[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4478-S4485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT OF 1998
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 2372
(Purpose: To strike the Secretary of the Treasury from the Internal
Revenue Service Oversight Board)
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], for himself, Mr.
Faircloth, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered
2372.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 174, line 23, strike ``9'' and insert ``8''.
On page 175, strike lines 3 through 5.
On page 175, line 6, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
On page 175, line 8, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 176, line 10, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 177, line 10, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 177, line 21, strike ``(1)(D)'' and insert
``(1)(C)''.
On page 178, line 10, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 180, line 11, strike ``(1)(D)'' and insert
``(1)(C)''.
On page 180, line 18, strike ``(1)(D)'' and insert
``(1)(C)''.
On page 181, line 14, strike ``(1)(D)'' and insert
``(1)(C)''.
On page 182, strike lines 3 through 7, and insert the
following:
``(B) Commissioner.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
shall be removed upon termination of service in the office.''
On page 182, line 11, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair.
Last week, thanks to the leadership of Finance Committee Chairman
Roth, Congress resumed the first meaningful IRS oversight hearings we
have conducted in decades. The testimony we heard reinforced the
impression of a rogue agency that is literally out of control. As was
the case when the oversight hearings began in September, some of what
we heard was shocking, much of it was saddening, and all of it was
angering. Witnesses testified to incidents of IRS abuse and of blatant
misuse of IRS power that are simply unacceptable.
I recall in particular the story of one taxpayer who could not be at
the hearings in person but was represented by his former attorney. The
reason the taxpayer could not attend was that he was literally hounded
to death by the IRS. The 61-year-old taxpayer had been suffering from
severe health problems. He had heart disease and was weakened by
cancer. The IRS revenue officer assigned to his case was informed that
the taxpayer could not physically withstand stressful situations but,
with the support of his supervisor and the chief of collections,
persisted in aggressive and intimidating tactics.
I want to make this clear now about the IRS being well aware of the
health conditions of the taxpayer. They had a letter, I believe, from
the physician that was sent to them informing them of the condition of
the taxpayer, and yet they persisted in aggressive and intimidating
tactics. The IRS, disregarding this humanitarian appeal, sent the
taxpayer a notice of intent to levy.
By the way, let me back up for a moment as well. Notice I talked
about that taxpayer going to his attorney. The request on the part of
the attorney was that further contacts in this case be with the
attorney, not the taxpayer, again because of the health condition. They
totally ignored that request. And so 2 days after this levy, the man
died from a heart attack.
This story highlights, perhaps better than any other we heard, the
fundamental and disgraceful problems at the IRS, an agency which never
seems to consider the interests and perspective of the taxpayer. This
attitude is entirely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The IRS
Criminal Investigations Division has apparently learned from the FBI
and the DEA criminal investigative techniques that are appropriate for
dealing with violent and dangerous criminals and now uses these in
routine criminal tax investigations of taxpayers who are neither
dangerous nor violent. Taxpayers have had their businesses raided by
armed agents, their lives turned upside down, and their reputations
ruined.
In listening to hours of compelling testimony, members of the Finance
Committee could not help but wonder how in the world could such things
be happening. Why would the IRS send 10 special agents to a woman's
home at 7:30 in the morning to serve a search warrant and spend 8 hours
in her home not to search for drugs or illegal contraband but, instead,
so that a furniture appraiser could value items from her grandmother's
estate? Who could have approved such a blatantly intrusive act? Why
would the IRS send 64 agents to raid a man's family business with 35
employees at the home office? The taxpayer was not a violent or
dangerous criminal. What purpose could be served by the use of 64
agents in this raid other than to intimidate and oppress the taxpayer?
[[Page S4479]]
The villains of the horror stories that were presented to the Finance
Committee last week were not just frontline, low-level employees of the
IRS. None of these abuses could have taken place without either the
approval of management or of failure in supervision. Last week's
hearings exposed a corrupt culture permeating IRS management which will
require a major housecleaning at the Service.
The current oversight of the Service is just not working. The
Treasury inspector general has the power to investigate IRS operations,
but we learned last week that the inspector general is being ignored by
the IRS. The inspector general investigated and substantiated
allegations of travel fraud, abuse of subordinates, sexual harassment,
fraudulent performance appraisals, and others to cover up illegal
actions, all against IRS executives. Yet in each and every one of these
cases the report from the inspector general was sent to the Deputy
Commissioner's desk and no disciplinary action was taken. In other
cases, the IRS has hindered oversight by keeping information from the
inspector general.
Now, this particular problem of inspector general oversight is
addressed in the IRS reform bill that we have before us through the
creation of a new inspector general for tax administration. But the
problem underscores the corrupt culture at the IRS, a culture in which
the decent, honest IRS employees who report abuses of their coworkers
receive not thanks but retaliation.
At the IRS, an individual who sexually harasses his subordinates can
end up being the National Director of Equal Employment Opportunity. At
the IRS, midlevel managers can decide to close the audits of major
corporations and determine that no extra taxes are owed even when the
corporation concedes that it owes more taxes. At the IRS, a renegade
special agent with a drinking and substance abuse problem can
fabricate allegations of political corruption and be protected rather
than punished by his supervisors.
This culture must change, and it is not happening. We heard last week
that some IRS managers have been bragging that they have no regard for
the Finance Committee's oversight hearings and that they intend to go
back to business as usual once the spotlight is off. Even after we
exposed the illegal use of enforcement statistics to evaluate IRS
employees and offices, it seems that the southern region is still
ranking their district offices based on property seizures.
Many IRS bureaucrats appear to have concluded that we are not serious
about oversight and that we are not serious about reform. We in the
Congress must prove them wrong and send a strong message to the IRS and
to the taxpayer that business as usual will not be tolerated.
Since our hearings last September exposed numerous instances of
taxpayer abuse, it seems that not one person has been fired at the IRS.
It is my hope that the provisions in the IRS reform bill that require
the termination of employees who commit certain acts such as taxpayer
abuse will help correct this problem.
Commissioner Rossotti has made a number of positive moves since
taking office. He has ordered an independent review of the IRS
Inspection Service, and now he has enlisted Judge William Webster for a
much needed review of the Criminal Investigations Division. In order to
change the corrupt culture at the IRS, it is necessary that outside
people with a perspective different from that of the IRS bureaucracy be
given a prominent role.
It is for this reason that I have offered this amendment. My
amendment, cosponsored by Senator Faircloth and Senator Murkowski,
would move us closer to Chairman Roth's vision of a private sector
oversight board by removing the Secretary of the Treasury from this
board.
The purpose of the oversight board is to reform the IRS from the
outside. The board will be composed of people from the private sector,
people with management and information systems expertise, people who
still have the interest of the taxpayer in mind. To change the culture
of the IRS, we need to replace the law enforcement mentality with a
customer service mentality. The independent oversight board will play a
vital role in changing this culture. There is no place on such a board
for a Government official, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. The
board must be the voice of the taxpayer, not the voice of the status
quo. For this new board to have any credibility with the public, it
must not be under the influence of the Cabinet Member who already has
responsibility for the agency.
We must prove that we are serious about reform of the IRS. Making the
oversight board a private sector check on the IRS is essential for
reform. Otherwise, it is just Washington business as usual with another
Washington-controlled commission. That is not what we need. We need an
oversight board of the taxpayers, by the taxpayers, and for the
taxpayers.
Mr. President, I want to make it clear, because I realize that in
these kinds of situations the impression could be drawn that I am
focusing my concerns personally at the Secretary of the IRS. That is
not the point at all. The Secretary of the Treasury is, frankly,
reflecting the views of the bureaucracy. I find it troubling that we
would have changed the legislation from the markup document that we
began with, which Senator Roth proposed, which did not include members
other than private sector individuals. Again, I want to stress this
point. This is not directed personally at the Secretary of the
Treasury, but it is a response in essence to an attempt by the
bureaucracy to protect itself.
Here is what the Secretary has said in the past with respect to this
issue. In the Cincinnati Inquirer, on September 17, 1997, Secretary
Rubin said:
The fact that the agency was being run by private sector
individuals would almost surely have what lawyers call a
chilling effect on IRS employees and influence audit policy,
enforcement policy, and the like.
You bet it would. I think that is exactly the reason we had called
for a board in which there were only private sector representatives on
that oversight board.
The ultimate concern that I have here is that if we are going to make
a change, it should not be business as usual. It should not be a
commission dominated by Washington insiders. Why do I say it would be
dominated when this is a board that would be, under its present
organization, nine members, six from the private sector, three not? The
six private sector members, as I recall, are part-time members of this
commission, this oversight board. When you add the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Commissioner of the IRS, and a representative of the
employees at IRS, what you have done is totally changed the makeup in
this sense. There are huge bureaucracies that the Secretary of the
Treasury and the other members from Government can call on who will
dominate, in my opinion, the six individuals who are serving from the
private sector on a part-time basis with very limited staffs.
I want to conclude my comments by saying to those Members of the
Senate who participated in hearings, not just in the Senate but also in
the process outside the committee, in no way do I try to lessen the
significance of the work that you have done. But this is not an issue
of what we hear at hearings. This is an issue of how Washington works
and how the bureaucracy will do whatever is necessary in order to
protect itself. And to put the Secretary of the Treasury and a
representative of the employees on this board is just business as
usual, Washington protecting itself.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment my good friend from
Florida relative to this particular issue concerning the IRS evaluation
and the oversight board, in particular the position of the Secretary on
this board.
First of all, in this amendment that my friend from Florida has
proposed, we would give the IRS Advisory and Oversight Board a far
greater capacity to exercise its oversight and advisory functions,
ensuring taxpayers are treated fairly. That is the object of this
entire exercise.
Our friends on the Finance Committee, and I am a member of that
committee, as we discussed in the makeup of the nine-member board, we
reflected on the debate yesterday where the Senate rejected the idea of
making the board a full-time board consisting exclusively of private
citizens. However,
[[Page S4480]]
in my view, this board will have a very, very hard time fulfilling its
oversight and advisory functions because, I think, as does the Senator
from Florida, that its composition is basically unbalanced.
First of all, let's examine the board. We have six private sector
members to be selected based on their expertise in such areas as
management, customer service, information technology, and, most
important, the needs and concerns of the taxpayer. If those were the
only members of the board, the board would be basically free to take an
unbiased and objective view of how to improve the operations of this
agency, with the goal of ensuring the proper treatment of the American
taxpayer and the efficient and courteous delivery of services.
But let's look at it realistically. Unfortunately, the board is not
made up that way. As the board has emerged, it will likely be dominated
by three additional people who are required to be members. First of
all, we have added the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner. A
representative of the employees of the IRS is the second member. And
third, the Secretary of the Treasury.
Does anyone in this body really believe that this board, consisting
of three of the most important people--these are policy people--most
important people involved in the operation of the IRS, will be free to
exercise real oversight of the IRS? Why do we even need an advisory
board to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Commissioner of the IRS when these two individuals already serve on the
board? What kind of advisory group are we talking about here? You have
insiders on the advisory group. These insiders are very powerful--the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, a union employee
representative of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Secretary of
the Treasury. So where is the objectivity? These people will control
the direction and policy of this board. So where does this advisory
board stand independently? It does not. That is the fallacy in the
makeup. That is why I encourage my colleagues to consider the amendment
offered by the Senator from Florida, which I wholeheartedly support.
We have heard the horror stories of taxpayer abuse described in the
Finance Committee last September and at last week's hearings. Mind you,
Mr. President, this occurred on the watch of the Treasury Secretaries
appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. What kind of
oversight did these Treasury Secretaries perform on the IRS during
their tenure in office? It appears there was very little, if any,
oversight. Why? We would like to think because we don't have an
independent board. But, if you put the insiders on the board, you don't
have objectivity. If we allow the Secretary of the Treasury to
participate on this board, along with the IRS Commissioner, I fear we
will have business as usual in the IRS. That is what the Finance
Committee attempted to address: no longer business as usual.
I assume many of my colleagues are out there now making their sound
bites, appealing to the folks back home that this is a major step
forward, this legislation, in making the IRS accountable. But it is
not. It is business as usual. You have the same insiders, only this
time they are on the board that is supposed to oversee the IRS.
Mr. President, let's stop kidding ourselves around here. The
Secretary has a staff of thousands of people. They can provide him with
any number of reasons to dissuade the board from recommending and
implementing significant changes to the Internal Revenue Service. The
Secretary and the IRS Commissioner work together. They have to. They
work together on a regular basis and will form a powerful team that
could prevent real and meaningful changes at the IRS.
I have seen it in my own business career, where people of knowledge
and responsibility who are insiders direct the activities of an
objective group of outsiders simply because they have the power and
influence of their position. This board should have as its No. 1 goal
finding ways to improve services by the Internal Revenue Service to the
American taxpayer. If the Treasury Secretary who oversees the IRS is on
this board, I fear the interests of the bureaucracy--and I noted my
friend from Florida mentioned time and again in his presentation
``don't underestimate business as usual''--and the power of the
bureaucracy. And, don't kid yourself, it is in the Internal Revenue
Service as well.
So I fear the interests of the bureaucracy and the Government are
simply going to be put ahead of the interests of the taxpayers because
it has always been that way in the past. It is inherent in the nature
of his high position and his large and sophisticated staff that the
Secretary of the Treasury will dominate this board and the interests of
the taxpayer will not be adequately represented.
I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Treasury Secretary,
Bob Rubin. He has done, and is doing, an admirable job as Secretary of
the Treasury. I differed with him on the Mexican bailout, but he proved
to be right. He has done, and is doing, an admirable job as Secretary
of the Treasury. My support for this amendment has nothing to do with
Mr. Rubin, in the interests of full disclosure. But it is my concern
that the official in charge of Treasury and the IRS operations cannot
bring an objective view to oversight of his own operations. I urge the
adoption of the Mack amendment.
Finally, I have been in the business community for 25 years. Many of
my colleagues here have not. I can tell you how it works in that kind
of environment, where you have insiders with positions of influence,
not that they are not well meaning, but it is the very nature of the
beast that you lose the objectivity that you are going to have if you
have this board set up without considering the implications of the
influence of the Secretary of the Treasury.
I encourage my colleagues to consider the merits of this amendment
and act accordingly. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have very much appreciated listening to
the arguments for this amendment. However, I think it is important for
us to step back a little bit and look at this issue a little more
broadly. The first point I would make is to remind my colleagues that
the IRS Restructuring Commission recommended that the Treasury
Secretary serve on the Board, as well as recommend there be a
representative of an employee organization.
The Restructuring Commission spent a lot of time thinking about this.
This is not something they willy-nilly recommended to the Congress.
Just as we in the Senate voted to honor the Restructuring Commission's
inclusion of a representative of an employee organization, I submit it
makes sense for us to honor the Restructuring Commission's
recommendations to continue to include the Treasury Secretary. The
Restructuring Commission spent a lot of time thinking about this, and
they did conclude that the Treasury Secretary should be a member of the
Board.
Why did they do that? I think for a number of reasons. First, the
Treasury Secretary has responsibility for the IRS. After all, that is a
large part of his job. In fact, 80 percent of Treasury's resources and
people are in the IRS--over 100,000 employees.
Second, there is an analogy with corporations. Corporate boards
include chairmen. Corporate boards include CEOs. Why do they do so?
Because they want communication between the governing board on the one
hand, and the operation management on the other. You have to have
direct communication; you have to have guidance. If the Treasury
Secretary is not on the Board, that certainly diminishes communication
between the Board and the Treasury Secretary. It is just obvious and
also does something else which is the exact opposite of what we are
trying to do here. It tends to create an adversarial relationship
between the Treasury Secretary and the Board.
The analogy which someone alluded to earlier of having `the fox guard
the chicken coop' to have the Treasury Secretary on the Board, is
totally inapplicable. Why? Simply because the other board members, the
six private board members, are going to be pretty strong-willed people
if they are going to agree to serve on this Board. Any President who
wants to make IRS restructuring work is going to get pretty
[[Page S4481]]
strong people. These are not people who are going to roll over willy-
nilly at the insistence of the Treasury Secretary.
First of all, they don't work for the Treasury Secretary. These are
private sector people. The only working relationships between the
Secretary and Board members is with the Commissioner, Mr. Rossotti, and
in some indirect way, the employees representative. There are six
private sector people on the Board who are going to be strong-willed,
strong-minded people. They are not going to roll over and play dead.
In addition, the Treasury Secretary is going to want to be a two-way
messenger, both to and from the Board, to the President's Cabinet, to
the President himself. If we want IRS restructuring to work, we want
him to participate in the Board's deliberations. He will be able to
share information with the other members of the Board that they might
not otherwise know about, and that no one else would know. At the same
time, he would learn things about the IRS by serving on the Board that
he might not otherwise discover.
Another way to see that we have ensured independence of the Board is
that each of the six private sector members is subject to the
confirmation process in the Senate. When we are talking to these
nominees as they go before our committees in the Senate, we have ample
opportunity to insist upon the independence of these board members. We
have ample opportunity for commitment from these nominees. They are not
going to kowtow to any Secretary.
To sum up, Mr. President, the Restructuring Commission recommended
the Treasury Secretary. It makes sense to keep the communication
flowing between the Board and the Treasury Department and the
President's Cabinet. The private sector Board members are going to be
strong-willed people. They are not going to just acquiesce to the
suggestions of the Treasury Secretary. In fact, there are provisions in
this legislation to help assure that independence. One is having the
Board send a separate budget to the Congress, for example, independent
of the Treasury Secretary. It makes good sense to follow the
recommendations of the Restructuring Commission on this matter. I urge
my colleagues to keep the Treasury Secretary on the Board.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 22 minutes 56 seconds for the
Senator from Florida and 39 minutes 38 seconds for the Senator from New
York.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask to be recognized for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation.
Again, I thank the chairman and other members of the Finance Committee
for their work in crafting this measure.
The vast majority of Americans comply with our country's tax laws. In
the same vein, most IRS workers do their jobs in a conscientious
fashion.
We have heard numerous accounts of abuses and mismanagement at the
IRS. We have had months of hearings and hours of debate. Some of the
reported incidents of taxpayer abuse have been so outrageous that it is
hard to believe that they actually took place. Clearly, the system that
guides and directs workflow at the IRS needs to be overhauled.
Today, we are poised to go beyond talking about IRS reform. We are
actually doing something about IRS abuse of innocent individuals.
The reforms in this bill are carefully crafted structural reforms.
They are reforms that will not only change the practices and procedures
of the IRS, but its fundamental culture as well. These reforms will
ensure that the IRS treats taxpayers fairly and with the respect they
deserve.
As with any proposal, there are improvements that can be made. Our
colleagues have sponsored several amendments to make this bill even
better.
I am a strong advocate of IRS initiatives which provide increased
customer service, fiscally responsible computer modernization,
management and employee accountability and overall protection of
citizens' rights. I support measures that would remove the union
representative and the Secretary of the Treasury from the IRS Oversight
Board, as well as a measure to create a full-time oversight board for
the IRS.
I also support a measure that would establish a Spanish-language help
line at the IRS to ensure that all citizens can get needed assistance
in paying the taxes they owe.
I support an amendment that would greatly reduce unnecessary and
onerous reporting requirements on colleges and universities that were
imposed in last year's Taxpayer Relief Act in support of two new
educational tax credits.
I support an amendment to suspend interest and penalties on deferred
taxes due from individuals who are in officially declared disaster
areas.
In addition, I support amendments to protect innocent spouses from
undue harassment in an effort to collect taxes from their spouse.
Finally, Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of a Coverdell amendment to
this bill which outlaws random audits. Numerical quotas and random
audits are inherently unfair. A culture that permits and encourages
such practices is counterproductive to overall fairness and
accountability. It is difficult to find another area of American
society where you become subject to such intense Government scrutiny
based solely on a random selection process.
It is fundamentally unfair to impose the burden of a tax audit on an
individual taxpayer for no reason other than his or her name was
randomly selected.
Reforming the tax collection and enforcement agency is only part of
the solution of reducing the burden of excessive taxation on Americans.
We still must continue our efforts to simplify the existing Tax Code
and provide additional tax relief to all Americans.
I am an original cosponsor of the Coverdell-McCain Middle Class Tax
Relief Act of 1998, which is a step toward a simpler, flatter, fairer
Tax Code. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act would deliver sweeping tax
relief to lower- and middle-income taxpayers by increasing the number
of individuals who pay the lowest tax rate, which is 15 percent. In
1998 alone, this bill will place approximately 10 million taxpayers,
now in the 28 percent tax bracket, into the 15 percent tax bracket.
Preliminary estimates by the Tax Foundation indicate that 23 million
taxpayers would benefit from this broad-based middle-class tax relief
in 1998 alone.
Mr. President, I supported the Middle Class Tax Relief Act because it
is a step forward to further reform, it helps ordinary middle-class
families who are struggling to make ends meet without asking the
Government to help out, and it promotes future economic prosperity by
increasing the amount of money taxpayers have available for their own
savings and investments.
In addition, this bill significantly lessens the effect of one of the
Tax Code's most inequitable provisions--the marriage penalty. Our
current Tax Code taxes a married couple's income more heavily than it
taxes a single individual earning the same amount of income as the
married couple. This bill reduces this inequity by taxing a married
couple's joint income and a single individual earning the same income
as the married couple at essentially the same effective rates.
It is essential that we provide American families with relief from
the excessive rate of taxation that saps job growth and robs them of
the opportunity to provide for their needs and save for the future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. This measure permits individuals to keep more of the
money they earn. This extra income will allow individuals to save and
invest more. The increased savings and investment are key to sustaining
our current economic growth.
In sum, the Coverdell-McCain measure is a win for individuals and a
win for America as a whole. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act is a good
bill, and I am hopeful that we can move forward on this bill during
this Congress.
Mr. President, regarding action taken yesterday on the IRS reform
bill, let me note that I supported the chairman's amendment to fully
offset the costs of implementing these reforms. However, I do have some
concerns
[[Page S4482]]
about one of the funding sources. Specifically, the relaxed IRA
rollover rule may create greater long-term revenue losses than
anticipated. Because we cannot accurately score a bill beyond 10 years,
it is difficult to determine how much additional revenue we may lose in
the future as more individuals take advantage of the relaxed IRA
rollover rules and make tax-free withdrawals from their accounts. I
raise this concern simply to bring it to the attention of the managers
of the bill as an item to be considered in conference with the House.
Mr. President, let me close by saying that the IRS Restructuring Act
of 1998 illustrates our continuing effort to change the way we collect
our taxes and, on a larger note, the role of Government in our everyday
lives. This bill reinstates the principles of fundamental fairness and
overall efficiency to the operation of the IRS.
We should pass this bill today and move forward to provide additional
tax relief to all Americans.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield myself 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill which, of
course, creates the IRS Oversight Board and follows exactly the
proposal made by the report of the National Commission on Restructuring
the Internal Revenue Service: ``A Vision for the New IRS.'' This
exceptional document is the work of an extraordinarily able public and
private group, including the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the
Senator from Nebraska, who is managing this legislation today. Their
report called for the inclusion of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary on
the board.
The Secretary of the Treasury is not a bureaucrat, sir. He is the
second-ranking member of the American Government; third if you want to
include the Vice President. At any given moment there is the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of the Treasury. Their predecessors begin
with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, and the sequence since
has been extraordinary.
Now, I speak from personal experience. I have known every Secretary
of the Treasury since the Honorable C. Douglas Dillon of New Jersey,
who served President Kennedy so well and then stayed on with President
Johnson--Secretary Dillon; Henry Fowler; Joseph Barr; David Kennedy;
John Connally; George Shultz; William Simon; Michael Blumenthal;
William Miller; Donald Regan; James A. Baker, III; Nicholas Brady;
Lloyd Bentsen--our own Lloyd Bentsen--and now Robert E. Rubin.
They have been among the principal officers of the American
Government. And a board that includes such is an important institution.
Absent that, sir, it is inevitably one of the myriad advisory
commissions which do useful work but are never and cannot be central to
the concerns of the American Government.
The House of Representatives voted 426-4 for a bill that included the
Secretary for the obvious reason that absent his membership or her
membership on the board, nothing comes back to the Secretary with the
force of his or her own endorsement. The board does not know what only
the Secretary can know. If you prefer the model of a corporate board
and the chief executive officer, do so. I prefer the model of American
Government with a Cabinet officer chosen in a two-century succession,
chosen by an elected President, confirmed by the U.S. Senate,
responsible for this high and solemn responsibility.
If the Secretary is on the board, the board will know things it
cannot otherwise learn. And the Treasury Department in turn will have
the advice and counsel of persons, we hope, not next year but 50 years
from now and will continue to think of this as a public service of
importance and consequence.
The Secretary of the Treasury is a world figure. This very moment our
Secretary is on his way to London to again engage in the increasingly
institutionalized international economic deliberations which are so
important to the world. If he is on this board, it becomes an important
one; if he is not, it becomes a marginal advisory committee.
The idea that there are concerns that a board might have, that
private members might have, which the Secretary would not have, does
not speak well to our understanding of the centuries of occupants of
this high office.
Nor, sir, does it address a slight matter, but little noted in this
debate, which is the information we received from the Treasury
Department that in a given year there are some $195 billion in taxes
owed but not paid. Anyone who wishes to describe ours as a tyrannical,
unfeeling, and ruthless tax collection administration might ponder how
it comes about that $195 billion a year--$2 trillion a decade--of
legitimately owed taxes go unpaid.
That will be a part of the responsibility of this panel as well, and
properly so, so let us do what the wise judgment of the Commission
proposed that we do. We are here in response to that effort. Let us do
what clearly is in the interests of this institution and include the
Secretary, as the Finance Committee did in the measure now before the
Senate.
I see my friend from Florida. Is there any Member wishing to speak in
favor of the amendment?
Mr. MACK. I say to the Senator, I do not know if there are additional
Senators who wish to speak in favor. I ask the Senator the same
question, whether there are others who wish to speak.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. There is on the floor now Senator Dorgan, and I yield 5
minutes to my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me associate myself with the remarks just made by the
Senator from New York, and let me also say that the work that has been
done by Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan to bring this legislation to
the floor is work that will benefit all of America. I think this
legislation has a great deal to commend it to the Congress and the
American people.
It is true that in recent hearings evidence of misconduct and
mismanagement, and, yes, in some cases the abuse of taxpayers by the
Internal Revenue Service by a few employees of the Internal Revenue
Service, has cast a shadow over that organization.
A recent speaker indicated, I believe it was Senator McCain, that he
was certain--and I share that view--that by far the majority of the men
and women who work in the Internal Revenue Service are good people who
do good work and try to do the best job they can. But because of the
abuse by some few agents in the Internal Revenue Service, we must take
steps to make sure it never happens again.
This piece of legislation brought to the floor of the Senate creates
a nine-member oversight board. The purpose of that board and its duties
is to oversee the administration, the management, the conduct, to
provide some assistance and some guidance and some additional
management, to make certain that we never again convene a hearing and
hear of abuses by IRS agents of the American taxpayers. In short, this
legislation, in many ways, is an attempt to restore credibility by
restructuring the Internal Revenue Service and creating an oversight
board.
The two goals, it seems to me, are: One, to make the changes
necessary to make certain that this behavior never again occurs, and to
prevent this kind of taxpayer abuse from surfacing again, because we
want to prevent it from ever happening again; No. 2, to enforce the tax
laws so that the many citizens in America who pay their taxes will have
some confidence that the few who try to avoid them will be required to
meet their responsibility. Those are the two elements that are
important here.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Florida would strike from
the nine-member oversight board the Treasury Secretary. I agree with
the Senator from New York, who says that this board will not be a
significant and important board unless it has as part of its membership
the Secretary of the Treasury. Part of it is about accountability, but
part of it is about whether or not this will be a significant oversight
board. I believe very strongly that the membership on this board is
going to contribute to the effective
[[Page S4483]]
workings of the Internal Revenue Service, but it must include the
Treasury Secretary.
For all of the reasons I think that have been articulated by others
who have spoken before, let me just again say that I hope we will
defeat this amendment and I hope we will pass this underlying piece of
legislation with a very significant vote today.
I must say as well, I regret opposing an amendment offered by my
friend from Florida, for whom I have the greatest respect. I know he
supports the purpose of this bill, to give assurance to the American
people that we have an agency that can do what we expect a tax
collection agency ought to do, while at the same time protecting the
rights of all the American people.
I will vote against this amendment but will be pleased to vote for
the underlying bill.
Again, I commend Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan for the work they
have done to bring this to the floor of the Senate.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, my friend will not mind adding Senator
Grassley and Senator Kerrey, whose work on the original Commission
brings us here today.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my intention now is to make a few closing
remarks, and then I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time
and go to a vote.
Mr. KERREY. How much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 27 minutes 28 seconds.
Mr. KERREY. I think I will go for about 27 minutes and yield back 28
seconds.
Mr. President, 30 seconds, and then I will yield it all back.
Likewise, I have great respect for the Senator from Florida. I
believe his amendment is well intended but, if it is accepted, it will
significantly weaken this board. This board needs to be more than
advisory; it needs to have a sufficient amount of authority and power
when it meets with Congress and we pay attention to it. If it advises
and works with the IRS Commissioner, the IRS Commissioner, as well,
listens and pays attention.
So, this amendment will weaken the board. I understand what the
Senator from Florida is trying to do, but I hope this amendment will be
defeated.
I yield back the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MACK. I appreciate the kind comments that my colleagues have made
in their disagreement over the amendment I offer today.
Let me go to the heart of the matter as I see the argument that the
Senators are making. What they are saying is that this oversight board,
in essence, has no authority without the Secretary of the Treasury. I
fundamentally disagree with that. The power comes from the law, not the
presence of the Secretary. The authority is written into the
legislation that is before the Senate today. Having the Secretary of
the Treasury on that Commission does not add power. In fact, I say it
reduces the power of the taxpayer, which is the intention behind, at
least from my perspective, the oversight board.
The reason we need an oversight board is because there have been
decades of inadequate oversight by the people empowered to oversee the
IRS--Commissioners, Secretaries, Presidents, and Congresses. The entire
purpose of the oversight board is to provide to private citizens, to
taxpayers, some power over the IRS. If the Secretary of the Treasury is
on the board, his oversight power is not enhanced but the power of the
private citizens on the board will be diluted.
There is no guarantee that the staff of the board will be of any size
at all. My fear would be that they might be detailees from the IRS and
from the Treasury.
It is not very realistic to assume that the private sector members of
the oversight board can escape the dominance of the Treasury Secretary.
There is one last argument I will respond to and then yield the
floor. Should the Secretary be on the board so the board has the
advantage of his knowledge and access to information? Nothing prevents
the Treasury Secretary from submitting his views to the oversight
board. It should be expected that the oversight board will consult with
the Treasury Secretary. Input from within the Treasury Department is
already guaranteed by the Commission's representation on the board.
I think the amendment that I have offered and the perspective that I
have argued, frankly, have great power. I hope my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle will support this amendment.
I yield back the remaining time. I believe the yeas and nays have
been called for.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
Mr. MACK. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), is
absent because of a death in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--59
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Akaka
The amendment (No. 2372) was rejected.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 2373
(Purpose: To improve electronic filing of tax and information returns)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment which I
offer for myself and my colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, to improve
electronic filing of tax and information returns. Working with the
manager of the bill, I believe we have an agreement on the amendment.
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending
amendment will be set aside and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Ms.
Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 2373.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 256, strike line 11 and all that follows
through line 18, and insert the following:
``(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that--
``(1) paperless filing should be the preferred and most
convenient means of filing Federal tax and information
returns,
[[Page S4484]]
``(2) electronic filing should be a voluntary option for
taxpayers, and
``(3) it should be the goal of the Internal Revenue Service
to have at least 80 percent of all such returns filed
electronically by the year 2007.''
On page 258, line 12, strike ``and Government Reform and
Oversight'' insert ``Government Reform and Oversight, and
Small Business''.
On page 258, line 14, strike ``and Governmental Affairs''
insert ``Government Affairs, and Small Business''.
On page 258, line 19, strike ``and''.
On page 258, line 21, strike ``such goal.'' and insert
``such goal; and''.
On page 258, line 21, insert the following:
``(4) the effects on small businesses and the self-employed
of electronically filing tax and information returns.''.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with an amendment, which I
offer for myself and my colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, to improve
electronic filing of tax and information returns. After working with
the managers, I believe we now have an agreement on this amendment, and
I send that amendment to the desk.
The bill we are now considering contains far-reaching provisions that
will encourage the Internal Revenue Service to expand the use of
electronic filing. My amendment improves those provisions in two ways.
First, my amendment makes it absolutely clear that electronic filing of
tax returns should be voluntary--not another burdensome government
mandate on American taxpayers. While the bill calls on the IRS to make
electronic filing the ``preferred and most convenient means for
filing,'' it also establishes a goal of 80 percent electronic filing of
tax returns by 2007. Without a clear statement of congressional intent,
it will be too easy for the IRS to interpret those provisions as
requiring electronic filing by certain taxpayers or in certain
circumstances.
As the Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have heard over
the past 2 years from hundreds of small businesses about a similar
government mandate--the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System or EFTPS.
Under the statute establishing this system, the Treasury is required to
collect certain percentages of tax electronically each year. To
implement that requirement, the IRS established thresholds based on a
business' past employment tax deposits. Regrettably, the IRS
established the thresholds to serve its convenience rather than the
taxpayer's. As a result, it now appears that far more taxpayers are
required to pay their taxes electronically than the law requires.
While EFTPS deals with electronic payment of taxes, as opposed to
filing of tax returns as we are addressing in this bill, it is a clear
example of how the intent of Congress can be misinterpreted and result
in an onerous mandate, in this case on America's small businesses. My
amendment cuts that misunderstanding off at the pass. As the IRS
develops new programs and procedures for electronic filing, they must
not be forced down the throats of the country's taxpayers. If they are
truly convenient and cost effective, taxpayers will volunteer in droves
to file their tax returns electronically, just as they have with the
IRS' TeleFile program. And those taxpayers who, for one reason or
another, decide that electronic filing is not practical, should be
permitted to continue filing paper returns.
Second, my amendment expands the reporting requirements under the
bill to ensure that the IRS pays particular attention to electronic-
filing issues pertaining to small business. The bill currently requires
that the Treasury Secretary, the IRS Commissioner, and the advisory
group on electronic filing to report annually to the Congress on the
progress made in expanding the use of electronic filing.
I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee for
including representatives of small business on the advisory group as I
proposed. My amendment capitalizes on that small business voice, by
requiring that the report to Congress include an analysis of the
effects of electronic filing on small enterprises. If we are to prevent
another burdensome program like EFTPS, I believe we must require the
IRS to focus on how electronic-filing programs will affect small
business. It will be of little benefit to the government if new
electronic-filing programs include new requirements, like a substantial
investment in new equipment, since most small businesses will not be
able to participate. In addition, if the IRS pays particular attention
to the issues facing small businesses in this areas, the agency will be
better equipped to market and promote the benefits of electronic
filing--a 100 percent improvement over the agency's initial efforts to
encourage small firms to use EFTPS.
I fully endorse the intent of this legislation to make electronic
filing widely available, cost effective, and an attractive option. My
amendment fine tunes the bill to ensure that the intent becomes a
reality. With the continuing advances in technology, we have an
enormous opportunity to make all taxpayers' lives easier. But with
technological advances comes the risk of imposing even more burdens on
taxpayers, and Congress must make sure that these improvements are not
implemented at the expense of the taxpayers, and especially the small
businesses, who are expected to benefit from them. My amendment is
designed to achieve that goal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished Senator on
his amendment. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I think
it better states the policy of Congress and I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further remarks? The Senator from
Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side as well. It is a good amendment and I appreciate the fine work of
the distinguished Senator from Missouri.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2373) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 2374
(Purpose: To expand the shift in burden of proof from income tax
liability to all tax liabilities)
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending
amendment will be set aside. The clerk will report the amendment of the
Senator from Texas.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment
numbered 2374.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 265, between lines 21 and 22, insert:
``(4) Expansion to tax liabilities other than income tax.--
In the case of court proceedings arising in connection with
examinations commencing 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph and before June 1, 2001, this
subsection shall, in addition to income tax liability, apply
to any other tax liability of the taxpayer.''
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. We have a
provision in the bill, a very important provision, that sets up a set
of criteria where, if the taxpayer meets a test of keeping prudent
records and of turning those records over to the IRS on a timely basis,
that once that transfer of records has occurred and the other
requirements have been met, then the burden of proof shifts to the
Internal Revenue Service when someone is accused of having violated the
IRS code by not being in compliance on their income taxes.
This was a provision that was included in the bill under the
leadership of the chairman. We, I think, generally wanted to extend it
to all tax cases but because of revenue constraints we were unable to
do it. I have constructed this amendment in a fashion which does permit
the expanded burden of proof transfer. It delays the expansion for 6
months and sunsets it at the end of 5 years, so it fits within the
revenue cap we have.
I believe that once we provide this protection that we will end up
not taking it back or allowing it to expire. I
[[Page S4485]]
think this is an important protection, because on gift and estate
issues, we have the same problem as income taxes, where the Internal
Revenue Service enters into a dispute with the taxpayer and, in a
system unlike any other system in American society, under existing law,
you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
This amendment would simply say that if you keep all the records that
a prudent person could be expected to keep, and if you turn those
substantiation records over to the Internal Revenue Service so there is
no question about the fact that you have shared the information you
have with them, at that point the burden of proof shifts from the
taxpayer to the IRS not only in cases dealing with income tax disputes
but in all other types of tax cases as well.
I hope this amendment will be accepted. I have discussed it with both
sides of the aisle. I believe it is strongly supported. It does fit
within the budget constraint we have in the bill, so I commend this to
my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, both of these amendments are good
amendments. I urge their adoption. I appreciate very much the burden of
proof amendment. I think it is very important it apply to all income,
and I appreciate the fine work the distinguished Senator from Texas has
done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I, too, congratulate the distinguished
Senator from Texas for this amendment. It was our desire that this
burden of proof be extended to all types of taxes. I urge the adoption
of the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2374) was agreed to.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 2375
(Purpose: To prohibit Government officers and employees from requesting
taxpayers to give up their rights to sue)
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment of the Senator
from Texas.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment
numbered 2375.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 370, between lines 18 and 19, insert:
SEC. 3468. PROHIBITION ON REQUEST TO TAXPAYERS TO GIVE UP
RIGHTS TO BRING ACTIONS.
(a) Prohibition.--No officer or employee of the United
States may request a taxpayer to waive the taxpayer's right
to bring a civil action against the United States or any
officer or employee of the United States or any action taken
in connection with the internal revenue laws.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case
where--
(1) a taxpayer waives the right described in subsection (a)
knowingly and voluntarily or
(2) the request by the officer or employee is made in
person and the taxpayer's attorney or other federally
authorized tax practitioner (within the meaning of section
7525(c)(1)) is present, or the request is made in writing to
the taxpayer's attorney or other representative.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in the hearings that we held in the Finance
Committee, over and over again taxpayers, who made compelling cases
that they had been abused by the IRS, told us that in response to their
efforts to try to stop what they considered to be unfair treatment--
whether it was seizure of their home or their business or being accused
of things they claim not to have done--one thing that they were
consistently required to do by the IRS in order to end the dispute,
even though the Internal Revenue Service may have turned up no
wrongdoing, was to sign a statement whereby the taxpayers gave up their
right to sue the IRS for the abuses that had been imposed on them.
I have talked to Commissioner Rossotti. He has said that he has no
objection to this amendment. In addition, my staff has met with the
staff of the Treasury Department, and they have suggested some changes
which we have made.
Basically, what this says is that if I am in a dispute with the
Internal Revenue Service, they can't force me, as part of that dispute,
to give up my rights. At the end of the process, if I have done nothing
wrong, they can't force me to give up my right to sue them if I feel my
rights have been violated.
They can notify my attorney that this is something that could be part
of the negotiation. I can voluntarily propose that if we can settle the
case today, for example, I would be willing to pay so much and give up
this right. But what this amendment does is prohibit the Internal
Revenue Service from forcing this provision as part of any settlement.
I think it is an important protection.
With these changes, it is my understanding it is supported by my
colleagues and I hope it can be accepted at this point.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, again, I congratulate the Senator from Texas
for offering the amendment. This addresses a question that became very
clear in our hearings last week that it was a serious problem.
It is my understanding this has been cleared by both sides of the
aisle. I urge its adoption.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I also support this amendment. The Senator
from Texas has carefully drafted this amendment to make certain that
the waiver of the right to sue can still be granted. It is a very
important provision in all kinds of negotiations, not just with the
IRS. The Senator from Texas drafted it so that right is still
preserved, but it just can't be coerced. It can't be coerced.
The IRS supports this amendment. They do not believe it is going to
have any impact on the capacity to reach agreements with taxpayers or
get noncompliant taxpayers to comply. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2375) was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KERREY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________