[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.

                          ____________________