[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3936-H3938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1445
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2676, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT OF 1997
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2676) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restructure and reform the Internal
Revenue Service, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Motion To Instruct Conferees Offered By Mr. Coyne
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Coyne moves that the managers on the part of the House at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate
amendment to the bill H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, be instructed to insist upon the
provisions contained in the House bill and thereby not further delay
needed restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne)
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne).
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before us would instruct the House conferees
to insist on the provisions of the House bill on restructuring the
Internal Revenue Service and thereby expedite IRS reform. Not to do so
would only further delay much-needed IRS reform.
The IRS is faced with extraordinary challenges in dealing with its
computer modernization effort and year 2000 conversion. Further delay
in enacting this legislation may make it difficult or impossible for
the IRS to meet those challenges.
The House bill is the result of extensive review and hearings by the
Committee on Ways and Means. It was crafted on a bipartisan basis with
the help of experts from throughout the country. It also reflects the
recommendations of the National Commission on the Restructuring of the
IRS.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, I should note
that the bill is good tax policy as well. The House bill is fully
funded and will make significant improvements in IRS management and
electronic tax return filing.
The House bill also significantly strengthens taxpayer rights. The
IRS restructuring, as outlined in the House bill, deserves
congressional approval without delay. I urge adoption of the motion to
instruct.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) for
the spirit in which he offers his motion to instruct the conferees, to
which I do not object.
As the gentleman knows, it is reasonable to expect the conferees to
go into conference with the other body and to fight for the House
position. Indeed, I agree with him that the House bill is a thoughtful
and effective piece of legislation. I am very proud of the House bill,
and I know our conferees will work hard on its behalf.
But, as the gentleman knows, the Senate is likely to consider, also,
some of its ideas of importance; and there are, indeed, a few things in
the Senate bill that I think we all will find in the best interest of
the taxpayers. But I certainly appreciate the spirit in which the
motion is offered, and I support it.
I also would like to point out that the bill was introduced on
October 21, 1997, and reported by the Committee on Ways and Means only
10 days later on October 31st. It passed the House the following week
on November 5th. So this House has dealt with thoroughness and
appropriate speed with the need to reform the Internal Revenue Service.
I am very pleased that there is no longer any disagreement about the
need for this kind of systemic, comprehensive reform. It is long
overdue. We need to finish this work as quickly as we can, because,
through it, we give the American people relief from irresponsible
enforcement policies and harsh penalty laws.
We need to launch the new forceful partnership between government and
the private sector that this bill embodies because that new partnership
alone can create an effective, customer-service-oriented IRS capable of
serving this Nation and its people in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Coyne) for yielding me this time and thank him for the work that
he has done on the IRS Restructuring Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to instruct the conferees.
It has now been more than 6 months since this body passed the IRS
Restructuring Act by a large bipartisan vote of 426 to 4. It is the
first comprehensive provision in the IRS in more than a half a century.
I was proud to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) on
this very important legislation.
The version passed by the other body differs slightly from the
version that was passed by this House. I find it somewhat amazing that
it took the other body 6 months in order to consider this and bring it
back with the type of changes that they made.
But the important thing for us to do in conference is to move
quickly. We need to pass comprehensive reform before we get to the next
tax filing season and we lose the advantage of this legislation.
I want to compliment Secretary Rubin and Commissioner Rossotti for
the work that they have done reforming the IRS. Mr. Rubin is the first
Secretary of the Treasury who spent his
[[Page H3937]]
personal time looking at the IRS and helping us in restructuring it.
I also congratulate our new Commissioner, Mr. Rossotti, for his
cooperation with Congress in implementing many changes to the system.
But the legislation before us sets up an important oversight board to
oversee the functions of the IRS. We need to have those individuals
appointed and operating as soon as possible. That is why it is
important that our conferees act quickly.
The House version of the bill will protect the public, will start the
process of reforming our Internal Revenue Code by first reforming the
Internal Revenue Service. It makes it a much more taxpayer friendly
organization.
I see my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), is now on
the floor, who cochaired the national commission on which this is a
product of. We really do owe that commission and its leadership our
thanks for bringing forward a product that we hope now will become
reality.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that we will be able to get this
legislation signed quickly so that the benefits of this law can be
enjoyed by all of our citizens, and then we, in this body, can start
debating the issues of substantive tax reform.
All of us want to get involved in that debate, but first we must
reform the tax collecting agency itself. This legislation will do it.
We should move it as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who was the
cochairman of the commission that spent 1 long year studying in great
detail the problems within the IRS and laid the blueprint for the
reform that then we considered in our subcommittee and full committee
and now is about to go to conference.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it was a long year and actually more than a
year. In the end, the commission spent about a year and a half studying
the various problems at the IRS; in some senses, turning the table and
sort of auditing the IRS, and came back to Congress with a list of
recommendations which were then, with the help of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), implemented in the form of legislation.
That legislation was introduced in October, I believe. The House
passed the legislation in November. The Senate, in turn, passed its
legislation which is building on the House bill a few weeks ago.
I, as you know, believed that we could have done all of this last
year. So, certainly, I am not for delay, and I want to commend the
authors of the motion to instruct with regard to their focus on the
interests of moving this forward quickly and not having further delay.
However, I will say, in all fairness, I think the Senate did improve
the legislation in a few respects, and I hope that, while I will
support this motion, that it is in the context of giving the conferees
some flexibility to be able to accept certain Senate provisions that
are an improvement.
I would mention, as an example, the Inspector General provisions. I
think those are an improvement. It is something the commission, which
did spend a year and a half studying the IRS but did not, frankly, get
into that issue at any depth and did not make a recommendation on, and
the Senate then picked up and I think improved.
So the Inspector General Service at the Treasury Department will be
able to play a more effective and forceful role at the IRS, which is
desperately needed.
I will also mention that the Senate added some taxpayer rights
provisions which I think are quite helpful, particularly the expansion
of innocent spouse relief that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson) has worked hard over here in the House on as well.
I do think there are some things in the Senate bill which are going
to make the IRS work even better. But it does build on the structure of
the House bill; and certainly the House, having passed its legislation
with such an overwhelming margin, will want to support the general
direction that the House legislation took, which I think the Senate
bill does.
It really is the House bill, and it is something this House I think
can be very proud of because it was done on a bipartisan bases and it
was done with the interests of the American taxpayer in mind. In the
end, I am convinced it will lead to a new IRS.
Let me just mention three aspects of the legislation. I think they
probably have already been mentioned earlier. I apologize I was not
here for all of the debate.
One is in the area of taxpayer rights. There are 28 new taxpayer
rights in the House bill. The Senate, as I say, adds a few other
taxpayer rights that are very important, taxpayer rights in being able
to suspend interest and penalties if there has not been adequate notice
given to the taxpayer.
But when you add up all these taxpayer rights, what they will result
in is, indeed, a new way of thinking at the IRS.
Shifting the burden of proof at the tax court level is a great
example of that. Now the IRS, when they are in a dispute with a
taxpayer, will be thinking about litigation strategy, whether in fact
they can, as the IRS, bear that new burden of proof we are putting on
them just as in the case of criminal law in this country. I think it
will change the way they deal with taxpayers. It will help taxpayers
who will end up with the right result for many taxpayers who, right
now, are forced to settle with the IRS because the taxpayer carries
that burden of proof.
I would say that that set of taxpayer rights provisions, when taken
together as a whole, will definitely make a difference in terms of the
attitudes and really the culture of the IRS.
The second one I will mention, I know my friend from Maryland I think
was talking about it a moment ago, and this is the oversight board.
This oversight board, perhaps, has been described inaccurately by both
sides at times, but the thought is very simple.
You need to have at the IRS a group that has the experience in the
problems that the IRS currently faces, which is information technology,
taxpayer service, running a large service organization. You need to
have continuity. This is why we have these 5-year staggered terms on
this board, so that they will actually be able not only to talk about
important reforms but implement them over time, because it will take
time.
Finally, accountability. Without this kind of a board that brings in
this private sector expertise I talked about and that has that kind of
continuity, in other words, the follow-through to make sure these
changes get made so that we do indeed create a new IRS, you are not
going to have accountability. So this is a very important aspect of the
change.
The final one I will mention which has not gotten much play but is
very important in this legislation is changing the personnel
flexibilities at the IRS to make it easier, frankly, to fire bad apples
at the IRS and easier to promote people who, indeed, are doing a
competent job or professional job and respecting taxpayer rights.
Taxpayer service will be a new measurement at the IRS. Rather than
measuring whether taxpayer service representatives at the IRS and
whether people in the compliance side are collecting more money from
taxpayers, we will be measuring what kind of service employees at the
IRS provide to taxpayers.
That, again, is a change in direction at the IRS. It will lead, along
with these other changes, and there are 50 some odd changes to the IRS
in this legislation, to a new IRS and indeed a new culture at the IRS
and, in the end, will benefit our taxpayers greatly.
I would also like to, again, make the point that we have made
throughout this process, that we need to do more here on Capitol Hill,
both in terms of simplifying the tax code, and there is for prospective
legislation a provision in this legislation which does that. It puts
forth a complexity analysis. We think the House version is stronger on
that. It has teeth in it. It has a point of order. It will enable us
actually to enforce it.
Finally, we feel very strongly we need to consolidate the oversight
on Capitol Hill. Part of the problem, of course, is that the Treasury
Department is the IRS, but part of the problem resides right here in
Congress. The Senate chose to delete that provision
[[Page H3938]]
in the legislation. I think the House conferees, I hope this is a
unanimous view, will fight hard to get the House position accepted,
which would be, in fact, to consolidate oversight so that we are
speaking more with one voice from Capitol Hill to the IRS and be able
to improve oversight in communication between lawmakers here on Capitol
Hill who are elected to represent taxpayers and the Internal Revenue
Service.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say in conclusion that I will be voting for
this motion to instruct with the understanding that it is not going to
tie our hands in terms of accepting some provisions in the Senate that
perhaps were not looked at as carefully as they might have been when
the House completed its legislative task. I want to commend the authors
of it and hope that we can, indeed, move forward as rapidly as possible
to finally give the taxpayers what is long overdue, which is, indeed, a
new IRS.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching the proceedings of this
House, I hope they are not missing the bipartisan enthusiasm for real,
comprehensive, significant and serious reform of one of the most
important agencies of the United States Government, the Internal
Revenue Service.
This is the product of 2 years of very hard work. It is a thoughtful
product. It is a powerful product. Indeed, it is going to make an
enormous difference to the opportunity employees of the IRS have as
well as to the taxpayers that they serve.
So I am proud to support the motion and join my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle in urging prompt action by the conference so this
bill can be on the President's desk in the very near future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388,
nays 1, not voting 44, as follows:
[Roll No. 189]
YEAS--388
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
Canady
NOT VOTING--44
Archer
Bateman
Blunt
Burr
Burton
Conyers
DeFazio
Deutsch
Dicks
Fawell
Foley
Furse
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Harman
Hefley
Hoekstra
Hutchinson
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
King (NY)
Kingston
Lofgren
McCrery
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Miller (CA)
Mollohan
Morella
Parker
Quinn
Rangel
Reyes
Riggs
Sanford
Skaggs
Smith (OR)
Stenholm
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Towns
Wamp
Wicker
{time} 1521
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
Mr. Archer, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, and Messrs. Portman, Rangel,
and Coyne.
There was no objection.
____________________