much power?
Second, if Congress were to limit that power, what expectations do we
have that the new limits will be more effective than the old limits?
And, third, how do we go about changing the culture of the IRS?
With the painful disclosures still lingering weeks after the
hearings, I believe it is safe to say that we have an answer to the
first question. The IRS does have too much power. The very manner by
which seizures, liens, and levies can be imposed--often without due
process, and the manner in which the agency has now been shown to abuse
those methods of tax collection-- suggests that the IRS's power is
beyond what would be considered necessary and prudent.
Now, Mr. President, we must focus on the latter two questions: How
can Congress effectively limit the agency's power while allowing it
sufficient authority to carry out its important responsibility? And
what can we do to change the culture of the IRS?
As we turn our attention to these issues and consider possible
legislative remedies, I want us to keep the following four criteria in
mind:
First, we must restructure the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS--
like many Federal departments and agencies--was created in the
industrial age. While its mission is necessary to collect the revenue
Government needs to run legitimate programs and services, its
organization, administration, and infrastructure must be engineered to
meet the needs, demands and expectations of the information age. The
IRS must be dedicated to service. It must be responsive to taxpayer
needs and above political influence.
Second, in restructuring the IRS, we must build into its system a
mechanism that promotes accountability and continuous improvement. Our
hearings raised serious problems about the lack of accountability of
IRS employees. We found there to be little accountability for their
actions--against taxpayers and internally, against employees of the
agency. There is a need for a zero tolerance policy for improper and
abusive behavior. There must be zero tolerance for failure to follow
procedures and regulations. Accountability must also contain
appropriate restraints on powers--especially the use of liens, levies
and seizures--to assure that taxpayers are treated fairly. It must
include a top to bottom review of employee evaluations, and make
certain that such evaluations are not based on goals, quotas or
statistics. There must be no promotion in spite of abusive behavior.
And accountability certainly includes the ability to identify IRS
employees. The IRS must include signatures on correspondence and do
away with false identifications.
Third, comprehensive reform must address the issue of due process for
taxpayers. Our investigation and hearings disclose cases where innocent
taxpayers had liens placed against their homes, where they had their
automobiles seized and bank accounts frozen without notification or the
right to appeal. Restructuring and reforming the agency must include
strengthening and implementing fundamental procedures for due process,
and those procedures must be followed to protect and serve the
taxpayer.
Fourth, and finally, reform and restructuring the IRS must result in
more timely results for taxpayer problems. Our hearings showed that the
IRS does not fix problems within a reasonable time frame. Change in
this area must go beyond the systemic to embrace the culture within the
IRS, as well.
Just as in the private sector, an employee's promotion should be
based on his or her ability to serve the client--to resolve problems,
not create them--to assure that a fair and appropriate tax has been
paid, and not to harass or intimidate the client into paying more than
is due.
These Mr. President are changes that can be made. Service must be the
hallmark of the IRS. It is certainly the hallmark of America's finest
corporations. Each day they become more effective and efficient, more
service oriented and customer friendly. If they do not, they are
quickly overtaken by other concerns, or they go out of business
altogether. A mechanism that establishes self-sustaining improvement
within the IRS is critical to the future of that agency.
As I said during the hearings, just as the IRS is quick to say that
no honest taxpayer should ever fear an agency audit, the IRS itself
should never fear congressional oversight. Congress must continue its
oversight. One discovery from our first series of hearings is that it
was the first time the full Senate Finance Committee--which has IRS
oversight authority--has ever held such hearings. Congress must be
vigilant. Our current efforts must lay a foundation for systematic
oversight.
These four recommendations that have come immediately out of our
hearings lay a strong foundation for the reform process. We have a
consensus that something must be done. What we do must build on this
momentum to assure that our effort at reform and restructuring is based
on a complete understanding of the problems and necessary remedies.
Toward this end, the Finance Committee will continue to investigate
and hold hearings. When Congress returns next year, the Finance
Committee will hold additional hearings and work to act on reform and
restructuring that addresses all the problems and concerns disclosed
thus far. We will work with the House, the President, and Commissioner
Rossotti--once he's been confirmed--to ensure that not only is there a
complete understanding of the challenges and problems currently
plaguing the IRS. We must ensure that such efforts at restructuring and
reforming are complete, workable, and effective in making this powerful
agency more efficient, more service oriented, and less frightening to
honest Americans.
Mr. Rossotti has a background and the experience that will be
invaluable in helping us bring about the kind of changes we believe are
needed in the agency.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, our revered chairman, in calling up
this important nomination of Mr. Charles O. Rossotti, spoke at length
of the problems we have encountered with the Internal Revenue Service
and spoke of the need for public confidence in that agency and the
manner in which our tax revenues are collected.
He spoke of the determination of the Committee on Finance to see that
this issue is addressed fully, comprehensively, and carefully. I would
like to stand here and say that as this goes forward, there can be
complete public confidence in the chairman of the Committee on Finance,
Senator Roth, that it will be done in a nonpartisan way. I don't think
I should use the word ``bipartisan,'' because I don't think there is a
Republican method of collecting taxes fairly and efficiently or a
Democratic method. It is something that we must do properly as a
Nation.
We do well to remind ourselves that we began as a Nation in protest
against taxation we thought was improper and illegal and that this
issue has never been far from our concerns, although not until recently
has the Committee on Finance exercised its oversight jurisdiction. It
is our duty to see what is going on in this large public agency,
[[Page S11586]]
which was founded in 1862 on the occasion when the Federal Government
imposed for the first time an income tax. And which, as the
distinguished chairman said, has the organization and pattern of the
industrial age, as yet but little responsive to the modes of management
which have emerged in a postindustrial age with great efficacy and
public response.
I am here to state that there is complete support on this side of the
aisle for the chairman's program. The particulars will emerge as we
work at the facts, as we uncover them. We have our first hearing on the
IRS restructuring legislation this Wednesday. Again, I will say this is
not a bipartisan matter, it is a nonpartisan matter of central
importance to the Federal Government. As the chairman indicated in his
closing passage, the nomination of Charles Rossotti to be Commissioner
of the Internal Revenue Service is an important measure of cooperation
from the executive branch. The chairman noted that President Clinton
has supported this. In particular, Secretary of the Treasury Rubin,
much impressed by the work of the commission headed by a member of our
committee, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and legislation introduced by
him and another Member, Senator Grassley of Iowa, again in an across-
the-aisle mode. It was Secretary Rubin who thought that the time had
come to bring modern management modes into the IRS and, indeed, Madam
President, Mr. Rossotti will be the first Commissioner not to be a tax
lawyer in a half century, since World War II. This is not, as Everett
Dirksen would have said, to slight the tax lawyers. They typically
defend the public, the individuals against the Government, and their
task grows steadily more rewarding as the tax code become steadily more
incomprehensible. Still, we have brought the right man to do the job at
this moment.
I would like just to offer a brief comment, if I can have the
indulgence of the Chair, about an article which appeared in the New
York Times, whilst we were contemplating this second phase of the
effort which the chairman began with those 3 days of dramatic and
powerful testimony. And that is an article by Paul C. Light, a
professor of public affairs and political science at the University of
Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey Institute, in which Professor Light pointed
out that whatever we do to restructure and simplify the Tax Code, we
still have a problem of organization within the IRS itself. We still
have to do something to reduce the multiple layers of bureaucracy
which, and I quote Dr. Light, ``leaves no one accountable for how
agents treat taxpayers.''
I think you would find this is a normal development of an agency in
place over a very long time in which you have career public servants in
a system which has gradations of compensation, and presumedly
responsibility that go from General Service 3 to General Service 17,
and then there are supergrades beyond that.
You create this in a 19th-century mode. It is called civil service
reform. And on this floor a century ago, 110 years ago, it was debated
with great vigor. It meant to take the individuals in the public employ
out of any area of political influence, political choice, patronage of
jobs.
But it easily results in what Professor Light calls layering--the GS-
5 on top of the GS-4, the GS-6 on top of the GS-5. And he gives this
illustration, a very concise one. He said:
Just imagine a bureaucracy that goes something like this:
an agent--
The agent is the person who deals with the individual citizen--
an agent reports to a district group manager, who reports to
a branch chief, who reports to an assistant chief of the
division, who reports to the assistant district director, who
reports to the assistant regional commissioner, who reports
to the regional commissioner, who reports to the chief of
staff to a deputy assistant commissioner, who reports to the
deputy assistant commissioner, who reports to the assistant
commissioner, who reports to the chief operating officer, who
reports to the deputy commissioner, and so on.
You haven't even reached the top of the layer.
That is the kind of progression you will get over a century in an
organization in which the internal incentives are to be promoted, as
they should be. It is how Colin Powell went from being a member of the
Pershing Rifles at City College in New York, where I began my
education, to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed
Forces. And they encourage them. But there can be too much. It can
separate accountability to the point where it cannot be found in the
system.
It has been remarked that the Catholic Church, which has been around
for centuries, has managed all these years with just three layers of
authority. You have Pope, bishop, and priest. There are some honorific;
every so often a priest will be called a monsignor, but it is Pope,
bishop, priest. And it is something to be thought about, as this whole
subject is considered in the Congress.
We spend too little time on organizational matters, too little time
on how much we have spread out agencies. I have been witness, in my
time in Government, to a number of sequences by which the Bureau of
Public Roads in the Department of Commerce, a small effective agency
known in the 1920's and 1930's for its very vigorous civil service that
was mostly working on farmer market roads, and then comes some other
legislation, the interstate highway program, and the next thing you
know you have the Department of Transportation.
I have seen small activities in the field of education. We had a
commissioner of education, oh, going back a long way, and various able
persons ran it. It was in the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. And don't you know, gradually it spun off and became the
Department of Education. And there have been efforts in the other body
to put an end to it. But by and large, these efforts are never
successful. They take longer than you think. They are not very
rewarding. You cannot put them in a newsletter.
As a matter of fact, we don't have newsletters anymore. I do not want
to speak with anything less than the fullest admiration of our
colleagues in the House of Representatives, but when I came to this
body each Senator had a certain amount of funds--we had the franking
privilege, which went back to 1790, and enabled us to write persons, to
send out mailings to our constituents.
For my part, I represent some 18 million people. You cannot meet
them, but you can write them. Or rather you could write them. The one
thing from that great revolution we had across the way a few years ago
is we abolished the one direct contact between Members of the Congress
and the citizenry, which was the newsletter. The first one went out
from Philadelphia in 1790, a gentleman from North Carolina, as I
recall, telling his folks that there was not much going on just then,
but he had hopes that there might be a tariff change which would
improve the sales of our local product. By ``our local product'' he
meant whiskey, corn whiskey, as against rum from the Caribbean. Indeed,
it was an important source of revenue. And it kept the settlers across
the Appalachians connected to the Atlantic coast as against the Ohio-
Mississippi system which took them through French territory at the
time.
We have lost that direct contact. This agency ought not to lose its.
I was impressed, if I may say, by Mr. Rossotti's response on this
point. We were speaking of these matters during his hearing, and I
raised this issue of layering. And afterward he wrote me a letter in
which he said--and I will take the liberty of quoting as I do not see
any other Senator seeking recognition just now--he said:
Your comment about the ``layering'' that accumulates in
many large organizations that are organized on traditional
lines is getting at a very important point. Excessive
layering often lies at the heart of many problems, especially
the difficulty upper management faces in understanding
accurately what actually goes on in the front lines. It can
also slow down action to fix problems. Of course, I do not
yet know enough about the specific facts at the IRS to know
how this problem affects the IRS and what might be done about
it. As I begin my assessment of the situation at the IRS,
however, I will most certainly be thinking hard about this
issue.
If I may say, this is a promising response. We have had lots of
nominations before our committee in the 21 years that you and I have
served there together, sir. And without in any way disparaging any of
my predecessors, this is the first evidence I have ever had of any of
the nominees listening to
[[Page S11587]]
anything that we said. Perhaps at most they keep an ear open, thinking
that as soon as we stop talking, it is over, and ``I can get out of
here and on with my job.''
But to get a letter like that back--well, Mr. Rossotti is a
management specialist. He deals with modern systems. He has built an
international firm for which people engage him to help them with the
kinds of problems we have here. It is a good beginning.
Now, sir, one last point. The employees of the Internal Revenue
Service are well-paid public servants, but none of them makes a third
of the salary of an average tax attorney. And the average tax attorney
has to master this--what is it?--9,479 pages of the Internal Revenue
Service. Look at it--9,479 pages. That speaks dereliction of our duty.
We can't go on producing these.
I take the liberty of displaying to the Senate and to our
distinguished Presiding Officer the bill we adopted on July 31--820
pages added to the 9,479; 820 pages entitled Taxpayer Relief Act. What
taxpayer relief will there be from having the IRS have to understand
what is in here, as well as individual taxpayers? We better watch this.
It is the way organizations can develop. It is a form of entropy.
Energy goes down the system, complexity goes up and abuse takes place.
We can attend to organizational matters as much as we want. We can
certainly attend to abuse. But until we simplify the Tax Code as a
multiyear effort, as one that is real, we will fail to address the
heart of the problem. Remember the simplifiers that took over on the
other side of the Capitol who said we will get rid of all these
complexities? What did they do? They added 820 pages. That speaks to a
systemic problem, and we are old enough and capable enough as a society
to address them. I, for my part, am hugely pleased that we will.
I want to thank again our chairman, without whom this would not be
taking place, and thank Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and thank Secretary
Rubin. This is a good beginning and a good note on which to start. I
urge the confirmation of Mr. Rossotti, an extraordinarily able man.
I do not know that political party has ever entered into the
calculation of who ought to be the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue, but I do expect that by and large it has been a person who is
of the same party as the President who nominates him. It is an
interesting fact that this is not the case in this instance. I am sure
we will have his cooperation, and I am sure you will know how to use it
to the greatest public advantage.
I ask unanimous consent to have the previously referred to material
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
October 27, 1997.
Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Moynihan: I want to thank you very much for
your quick consideration of my nomination and for your
supportive and generous comments at my hearing.
Your comment about the ``layering'' that accumulates in
many large organizations that are organized on traditional
lines is getting at a very important point. Excessive
layering often lies at the heart of many problems, especially
the difficulty upper management faces in understanding
accurately what actually goes on in the front lines. It can
also slow down action to fix problems. Of course, I do not
yet know enough about the specific facts at the IRS to know
how this problem affects the IRS and what might be done about
it. As I begin my assessment of the situation at the IRS,
however, I will most certainly be thinking hard about this
issue.
Once again, thank you for your help, and if I am confirmed
I look forward to working with you in the months ahead.
Sincerely,
Charles Rossotti.
____
[From the New York Times, Oct. 18, 1997]
The Tax Agency's Layered Look
(By Paul C. Light)
Philadelphia.--Before Congress and President Clinton create
an oversight board to monitor the Internal Revenue Service
and end taxpayer abuse at the agency, they should take
another look at what made that abuse possible.
There are simply too many layers of bureaucracy at the
I.R.S. which leaves no one accountable for how agents treat
taxpayers.
Creating an oversight board won't make a difference unless
it can see abuse happening at the bottom. The solution, then,
is not to add layers of supervision, but to get rid of them.
The I.R.S. has been lengthening the chain of command for
decades. In 1960, for example, the senior leadership
consisted of just 13 people. By 1996, despite efforts to
streamline the agency it had grown to more than 60.
There can be something like a dozen layers of supervisors
between the President, who is the chief executive of the
agency, and agents in regional offices.
Just imagine a bureaucracy that goes something like this:
an agency reports to a district group manager, who reports to
a branch chief, who reports to an assistant chief of the
division, who reports to the assistant district director, who
reports to the assistant regional commissioner, who reports
to the regional commissioner, who reports to the chief of
staff to a deputy assistant commissioner who reports to the
deputy assistant commissioner, who reports to the assistant
commissioner, who reports to the chief operating officer, who
reports to the deputy commissioner, and so on.
No wonder rogue agents thought they could get away with
harassment. Had the I.R.S. added field agents instead of new
layers of supervisors perhaps district managers wouldn't have
needed to institute the collection quotas that fueled
taxpayer abuse.
Some legislators believe that simplifying the tax code is a
solution to the agency's problem, but that won't make the
I.R.S. any less likely to abuse taxpayers. The best way to
reduce taxpayer harassment is not a flat tax, but a flat
I.R.S.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROTH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I assure my distinguished colleague I will be very brief.
I want to point out that the hearings we held earlier this year were
the result of the close cooperation between the minority side and
majority side. I appreciate very much the full cooperation and
assistance that the distinguished Senator from New York provided us.
We look forward to bringing about reform that has nonpartisan
support. I think the Senator is perfectly correct. It is not a
Republican, it is not a Democratic, it is a nonpartisan solution that
we seek.
I have to say that I do think we are very fortunate in having a
distinguished individual like Mr. Rossotti to be available. I think you
made a very strong case as to why he should be confirmed because he has
the very qualities and the very experience that I think are essential
at this particular juncture.
You talked about the layered lives within the IRS. Mr. Rossotti is,
fortunately, an expert on management. He is an expert on high
technology. As I understand, much of his experience is giving advice
and consulting with large firms as to how to become more effective,
more efficient. So I think you made the point very well.
I think next year, I say to my distinguished friend and colleague, it
is critically important that we begin some steps to simplify the Code.
That is something I want to consult with you at the staff level because
it is complex. It is going to be a multiyear effort. But there is no
time better suited to start this than next year. I look forward to
working with you on this important matter.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, may I thank my dear chairman for
saying there is no time like now. What a better moment to start
addressing the Tax Code than that point which, nominally at least, we
have a balanced budget and we are not driven by the exigencies of
revenue as such. We can address the question of complexity, efficiency,
and clarity.
Simplicity--we are a republic. We are meant to be simple. Good people
of Maine would like that, I think, and I think the people of Delaware
would. In New York we are somewhat given to complexifying, but I think
we might find a little simplicity refreshing.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant
legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for about 5 minutes and that the time be deducted from the
time of the majority leader.
[[Page S11588]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________