[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.

                          ____________________