Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to say what the distinguished bill managers have already said, and that is a sincere thank you to the many people who made this bill possible. But I want to say it again. It is appropriate that Chairman Warner and Senator Baucus express their appreciation, but I want to do so as well. Mr. President, highways and ISTEA debates are not an academic debate from Missourians; they are more life and death matters. The State of Missouri has always been a leader in the area of transportation. One example is that the first construction contract awarded under the Interstate Highway System some 40 years ago was for part of I-70 near St. Charles, MO. But the problem is that Missouri has been shortchanged in the past. Missouri has been a donor State putting in more than a dollar for every dollar they get back. This final bill that has been crafted through a great deal of work is ``rough justice'' and demonstrates that reasonable people with passionate differences can reach compromise. My State of Missouri stands to gain $1.2 billion--that is not ``million''; that is ``billion'' dollars--more over the next 6 years than during the last 6 years to improve highway safety and infrastructure. That amounts to a 50-percent increase to Missouri for Missouri's essential transportation infrastructure. I have worked long and hard on this bill with my distinguished friends and colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The underlying bill that the committee reported addresses the priorities I have had all along--increased funding overall, increased funding for the State of Missouri, fairness, and flexibility. I express my sincerest thanks to Chairman Chafee, Chairman Warner, Senator Baucus, and to all members of the committee for their assistance on things like my wetlands mitigation amendment, the triple- trailer amendment, and especially the amendments that we put in with respect to bridges, which are vitally important to my State. I look forward to the House passing the bill so we can get to conference and send to the President a transportation bill that will take us into the 21st century. I would like to offer my own special thanks, among others, to the fine people who were mentioned. I need to mention my assistant, Tracy Henke, who worked I don't know how many hundreds of hours per week and over the weeks on this bill, and prior to that time. I express my thanks to Jimmie Powell, to Dan Corbett, to Ann Loomis, Cathy Ruffalo, Ellen Stein, Tom Sliter, and Abigail Kinnison. As has already been said, these people put in untold hours, and they did what I think is a good job. It is a job that makes nobody perfectly happy. But it is a job that lays the foundation for the kind of transportation system that we need to have in this Nation for the 21st century. I am proud to have worked on this measure, and I thank my colleagues, and particularly their staffs who worked so hard to bring us to this point. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain very briefly my amendment. This amendment simply says that the status quo regarding the operation of triple trailers--these are the long trucks with a cab and three trailers behind them--shall stay in place. States that currently allow the operation of triple trailers on certain roads within their own State restrictions can continue to allow them, but the operation of triples should not be expanded. Under the current Federal freeze enacted in ISTEA in 1991, triple trailers may not operate in any additional States on any routes on which they could not operate in 1991. Now I have no interest in getting into a debate on the statistical merits of triple trailers. Supporters of triples tell you they are perfectly safe, environmentally friendly, less damaging to the highways, and help keep consumer costs low. Supporters of triples will also tell you that the State requirements make them as safe or safer than other trailer operations. On the other hand, opponents of triple trailers will tell you they are unsafe for the drivers as well as other highway users, they damage roads, especially bridges, and they have little beneficial impact on consumer costs. As a Senator representing a State with the second and third largest rail hubs in the country, I can tell you railroads hate triples. As a Senator representing a State that allows triples on a small portion of roadways in the Kansas City and southwest Missouri areas, as home of the third largest trucking center in the country, I can tell you that trucking companies love them. As a Senator, as a driver, and as the father of a teenaged driver, I can tell you that triple trailers scare me to death. Triple trailers can be as long as 120 feet. They are as long as a 10-story building is tall. These trucks can weigh up to 64 tons. For comparison, the cars most of us drove to work this morning are about 14 to 15 feet long and only weigh 1 ton or so. The 120-foot triple trailer is equivalent of seven full-sized passenger cars end to end. Triple trailers require a full football field and a half to come to a stop. Anybody who has driven on a road with triples knows that triples can be intimidating. Let me be clear, I am a strong advocate and supporter of the trucking industry. I have said that Kansas City, MO, is the third largest trucking center in the country. Trucks based in Missouri move over 200,000 tons of outbound freight and over 250,000 tons of inbound freight every day. Because of the hard work, dedication, and quality service that the trucking industry provides, because of the skill and the ability and the dedication of truck drivers, our lives are made easier, and truck drivers are generally among the very safest drivers on the road. I think all of us can tell many stories of assistance, accommodation, and courtesy by the drivers of trucks, but we have also heard from drivers of trucks that they are very much concerned about the safety of triple trailers. When I, along with the chairman and other members of this committee, first spoke of this amendment last fall, we were joined by truckers, independent operators, who have had experience with triple trailers and they told us some horrifying tales about the dangers and the difficulties of running a triple trailer. Triples are not the answer. Expanding their operation into areas where they are not now present is not the answer to anyone's question. Sometimes bigger is definitely not better. I ask the support of my colleagues that this body go on record saying that we will maintain the status quo, that we will not expand the ability of triples to go beyond those areas where they were operating and were grandfathered in in 1991. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Walter B. McCormick, chief executive officer of the American Trucking Association. They have questions about some of the language in the amendment. They wish to express their views. They do not feel that the studies which have been cited are accurate. They state that the continuation of the freeze is not inconsistent with our position.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President--I will reluctantly vote against the McConnell amendment. I am concerned that if this provision is included in this bill the President will veto the bill or it will cause delay in enactment of this important legislation that is imperative to saving lives in this country. This ISTEA legislation is a matter of life and death to Missourians. Highway fatalities in the state of Missouri increased 13 percent from 1992-95; 77 percent of the fatal crashes during this time frame occurred on two-lane roads. In Missouri, 62 percent of the roads on the National Highway System, excluding the Interstate, are two lanes. I have had too many friends die on Missouri's highways. We need to make certain that this legislation is enacted at the earliest possible date! I want to make clear that since I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business I have strived to make certain that government contracting opportunities are available to ALL small businesses. I know that the engine driving the economic growth of this country is small businesses. Small businesses and the entrepreneurs of this country, regardless of race or gender, should be given every opportunity to succeed. For example, last year this body passed the HUBZones legislation which I authored. It passed unanimously and has been signed into law. The law provides government contract set asides to small businesses that are located in HUBZones, which are economically distressed metropolitan areas and poor rural counties. To be eligible for a contract set aside, 35 percent of a small business' workforce must be residents of HUBZones. This program is designed to help small businesses grow, while creating jobs and investment in urban and rural communities that are suffering from economic neglect. I do have some concerns that the McConnell amendment could inadvertently eliminate the HUBZone program. It is my hope that I can work with my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell, on this issue in the future. But, I will not hold up $3.6 billion for my State of Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Rosella Schnakenberg for her fifty years of service to First Community Bank in Ionia. On March 18, 1947, Rosella began working as a teller for the First Community Bank, then the Bank of Ionia. At the time she received a salary of $75 a month. Today she is Vice President and Facility Manager of the Bank and oversees the day-to-day operations. Through the years Rosella has watched the economic ups and downs of the bank and through it all has made sure that people have received quality service and the assistance they need. Watching people start businesses, purchase homes and pay for their children's college education has allowed her to see first hand the help she has given to others. In addition to Rosella's faithful service to her work, she is a community leader in Cole Camp, Missouri. She has been playing the organ at St. John's Lutheran Church in Cole Camp for more than fifty years and volunteers much of her free time to visiting nursing homes so that residents have company. I wish her continued success and congratulate her for fifty years of loyal service.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration.'' The hearing will be held on March 18, 1998, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am prepared to address the finance amendment that we reported out today and that will be brought up for debate, we hope, perhaps later today or tomorrow under the unanimous consent agreement. I wanted to speak briefly about that.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am interested in knowing when I might have the floor. I have a brief statement on the measure. I will have something to say about this, but I ask my colleague how long he intends to go on.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I say in response to my colleague from Minnesota, be careful about relying on the Tufts study. The officials in charge of public assistance in my State and other States have pointed out some rather serious flaws in that study. We all share concerns about assuring there is adequate transportation, adequate day care, child care, for people moving from welfare to work, and I am not here to debate that amendment. At the appropriate time, we will review that amendment. What I wanted to call to the attention of my colleagues is the fact that yesterday my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, along with Senator Baucus, Senator Gramm, Senator Byrd and the very distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, announced agreement on funding levels for the highway authorization for the next 6 years. It will be $171 billion for highways. Let me explain what that means for my State of Missouri. Under the formula that was passed out of the committee as a committee amendment today, Missouri would receive $3.6 billion--that is billion dollars-- compared to $2.4 billion that Missouri received over the last 6 years of the 1991 transportation bill. Missouri's average allocation per year would be around $600 million, as opposed to the $400 million the State was receiving under the old. That is tremendous progress. I am deeply indebted to the leadership of our committee and particularly to the budget chairman for making these dollars available. This is vitally important. Everybody in this Chamber knows how important funding for transportation is. I was not a cosponsor of the Byrd-Gramm amendment, but I have always made clear and reiterated my support that highway money and transportation money should go for highways. In Missouri and across the country, when people go to the gas pump, buy gas and pay a tax, they think it is going to the highway trust fund. They think it is going for transportation purposes. And that is a reasonable assumption, except that in this body we have divorced the revenue from the spending stream and in the past we have had that money siphoned off to cover overspending elsewhere. In the 1993 major tax increase, a 4.3-cent tax was levied for deficit reduction. Now, I believe that the transfer of the 4.3 cents back to the highway trust fund instead of deficit reduction has not only made a significantly increased amount of money available for transportation needs, but it has, I think, put the ``trust'' back into the highway trust funds. That is what we ought to be about; that is what we ought to be telling the people who are paying those taxes. We are recommitting ourselves to the basic principle and promise that we made, which is that when we provide the revenues to the Government under the dedicated gas tax money, we are going to use it for roads, bridges, highways and transportation when it's collected. In Missouri, these funds are desperately needed. I daresay that I have heard stories from other States where they understand the importance of highway dollars. I came to the floor last week and explained that the debate over transportation funding and policy was not just an academic debate for Missourians. It is about, obviously, convenience and ease of transportation. It is about economic growth because, in our State, you can see where jobs occur. They occur where there are good highways. But most important, good highways and bridges are matters of life and death in Missouri. Highway fatalities in the State of Missouri increased 13 percent from 1992 to 1995, and many of us in Missouri know somebody or several people who have lost their lives on highways. And 77 percent of the fatal crashes during this timeframe occurred on two-lane roads. Mr. President, it is a simple matter. When you have heavy traffic on two-lane roads, you have traffic delays, somebody gets anxious and pulls out to pass, and if there is a hill, if there is a curve, or if there is an unseen hidden spot in the road, a head-on crash occurs. That has happened too many times, and it happens because the two-lane roads that we are driving on are carrying traffic that everybody agrees should be carried on four-lane roads. This is why I say it is a matter of life and death. In Missouri, 62 percent of the roads on the National Highway System, when you exclude the Interstate System, are two-lane roads--two-lane roads that are supposed to be part of our National Highway System. We are in the top 10, in terms of highway count, in the number of cars traveling those roads. Many of those National Highway System roads don't even have shoulders on them. So if somebody comes across the line and you are passing a large truck, if you move too far to the right, you are off on the shoulder, and that can be deadly. In addition, my State of Missouri has the oldest--I repeat, the oldest--bridges in the country. There are a number of things that we like to be No. 1 in, but having the oldest bridges and some of the worst conditions in the country is not one of them. This is a dubious distinction. We are sixth from the bottom in the condition of our bridges. These are the reasons that the highway funding formula and the transportation bill is so vitally important in my State. The potential funding that this bill provides is a huge step in the right direction to save lives on Missouri's highways, roads, and bridges. Last week, I told the story of driving across some of the bridges in our State where you can look down and see the water. That is not reassuring. They don't design them as ``see- through'' bridges. Years and years of decay have opened up gaping holes, which is a frightening prospect when you are crossing the Missouri River or the Mississippi River. I urge my colleagues to work through the budget and the appropriations process to determine that we will make the real funding commitment and that we will meet that funding commitment that we put forward in this bill. When I began this process, when I started work on it, I had two primary goals. One was for the transportation bill to increase the overall size of the pie for highways, and getting that 4.3 cents in is vitally important. Secondly, Missouri, as one of the donor States, needed to get its share up. I believe these two conditions are met. You may recall last fall when filibusters held up the bill I crafted a bipartisan interim solution that enabled highway funding to continue through May 1 of this year, which means, as the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, we will be the bedeviled by those orange and white barrels this year. They will be springing up on our highways like the summer road flowers along the highways. They are going to be blossoming. I am pleased to be causing those headaches. But we need to continue the orange and white barrels; we need to continue that construction. I know the funding debates are far from over. As I mentioned last Friday, there are reasonable people who have passionate differences, and there is nothing like a highway funding fight to bring out those differences. We hope that it is merely a matter of verbal debate. But when it comes to highway funding, these differences have been visible and audible. I want to express again my sincerest thanks to Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, and Senator Warner, for their leadership in working with committee members to avoid the ``guerrilla warfare'' that has been known to erupt on the highway bill in the past. I told the committee that I thought the leadership had achieved a rough system of justice that would make it possible for us to move this bill forward. Nobody is going to get everything that they want, but I believe that reasonable compromises have been made, and there may still be more made. We need to get this bill moving. I look forward to working with the members of the committee and my other colleagues throughout this process to achieve the goals that we all have for our States, that I have for my State of Missouri, but, most important, that we all must have for our national transportation policy. Again, my thanks to the leadership and my congratulations for the great staff work. We look forward to working on it. It will be an interesting debate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Rhode Island. Let me begin by saying it is high time. I am anxious for this bill to move forward. I am very pleased to be here today with my colleagues to talk about this very important highway and transportation legislation and to offer an amendment which I believe has been cleared on both sides. Mr. President, this past October, November, I had the pleasure of working with our distinguished committee chairman, Senator Chafee, and the subcommittee chairman, and my good friend, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, to forge an interim solution that produced a short-term extension for this vital highway and transportation legislation that provided necessary resources to make certain that the orange cones and barrels that signal highway construction underway would continue to drive drivers nuts and show them that progress is being made. But as already has been pointed out on the floor numerous times over the last couple weeks, we only passed an extension, one that does expire. Let me tell my colleagues that getting agreement in passing the extension was not easy. However, it did give us an idea of the complexity of what we have ahead of us. We all know the importance and the role that transportation plays in our everyday lives and especially in our economy. We absolutely must improve upon the existing infrastructure--that is, the roads, the bridges, the transportation systems--and determine better ways to meet our transportation needs. That is why I worked with the distinguished chair and ranking member and the subcommittee leaders to produce the bill that is now pending. I am very pleased to support and urge the adoption of that measure. As Senator Chafee said yesterday, this bill was reported unanimously out of committee--I repeat, unanimously out of committee. This happened because the bill, called ISTEA II, builds our new policy solidly on our commitment to the concrete and asphalt reality that roads and bridges are and will continue to be the foundation of our transportation system. Mr. President, for me and for the people of my State of Missouri, highways are not an academic debate. They are a matter of life and death. All of us have heard the statistics about how our inadequate highways contribute to 114 deaths on our Nation's highways each day. Missouri's highway fatality rate is above the national average. I am reminded of these tragedies every time I go home. Every time I travel to a new part of the State, they have lost someone or several people on the highways. Missouri has roads designated as part of the National Highway System that have no shoulders. We have two-lane roads carrying traffic meant for four lanes. These are real death traps, because somebody who is not familiar with the road, too often an out-of-State visitor to our State, makes a mistake and crosses over the center line with tragic consequences to them and to some other innocent party as well. And our bridge needs are perhaps greater than any other State. I drove last Friday over the bridge at Hermann, MO. It is an eerie feeling driving over a highway bridge and looking down at the river below and seeing it through the bridge that you are driving over. Mr. President, that is not fun. That gets your attention. The people know that these bridges are not going to last forever. Missouri has too many highways marked with white crosses along the side where people have died. The white crosses are in memory of the loved ones who will never return because of our inadequate highways. Reauthorization of this measure, this highway transportation measure, is imperative. We must move forward. I know that maintaining our Nation's roads and bridges is not always a glamorous issue or undertaking. Too often we hear discussions about priority items that take our attention away. But as with the debate raging in education circles about improving our Nation's crumbling schools, so goes the equally important debate about improving our transportation infrastructure, our roads and highways and bridges. Here it is lives we are talking about. Mr. President, reasonable people do have passionate differences. We see that every day on the Senate floor. All of us who were here in 1991 can recall that debate can get ugly over those differences, especially when money is involved. Overall funding has proven to be one of the difficult issues already, and the floor debates have not even started on formulas yet. We all know there are tremendous challenges in meeting our aim of balancing the budget and our commitment to the American people to do so. I am ever mindful of and support achieving this goal. However, I do know the importance of the transportation infrastructure, the roads and highways and bridges and transportation needs of this country and the desire to provide for increased funding to meet those needs. As a member of the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am committed and pledge my support in working to find a solution that will provide the increased funding necessary for transportation while maintaining our commitment to a balanced budget. I expressed my appreciation to the majority leader, Senator Lott, and to our Budget Committee chairman, Senator Domenici, who are working together and working with us to provide the resources we need to put the ``trust'' back in the highway trust fund. I do support the highway money going for highways and transportation needs. My goal has always been to increase the size of the overall pie for highways and transportation and, as well, to increase Missouri's share. I will do everything possible to ensure that the State of Missouri gets a full, fair share back. Maybe S. 404, which is known as the Bond-Chafee Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act, introduced with the distinguished chairman a year ago, is part of the overall funding solution. It does not take the highway trust fund off budget, but it does ensure that the ``trust'' is put back in the trust fund. That is a goal that I believe we all share. I hope that negotiations on the overall funding level continue. If we can get a $28 billion highway program, let us do it. Let us work to achieve the allocation and the commitment of the highway trust fund moneys going back to highway trust fund purposes. Mr. President, unfortunately, when we talk about Federal money and formulas, there are always clear-cut winners and losers. I know Missouri has been on both sides, too often on the losing side. But none of this goes away if we wait. I thank the majority leader and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this up. Now, Mr. President, unless the chairman has other matters, I wish to introduce an amendment that I believe has been cleared on both sides. Amendment No. 1677 to amendment no. 1676 (Purpose: To require that, in funding natural habitat and wetland mitigation efforts related to Federal-aid highway projects, a preference be given, to the maximum extent practicable, to the use of certain mitigation banks)

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Breaux, and Senator Lott and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment on wetlands mitigation banking has been cleared by both sides, and has been reviewed by EPA and the Corps who have no objection. It is, I believe, consistent with administration policy. It is supported by the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the National Wetlands Coalition. I believe this amendment is good for wetlands protection. It promotes private sector efforts to protect wetlands, and it saves money that can be used on highways or other authorized uses under this act. This is a win-win-win amendment. Now, let me tell you what the amendment does. It simply provides, when highway projects result in impact to wetlands that require compensatory mitigation--a big word saying: If you take away a wetland here, you have to restore a wetland there so we do not have any loss of wetlands. That is required under current law. Here in this amendment we say that preference can be given, to the extent practical, to private sector mitigation banks. The amendment mandates that the banks be approved in accordance with the administration's Federal guidance on mitigation banking issued in 1993. It requires that the bank be within the service area of the impacted wetlands. Mitigation is usually accomplished by restoring or creating other wetlands. Isolated, on-site mitigation projects are expensive and often costly to maintain. Wetlands mitigation banks, on the other hand, are typically large tracts of land that have been restored as wetlands. A State department of transportation building a highway project which impacts wetlands near a bank buys ``credits'' generated from the bank based on the acreage quality of restored wetlands in order to satisfy its obligation to mitigate the harm to impacted wetlands. The bank sponsor assumes full responsibility for maintaining the restored wetland site, and the State Transportation Department has fulfilled its mitigation requirement and can get on with the work on much-needed projects. The amendment does nothing to change the mitigation requirement. It simply provides that mitigation banking will be the preferred alternative, where available, once mitigation requirements are found to exist. In 1996, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing where witnesses from the administration, the private sector, the environmental community, and the scientific community spoke to the promise of mitigation banking as being an important instrument to protect wetlands and to do so with less expense and less red tape. Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator in the Office of Water at EPA, testified to ``EPA's strong support for mitigation banking.'' In his testimony, he said, ``It's a unique win-win proposition. It's great for landowners because it makes the permitting process simpler and easier. . . . It's great for the environment because the consolidation of multiple mitigation projects into a single, large mitigation bank leads to greater environmental benefit in terms of the enhancement of wildlife habitat and the improvement of local water quality and flood control.'' I will add that as a matter of policy, we have a great opportunity with mitigation banking to protect wetlands by making wetlands protection a profitable private enterprise. This effort is supported by the Missouri and Ohio Departments of Transportation and by AASHTO. Let me quote for you a September 1997 letter from the Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation: ODOT's costs for onsite mitigation have ranged as high as $150,000 per acre, when cost of design, real estate, construction and mitigation monitoring are combined. These costs are not out of line with the high-end costs experienced by many other DOTs around the country. Our lowest costs for onsite mitigation have generally exceeded $35,000 per acre. The cost of banking, in our experience, has ranged from around $10,000 to $12,000 per acre and includes all of the above cited cost factors. This equates to about one-quarter the cost of our average onsite mitigation. The States of Florida and Illinois, in the Chicago area, have already had a similar experience. This savings is significant and it can be achieved because of specialization and economies of scale. As a result, less federal highway money is spent on mitigating impacts to wetlands, and more federal highway money is made available for highway construction. Many agree that mitigation banks, approved in accordance with Administration guidance, will have a greater long term rate of success in protecting wetlands because: (1) they are in the business of wetlands protection and have the expertise; (2) banks are easier to regulate and be held accountable; and (3) because there is more time and flexibility for a bank to identify and procure high quality wetlands. I appreciate the assistance of the chairman, Senator Chafee, and Senator Baucus with this amendment. Again, this is good for the environment and the efficiencies will permit more of our precious highway dollars to be spent on highways. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to the late Harry Caray. Last week baseball lost one of its legends, but Harry's memory and spirit will live on for many years in the hearts of his fans. Harry grew up in my home State of Missouri, an orphan in St. Louis. Although he finished with the Chicago Cubs, Harry started his memorable career with the St. Louis Cardinals announcing for the organization for twenty-five years. Harry never left our hearts when he left to go to Chicago. I grew up listening to his undying energy and remember that he was an integral part of my developing a love of the sport. We will best remember Harry for his rendition of ``Take me out to the Ball game,'' his ``Holy Cow!'' and of course his pronunciation or perhaps mispronunciation of several players. I hope that people know that he brought a lot more to the game than just those things. He could bring excitement to a dull game and was as unpredictable as he was brash. People of all ages felt as though they were part of the game when Harry was announcing. Fans everywhere, myself included, will miss him.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Alabama Senator Richard Shelby in sponsoring legislation to restore Congressional accountability to the regulatory process and improve the likelihood that Federal agencies will be more accountable to the voters for their rulemaking actions. The authority Congress has delegated to these agencies is the source of their power to issue rules, regulations, guidelines and the like. While this delegation of authority to Federal bureaucracies may be a necessary evil until we can make more progress to reduce the size and scope of government's expanded role in our daily lives, this unfortunate regulatory state of affairs calls for increased oversight and renewed involvement by the elected officials who pass the legislation that empowers the bureaucracy. The size of the regulatory burden is staggering. According to a study for the Small Business Administration by Thomas D. Hopkins, an Adjunct Fellow of the Center for the Study of American Business in St. Louis, the direct, annual cost of regulatory compliance in 1997 was $688 billion--which is approximately $6,875 each year for a family of four. At the same time Congress exercises fiscal restraint in order to achieve a balanced budget, we must also be vigilant to ensure that the Federal government does not impose additional ``hidden taxes'' in the form of regulatory costs on American citizens. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I have worked especially hard to reduce the burden imposed by government regulations on our nation's small businesses. In 1996, legislation I authored was enacted as an important step in our efforts to reduce red tape and increase fairness in the treatment of small businesses by Federal agencies. Enactment of this law was a victory for small business and for the consumers and workers who rely on small businesses for goods, services and jobs. Because the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act offers such great potential for improving the regulatory landscape, we refer to it as the ``Red Tape Reduction Act.'' The bill Senator Shelby and I are introducing today builds on the work initiated by the Red Tape Reduction Act. Specifically, Subtitle E of that important law, known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), enhances the ability of Congress to serve as a backstop against excessive regulations. Senators Nickles and Reid sponsored the CRA portion of the Red Tape Reduction Act to provide a new process for Congress to review and disapprove new regulations and to make sure regulators are not exceeding or ignoring the Congressional intent of statutory law. Despite strong support for the CRA, Congress thus far has been hesitant to use the streamlined procedures for reviewing a regulation provided under the CRA. In fact, since enactment of the Congressional Review Act, more than 7,400 new regulations have been issued--on average 25-30 per day. While many of these rules are routine and others certainly would have survived Congressional scrutiny, the fact remains that more than 110 major final rules have been issued, each having an annual affect on the economy of $100 million or more. In the 104th Congress, one of two resolutions of disapproval introduced in the Senate reached the floor for a vote and was defeated. In the 105th Congress, only one resolution of disapproval has been introduced in the Senate. Consequently, Congress has been criticized for not fulfilling its role under the CRA. The fact is that, without a separate, reliable, source of in-depth analysis of these new rules, Congress has been limited in its ability to exercise its new authority over these rules. With Federal regulations costing our constituents $688 billion last year, and proposed and final rules accounting for more than 68,000 pages in the Federal Register in 1997 alone, it is time for Congress to take aggressive steps to ensure that the regulations flowing from Congressionally-passed legislation are fairly and reasonably fulfilling the purposes Congress intended. To provide Congress with the information needed to review new regulations and access whether a resolution of disapproval under the CRA should be considered. Senator Shelby and I are today introducing legislation to create a Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis (CORA). CORA would provide an objective source of regulatory analysis to assist Congress in its review of new regulations. This small office will provide the missing information required by Congress to utilize better the potential oversight powers provided under the CRA. Patterned after the Congressional Budget Office, but on a smaller scale, CORA would be a professional, nonpartisan office, using available information to analyze major and non-major regulations. The sponsor of the companion bill in the other body estimates the cost of such an office at $5 million, comparable to the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Consistent with the limited resources available to CORA, the bill places first priority on analysis of major rules, second priority on non-major rules recommended for analysis by a Congressional Committee, and third priority on non-major rules recommended for review by individual Members of Congress. The bill we introduce today also would consolidate within CORA certain activities assigned to the Congressional Budget Office under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the Governmental Accounting Office under the Congressional Review Act. This would provide Congress with one office, dedicated to the analysis of regulations and their costs. Finally, the bill instructs CORA to provide an annual report on the estimated total cost of regulations--a valuable piece of information the Administration failed to provide adequately despite Congress requiring such a regulatory accounting. With regulation expanding, Congress must re-take the reigns of accountability and good governance. CORA provides an essential tool in that effort and is consistent with the advances made by Congress in passing the Red Tape Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. I urge all my colleagues to review this legislation and join in our efforts to ensure that Congress has the information it needs to fulfill its responsibilities under the Congressional Review Act and the Constitution.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 1669 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill --Putting Taxpayers First. In the next few weeks the Senate will have a historic opportunity to make far-reaching changes to the operation of the Internal Revenue Service and to strengthen taxpayers' rights. For too long, taxpayers have had to put up with poor service when dealing with the IRS--often to the tune of larger tax bills because of interest and penalties that accrue during the lengthy delays in resolving disputes. While our ultimate goal must be a simpler and less burdensome tax law, taxpayers need help today when dealing with the IRS. We must put taxpayers first. For my part, I have asked the people of Missouri for their suggestions on how to fix the IRS and better protect taxpayers' rights. In addition, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have asked small businesses across the country for their recommendations on this issue. I am pleased to say that a great many people have taken the time to call or write with their suggestions for improving this country's tax administration system. Over the last several months, the Finance Committee has focused extensively on abuse of taxpayers and the need to reform our tax administration system. In addition, my committee has held hearings on this issue and the importance of reform for entrepreneurs and small business owners throughout the country. The House has also completed its package of reform measures. That legislation provides a good start, but I believe we can make it even stronger. With the input and recommendations from all these sources in mind, today I am introducing the Putting Taxpayers First Act. This bill will provide critical relief for a broad spectrum of taxpayers from single moms and married couples to small business owners and farmers. It is based on two fundamental principles. We must create an IRS and a tax system that are based on top-quality service for all taxpayers, and we must act swiftly to restore citizen confidence in that system. My bill tackles these goals in three ways: by improving taxpayer rights and protections, restructuring the management and operation of the IRS, and using electronic filing technology to help taxpayers, not complicate their lives. For more than 200 years, Americans have had the right, guaranteed by the fourth amendment, ``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'' and have enjoyed the constitutional protections against being ``deprived of * * * property, without due process of law'' under the fifth amendment. My bill will make the IRS fully respect these rights by requiring, as part of the Tax Code, that the IRS must obtain the approval by a judge or magistrate with notice and a hearing for the taxpayer before seizing a taxpayer's property. The Government ought to be required to treat ordinary taxpayers at least as well as they treat common criminals. It is way past time to level the playing field and preserve the constitutional rights of all taxpayers. My bill also stops the runaway freight train of excessive penalties and interest in two ways. First, the interest on a penalty will only begin after the taxpayer fails to pay his tax bill. Today, interest on most penalties is applied retroactively to the date that the tax return was due, which may be as much as 2 to 3 years back. That is just not fair. Second, my bill eliminates multiple penalties that apply to the same error. Penalties should punish bad behavior, not honest errors that even well-intentioned people are bound to make now and then. Next, with respect to restructuring the IRS, the second part of my bill addresses the need for structural changes within the IRS. I believe that the operations and staffing of the IRS should be based along customer lines, an idea supported by the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. The IRS' current one-size-fits-all approach no longer meets the needs of taxpayers and is inefficient for the IRS as well. By restructuring the IRS along customer lines, the agency could provide one-stop service for taxpayers with similar characteristics and needs, such as individuals, small businesses and large companies. As a result of these changes, a married couple could go to an IRS service center designed for individuals and get help on the issues they care about, like the new child tax credit and the Roth IRA. Similarly, a small business owner could resolve questions about the depreciation deductions for her business equipment with IRS employees specifically trained in these areas. I was extremely pleased to hear IRS Commissioner Rossotti embrace this one-stop-service proposal early this month. While the Commissioner has signaled his interest in a customer-based IRS, I want to make sure that it does not become one of the many reorganization ideas that lose favor after a few short years. To protect against this risk, my bill that I introduce today will make this structure a permanent part of the Tax Code. But reorganizing the IRS front lines, however, is only part of the task. The top-level management of the IRS here in Washington must make taxpayer service a reality throughout the agency. My bill takes that step by creating a full-time board of governors, which will have full responsibility, authority and accountability for IRS operations. This board composed of four individuals drawn from the private sector plus the IRS Commissioner will have the authority and information necessary to ensure that the agency's examinations and enforcement activities are conducted in a manner that treats taxpayers fairly and with respect. The board will also oversee the service provided by the taxpayer advocate and will ensure that the IRS appeals process is handled in an impartial manner. An independent, full-time board of governors will protect the IRS from being used for political purposes. Any efforts to instill confidence in our tax administration system are severely undercut when there are allegations that the IRS is being used for politically motivated audits. Regrettably, there have been recent reports suggesting the IRS has undertaken these types of audits with regard to certain individuals and nonprofit organizations like the Christian Coalition and the Heritage Foundation. An IRS board of governors with representatives of both political parties will help ensure that the agency is used for one purpose and one purpose alone: helping taxpayers to comply with the tax laws in the least burdensome manner possible. Mr. President, in addition to redesigning the agency, my bill also creates a commonsense approach for redesigning IRS communications. Too often we have heard from constituents, especially small business owners, that the notice they receive from the IRS is incomprehensible. As a result, one of two things usually happens: The taxpayer pays the bill without question just to make the IRS go away, even if they are not sure they owe taxes; or the taxpayer has to hire a professional to tell him or her what the notice means and then spend vast amounts of time and money getting the matter straightened out. This no-win situation has to end now. My bill creates a panel of individual taxpayers, small entrepreneurs, large business managers and other types of taxpayers who will review all standardized IRS documents to make sure they are clear and understandable to the taxpayers who must read them. Any notice, letter or form that does not meet this minimum standard will be sent back to the IRS with a recommendation that it be rewritten before it is sent to the taxpayer. And clear communications, I believe, are essential for good customer service. America's taxpayers deserve no less. Mr. President, as I said, in the next few weeks the Senate will have an historic opportunity to make far-reaching changes to the operation of the Internal Revenue Service and to strengthen taxpayers' rights. For too long, taxpayers have had to put up with poor service when dealing with the IRS--often to the tune of larger tax bills because of interest and penalties that accrue during the lengthy delays in resolving disputes. While our ultimate goal must be a simpler and less burdensome tax law, taxpayers need help today when dealing with the IRS. We must put taxpayers first. For my part, I have asked people across Missouri for their suggestions on how to fix the IRS and better protect taxpayers' rights. In addition, as the Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have asked small businesses across the country for their recommendations on this issue. And I am pleased to say that a great many people have taken the time to call or write with their suggestions for improving this country's tax-administration system. Over the last several months, the Finance Committee has focused extensively on abuse of taxpayers and the need to reform our tax- administration system. In addition, my Committee has held hearings on this issue and the importance of reform for entrepreneurs and small business owners throughout the country. The House has also completed its package of reform measures. That legislation provides a good start, but I believe we can make it even stronger. With the input and recommendations from all of these sources in mind, today I am introducing the Putting the Taxpayer First Act. This bill will provide critical relief for a broad spectrum of taxpayers, from single moms and married couples to small business owners and farmers. And it is based on two fundamental principles. We must create an IRS and a tax system that are based on top quality service for all taxpayers, and we must act swiftly to restore citizen confidence in that system. My bill tackles these goals in three ways: by improving taxpayer rights and protections, restructuring the management and operation of the IRS, and using electronic filing technology to help taxpayers, not complicate their lives. Improving Taxpayer Rights While our ultimate goal should be the wholesale reform or substantial replacement of the tax laws, much additional progress can be made now by strengthening taxpayers' rights in order to restore faith in the fairness of our tax system. My bill includes several improvements to taxpayers' rights, and I will stress just a few of them today. Recent reports of excessive seizures by the IRS have alarmed all of us. These inexcusable practices were highlighted by Senator Nickles in a hearing he held last December in Oklahoma City. Imagine the devastation to an individual who finds himself in trouble with the IRS over back taxes, and the next thing he knows, the IRS has seized his bank account or his car--or worse yet, his home. In the case of an unfortunate small business, an abrupt seizure can mean shutting the business down, ending the livelihoods of all the employees and their families. While some will say that seizures are a last resort and do not happen that often, the IRS has disclosed that during Fiscal Year 1996, the agency made about 10,000 seizures of taxpayers' property. That is still a sizeable number, and what is truly alarming is that these seizures can be done on the IRS' own initiative, without judicial approval. For more than 200 years, Americans have had the right, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, ``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'' and have enjoyed the Constitutional protections against being ``deprived of . . . property, without due process of law'' under the Fifth Amendment. My bill will make the IRS more fully respect these rights by requiring, as part of the tax code, that the IRS must obtain the approval by a judge or magistrate, with notice and a hearing for the taxpayer, before seizing a taxpayer's property. The government ought to be required to treat ordinary taxpayers at least as well as they treat common criminals. It is way past time to level the playing field and preserve the Constitutional rights of all taxpayers. Mr. President, taxpayers, and especially small enterprises, often need help when it comes to tax planning and examining alternatives to minimize their tax liability within the law. With the enormous complexity of the tax code today, taxpayers frequently have to make good faith judgment calls about whether a particular deduction or credit applies. Today, there is an inequity in the law that results in unequal treatment of taxpayers based on their choice of tax professional or financial ability to afford a lawyer. Under the current law, a taxpayer who goes to an accountant to obtain advice for tax planning or assistance in a controversy to make sure he is not paying more tax than the law requires, does so at his peril. In fact, he may as well invite the IRS to that meeting because there is no privilege of confidentiality between a taxpayer and his accountant. For a taxpayer to gain the confidentiality protection that is available, he must engage an attorney. Oddly enough, in many cases, the attorney may hire an accountant to gain accounting expertise, and then the work of the accountant would be protected from disclosure to the IRS. Now the taxpayer has assumed enormous additional costs, and for what? Just to prevent the IRS from having an even greater upper hand against taxpayers who already have to prove their innocence? My bill ends this disparity. It permits a taxpayer, in non-criminal matters, to hire any individual authorized to practice before the IRS, such as an accountant, an enrolled agent, or an attorney, and be able to have conversations with that tax professional, which can remain private from the IRS. This taxpayer confidentiality provision will ensure that all taxpayers receive equal treatment from the IRS in a way that can save them money. In addition, it gives all taxpayers a wider choice of tax advisors without giving up their right to confidentiality. This is a common-sense protection for the millions of individuals and businesses that seek professional tax advice each year. Penalties, too, have become an enormous burden for taxpayers who make mistakes, which is not uncommon with today's complex tax laws. Far too often, a minor tax bill grows into an unmanageable liability because of the interest on the tax owed, the penalties for negligence and late payment, and the interest on the penalties. Frequently, these penalties can prevent a taxpayer from settling his account and getting back into good standing. Penalties were included in the tax code to encourage taxpayers to comply with our voluntary assessment system. But the multiplicity of penalties and hidden punishments disguised as interest on those penalties seriously undermines Americans' confidence that our system is fair. My bill stops the runaway freight train of excessive penalties and interest in two ways. First, interest on a penalty will only begin after the taxpayer has failed to pay his tax bill. Today, interest on most penalties is applied retroactively to the date that the tax return was due, which may be as much as two to three years back. That's just not fair. Second, my bill eliminates multiple penalties that apply to the same error. Penalties should punish bad behavior, not honest errors that even well-intentioned people are bound to make now and then. Mr. President, another issue of enormous importance to many entrepreneurs in this country is the status of independent contractors. Over the past several years, I have worked hard for the adoption of a clear legislative safe-harbor for the classification of workers and protections against retroactive reclassification of independent contractors. I included these provisions as part of the Home-Based Business Fairness Act, S. 460, which I introduced last March. And I intend to pursue these important changes to the tax code through that bill as the Senate debates legislation to restructure the IRS and improve taxpayers' rights. Restructuring the IRS The second part of my bill addresses the need for structural changes within the IRS. Over the past century, the IRS has evolved into a bureaucratic web of functions, regions, and district offices, all aimed at making the collection of taxes easy for the government. What has been overlooked is that those tax dollars come from citizens whom the government is supposed to serve and represent. With roughly 140 million individuals, alone, filing tax returns every year, the system must be made convenient for the taxpayer, not just for the government. I believe that the operations and staffing of the IRS should be based along customer lines, an idea supported by the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. The IRS' current ``one size fits all'' approach no longer meets the needs of taxpayers and is inefficient for the IRS as well. By restructuring the IRS along customer lines, the agency could provide one-stop service for taxpayers with similar characteristics and needs, such as individuals, small businesses, and large companies. As a result, a married couple could go to an IRS service center designed for individuals and get help on the issues that they care about like the new child tax credit and the Roth IRA. Similarly, a small business owner could resolve questions about the depreciation deductions for her business equipment with IRS employees specifically trained in these areas. I was extremely pleased to hear IRS Commissioner Rossotti embrace this one-stop-service proposal earlier this month. And I look forward to working with the agency to make it a reality for taxpayers at the earliest possible date. While the Commissioner has signaled his interest in a customer-based IRS, I want to make sure that it does not become one of the many reorganization ideas that lose favor after a few short years. To protect against that risk, my bill will make this structure a permanent part of the tax code. Reorganizing the IRS at the front-lines, however, is only part of the task. The top-level management of the IRS here in Washington must make taxpayer service a reality throughout the agency. My bill takes that step by creating a full-time Board of Governors, which will have full responsibility, authority, and accountability for IRS operations. This Board, composed of four individuals drawn from the private sector plus the IRS Commissioner, will have the authority and information necessary to ensure that the agency's examination and enforcement activities are conducted in a manner that treats taxpayers fairly and with respect. The Board will also oversee the service provided by the Taxpayer Advocate and will ensure that the IRS' appeals process is handled in an impartial manner. An independent, full-time Board of Governors will also protect the IRS from being used for political purposes. Any efforts to instill confidence in our tax-administration system are severely undercut by allegations that the IRS is being used for politically-motivated audits. Regrettably, there have been recent reports suggesting that the IRS has undertaken these types of audits with regard to certain individuals and non-profit organizations like the Christian Coalition and the Heritage Foundation. An IRS Board of Governors with representatives of both political parties will help ensure that the agency is used for one purpose, and one purpose alone: helping taxpayers to comply with the tax laws in the least burdensome manner possible. Mr. President, in addition to redesigning the agency, my bill also creates a common sense approach for redesigning IRS communications. Too often I have heard from constituents, especially small business owners, that a notice they received from the IRS is incomprehensible. As a result, one of two things usually happens. The taxpayer pays the bill without question just to make the IRS go away, even if they are not sure they owe any taxes. Or the taxpayer has to hire a professional to tell him what the notice means and then spend vast amounts of time and money getting the matter straightened out. This no-win situation has to end now. My bill creates a panel of individual taxpayers, small entrepreneurs, large business managers, and other types of taxpayers, who will review all standardized IRS documents to make sure they are clear and understandable to the taxpayers who must read them. Any notice, letter or form that does not meet this minimum standard, will be sent back to the IRS with a recommendation that it be rewritten before it is sent to any taxpayer. Clear communications are essential for good customer service, and America's taxpayers deserve no less. Fair and Efficient Use of Technology The third part of my bill concerns the fair and efficient use of technology in our tax-administration system. With the continuing advances in technology, we have an enormous opportunity to make all taxpayers' lives easier. In fact, the IRS has already made good progress in this area with programs like TeleFile, which enables many taxpayers to file their tax returns through a brief telephone call. 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 comply with them. To prevent that result, my bill makes clear that expanded electronic filing of tax and information returns should be a goal, not a mandate imposed on American taxpayers. In addition, my bill ensures that in making electronic filing a reality, the IRS will involve representatives of all taxpayer groups-- individuals, small business, large companies, and the tax-preparation community--to ensure that electronic filing does not complicate everyone's lives in the name of modernization and simplification. Mr. President, the provisions of the Putting the Taxpayer First Act will make the IRS a better public servant and help restore confidence in our tax system. Taxpayers face enormous difficulties today just to comply with the tax law, and they have waited far too long for good service and fair treatment in a timely manner. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to include the provisions of this bill when they markup IRS-reform legislation next month. Our efforts must focus on putting the taxpayer first if we are to make positive and lasting changes to the IRS and not keep America's taxpayers waiting any longer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cochran, Snowe and Shelby be shown as original cosponsors. And I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a description of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill --Putting Taxpayers First. In the next few weeks the Senate will have a historic opportunity to make far-reaching changes to the operation of the Internal Revenue Service and to strengthen taxpayers' rights. For too long, taxpayers have had to put up with poor service when dealing with the IRS--often to the tune of larger tax bills because of interest and penalties that accrue during the lengthy delays in resolving disputes. While our ultimate goal must be a simpler and less burdensome tax law, taxpayers need help today when dealing with the IRS. We must put taxpayers first. For my part, I have asked the people of Missouri for their suggestions on how to fix the IRS and better protect taxpayers' rights. In addition, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have asked small businesses across the country for their recommendations on this issue. I am pleased to say that a great many people have taken the time to call or write with their suggestions for improving this country's tax administration system. Over the last several months, the Finance Committee has focused extensively on abuse of taxpayers and the need to reform our tax administration system. In addition, my committee has held hearings on this issue and the importance of reform for entrepreneurs and small business owners throughout the country. The House has also completed its package of reform measures. That legislation provides a good start, but I believe we can make it even stronger. With the input and recommendations from all these sources in mind, today I am introducing the Putting Taxpayers First Act. This bill will provide critical relief for a broad spectrum of taxpayers from single moms and married couples to small business owners and farmers. It is based on two fundamental principles. We must create an IRS and a tax system that are based on top-quality service for all taxpayers, and we must act swiftly to restore citizen confidence in that system. My bill tackles these goals in three ways: by improving taxpayer rights and protections, restructuring the management and operation of the IRS, and using electronic filing technology to help taxpayers, not complicate their lives. For more than 200 years, Americans have had the right, guaranteed by the fourth amendment, ``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'' and have enjoyed the constitutional protections against being ``deprived of * * * property, without due process of law'' under the fifth amendment. My bill will make the IRS fully respect these rights by requiring, as part of the Tax Code, that the IRS must obtain the approval by a judge or magistrate with notice and a hearing for the taxpayer before seizing a taxpayer's property. The Government ought to be required to treat ordinary taxpayers at least as well as they treat common criminals. It is way past time to level the playing field and preserve the constitutional rights of all taxpayers. My bill also stops the runaway freight train of excessive penalties and interest in two ways. First, the interest on a penalty will only begin after the taxpayer fails to pay his tax bill. Today, interest on most penalties is applied retroactively to the date that the tax return was due, which may be as much as 2 to 3 years back. That is just not fair. Second, my bill eliminates multiple penalties that apply to the same error. Penalties should punish bad behavior, not honest errors that even well-intentioned people are bound to make now and then. Next, with respect to restructuring the IRS, the second part of my bill addresses the need for structural changes within the IRS. I believe that the operations and staffing of the IRS should be based along customer lines, an idea supported by the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. The IRS' current one-size-fits-all approach no longer meets the needs of taxpayers and is inefficient for the IRS as well. By restructuring the IRS along customer lines, the agency could provide one-stop service for taxpayers with similar characteristics and needs, such as individuals, small businesses and large companies. As a result of these changes, a married couple could go to an IRS service center designed for individuals and get help on the issues they care about, like the new child tax credit and the Roth IRA. Similarly, a small business owner could resolve questions about the depreciation deductions for her business equipment with IRS employees specifically trained in these areas. I was extremely pleased to hear IRS Commissioner Rossotti embrace this one-stop-service proposal early this month. While the Commissioner has signaled his interest in a customer-based IRS, I want to make sure that it does not become one of the many reorganization ideas that lose favor after a few short years. To protect against this risk, my bill that I introduce today will make this structure a permanent part of the Tax Code. But reorganizing the IRS front lines, however, is only part of the task. The top-level management of the IRS here in Washington must make taxpayer service a reality throughout the agency. My bill takes that step by creating a full-time board of governors, which will have full responsibility, authority and accountability for IRS operations. This board composed of four individuals drawn from the private sector plus the IRS Commissioner will have the authority and information necessary to ensure that the agency's examinations and enforcement activities are conducted in a manner that treats taxpayers fairly and with respect. The board will also oversee the service provided by the taxpayer advocate and will ensure that the IRS appeals process is handled in an impartial manner. An independent, full-time board of governors will protect the IRS from being used for political purposes. Any efforts to instill confidence in our tax administration system are severely undercut when there are allegations that the IRS is being used for politically motivated audits. Regrettably, there have been recent reports suggesting the IRS has undertaken these types of audits with regard to certain individuals and nonprofit organizations like the Christian Coalition and the Heritage Foundation. An IRS board of governors with representatives of both political parties will help ensure that the agency is used for one purpose and one purpose alone: helping taxpayers to comply with the tax laws in the least burdensome manner possible. Mr. President, in addition to redesigning the agency, my bill also creates a commonsense approach for redesigning IRS communications. Too often we have heard from constituents, especially small business owners, that the notice they receive from the IRS is incomprehensible. As a result, one of two things usually happens: The taxpayer pays the bill without question just to make the IRS go away, even if they are not sure they owe taxes; or the taxpayer has to hire a professional to tell him or her what the notice means and then spend vast amounts of time and money getting the matter straightened out. This no-win situation has to end now. My bill creates a panel of individual taxpayers, small entrepreneurs, large business managers and other types of taxpayers who will review all standardized IRS documents to make sure they are clear and understandable to the taxpayers who must read them. Any notice, letter or form that does not meet this minimum standard will be sent back to the IRS with a recommendation that it be rewritten before it is sent to the taxpayer. And clear communications, I believe, are essential for good customer service. America's taxpayers deserve no less. Mr. President, as I said, in the next few weeks the Senate will have an historic opportunity to make far-reaching changes to the operation of the Internal Revenue Service and to strengthen taxpayers' rights. For too long, taxpayers have had to put up with poor service when dealing with the IRS--often to the tune of larger tax bills because of interest and penalties that accrue during the lengthy delays in resolving disputes. While our ultimate goal must be a simpler and less burdensome tax law, taxpayers need help today when dealing with the IRS. We must put taxpayers first. For my part, I have asked people across Missouri for their suggestions on how to fix the IRS and better protect taxpayers' rights. In addition, as the Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have asked small businesses across the country for their recommendations on this issue. And I am pleased to say that a great many people have taken the time to call or write with their suggestions for improving this country's tax-administration system. Over the last several months, the Finance Committee has focused extensively on abuse of taxpayers and the need to reform our tax- administration system. In addition, my Committee has held hearings on this issue and the importance of reform for entrepreneurs and small business owners throughout the country. The House has also completed its package of reform measures. That legislation provides a good start, but I believe we can make it even stronger. With the input and recommendations from all of these sources in mind, today I am introducing the Putting the Taxpayer First Act. This bill will provide critical relief for a broad spectrum of taxpayers, from single moms and married couples to small business owners and farmers. And it is based on two fundamental principles. We must create an IRS and a tax system that are based on top quality service for all taxpayers, and we must act swiftly to restore citizen confidence in that system. My bill tackles these goals in three ways: by improving taxpayer rights and protections, restructuring the management and operation of the IRS, and using electronic filing technology to help taxpayers, not complicate their lives. Improving Taxpayer Rights While our ultimate goal should be the wholesale reform or substantial replacement of the tax laws, much additional progress can be made now by strengthening taxpayers' rights in order to restore faith in the fairness of our tax system. My bill includes several improvements to taxpayers' rights, and I will stress just a few of them today. Recent reports of excessive seizures by the IRS have alarmed all of us. These inexcusable practices were highlighted by Senator Nickles in a hearing he held last December in Oklahoma City. Imagine the devastation to an individual who finds himself in trouble with the IRS over back taxes, and the next thing he knows, the IRS has seized his bank account or his car--or worse yet, his home. In the case of an unfortunate small business, an abrupt seizure can mean shutting the business down, ending the livelihoods of all the employees and their families. While some will say that seizures are a last resort and do not happen that often, the IRS has disclosed that during Fiscal Year 1996, the agency made about 10,000 seizures of taxpayers' property. That is still a sizeable number, and what is truly alarming is that these seizures can be done on the IRS' own initiative, without judicial approval. For more than 200 years, Americans have had the right, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, ``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'' and have enjoyed the Constitutional protections against being ``deprived of . . . property, without due process of law'' under the Fifth Amendment. My bill will make the IRS more fully respect these rights by requiring, as part of the tax code, that the IRS must obtain the approval by a judge or magistrate, with notice and a hearing for the taxpayer, before seizing a taxpayer's property. The government ought to be required to treat ordinary taxpayers at least as well as they treat common criminals. It is way past time to level the playing field and preserve the Constitutional rights of all taxpayers. Mr. President, taxpayers, and especially small enterprises, often need help when it comes to tax planning and examining alternatives to minimize their tax liability within the law. With the enormous complexity of the tax code today, taxpayers frequently have to make good faith judgment calls about whether a particular deduction or credit applies. Today, there is an inequity in the law that results in unequal treatment of taxpayers based on their choice of tax professional or financial ability to afford a lawyer. Under the current law, a taxpayer who goes to an accountant to obtain advice for tax planning or assistance in a controversy to make sure he is not paying more tax than the law requires, does so at his peril. In fact, he may as well invite the IRS to that meeting because there is no privilege of confidentiality between a taxpayer and his accountant. For a taxpayer to gain the confidentiality protection that is available, he must engage an attorney. Oddly enough, in many cases, the attorney may hire an accountant to gain accounting expertise, and then the work of the accountant would be protected from disclosure to the IRS. Now the taxpayer has assumed enormous additional costs, and for what? Just to prevent the IRS from having an even greater upper hand against taxpayers who already have to prove their innocence? My bill ends this disparity. It permits a taxpayer, in non-criminal matters, to hire any individual authorized to practice before the IRS, such as an accountant, an enrolled agent, or an attorney, and be able to have conversations with that tax professional, which can remain private from the IRS. This taxpayer confidentiality provision will ensure that all taxpayers receive equal treatment from the IRS in a way that can save them money. In addition, it gives all taxpayers a wider choice of tax advisors without giving up their right to confidentiality. This is a common-sense protection for the millions of individuals and businesses that seek professional tax advice each year. Penalties, too, have become an enormous burden for taxpayers who make mistakes, which is not uncommon with today's complex tax laws. Far too often, a minor tax bill grows into an unmanageable liability because of the interest on the tax owed, the penalties for negligence and late payment, and the interest on the penalties. Frequently, these penalties can prevent a taxpayer from settling his account and getting back into good standing. Penalties were included in the tax code to encourage taxpayers to comply with our voluntary assessment system. But the multiplicity of penalties and hidden punishments disguised as interest on those penalties seriously undermines Americans' confidence that our system is fair. My bill stops the runaway freight train of excessive penalties and interest in two ways. First, interest on a penalty will only begin after the taxpayer has failed to pay his tax bill. Today, interest on most penalties is applied retroactively to the date that the tax return was due, which may be as much as two to three years back. That's just not fair. Second, my bill eliminates multiple penalties that apply to the same error. Penalties should punish bad behavior, not honest errors that even well-intentioned people are bound to make now and then. Mr. President, another issue of enormous importance to many entrepreneurs in this country is the status of independent contractors. Over the past several years, I have worked hard for the adoption of a clear legislative safe-harbor for the classification of workers and protections against retroactive reclassification of independent contractors. I included these provisions as part of the Home-Based Business Fairness Act, S. 460, which I introduced last March. And I intend to pursue these important changes to the tax code through that bill as the Senate debates legislation to restructure the IRS and improve taxpayers' rights. Restructuring the IRS The second part of my bill addresses the need for structural changes within the IRS. Over the past century, the IRS has evolved into a bureaucratic web of functions, regions, and district offices, all aimed at making the collection of taxes easy for the government. What has been overlooked is that those tax dollars come from citizens whom the government is supposed to serve and represent. With roughly 140 million individuals, alone, filing tax returns every year, the system must be made convenient for the taxpayer, not just for the government. I believe that the operations and staffing of the IRS should be based along customer lines, an idea supported by the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. The IRS' current ``one size fits all'' approach no longer meets the needs of taxpayers and is inefficient for the IRS as well. By restructuring the IRS along customer lines, the agency could provide one-stop service for taxpayers with similar characteristics and needs, such as individuals, small businesses, and large companies. As a result, a married couple could go to an IRS service center designed for individuals and get help on the issues that they care about like the new child tax credit and the Roth IRA. Similarly, a small business owner could resolve questions about the depreciation deductions for her business equipment with IRS employees specifically trained in these areas. I was extremely pleased to hear IRS Commissioner Rossotti embrace this one-stop-service proposal earlier this month. And I look forward to working with the agency to make it a reality for taxpayers at the earliest possible date. While the Commissioner has signaled his interest in a customer-based IRS, I want to make sure that it does not become one of the many reorganization ideas that lose favor after a few short years. To protect against that risk, my bill will make this structure a permanent part of the tax code. Reorganizing the IRS at the front-lines, however, is only part of the task. The top-level management of the IRS here in Washington must make taxpayer service a reality throughout the agency. My bill takes that step by creating a full-time Board of Governors, which will have full responsibility, authority, and accountability for IRS operations. This Board, composed of four individuals drawn from the private sector plus the IRS Commissioner, will have the authority and information necessary to ensure that the agency's examination and enforcement activities are conducted in a manner that treats taxpayers fairly and with respect. The Board will also oversee the service provided by the Taxpayer Advocate and will ensure that the IRS' appeals process is handled in an impartial manner. An independent, full-time Board of Governors will also protect the IRS from being used for political purposes. Any efforts to instill confidence in our tax-administration system are severely undercut by allegations that the IRS is being used for politically-motivated audits. Regrettably, there have been recent reports suggesting that the IRS has undertaken these types of audits with regard to certain individuals and non-profit organizations like the Christian Coalition and the Heritage Foundation. An IRS Board of Governors with representatives of both political parties will help ensure that the agency is used for one purpose, and one purpose alone: helping taxpayers to comply with the tax laws in the least burdensome manner possible. Mr. President, in addition to redesigning the agency, my bill also creates a common sense approach for redesigning IRS communications. Too often I have heard from constituents, especially small business owners, that a notice they received from the IRS is incomprehensible. As a result, one of two things usually happens. The taxpayer pays the bill without question just to make the IRS go away, even if they are not sure they owe any taxes. Or the taxpayer has to hire a professional to tell him what the notice means and then spend vast amounts of time and money getting the matter straightened out. This no-win situation has to end now. My bill creates a panel of individual taxpayers, small entrepreneurs, large business managers, and other types of taxpayers, who will review all standardized IRS documents to make sure they are clear and understandable to the taxpayers who must read them. Any notice, letter or form that does not meet this minimum standard, will be sent back to the IRS with a recommendation that it be rewritten before it is sent to any taxpayer. Clear communications are essential for good customer service, and America's taxpayers deserve no less. Fair and Efficient Use of Technology The third part of my bill concerns the fair and efficient use of technology in our tax-administration system. With the continuing advances in technology, we have an enormous opportunity to make all taxpayers' lives easier. In fact, the IRS has already made good progress in this area with programs like TeleFile, which enables many taxpayers to file their tax returns through a brief telephone call. 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 comply with them. To prevent that result, my bill makes clear that expanded electronic filing of tax and information returns should be a goal, not a mandate imposed on American taxpayers. In addition, my bill ensures that in making electronic filing a reality, the IRS will involve representatives of all taxpayer groups-- individuals, small business, large companies, and the tax-preparation community--to ensure that electronic filing does not complicate everyone's lives in the name of modernization and simplification. Mr. President, the provisions of the Putting the Taxpayer First Act will make the IRS a better public servant and help restore confidence in our tax system. Taxpayers face enormous difficulties today just to comply with the tax law, and they have waited far too long for good service and fair treatment in a timely manner. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to include the provisions of this bill when they markup IRS-reform legislation next month. Our efforts must focus on putting the taxpayer first if we are to make positive and lasting changes to the IRS and not keep America's taxpayers waiting any longer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cochran, Snowe and Shelby be shown as original cosponsors. And I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a description of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I share the concerns of the Majority Leader regarding the shortcomings of the Section 404 program. In light of the recent and pending court cases, as well as the ongoing controversy over the scheduled demise in December of Nation Wide Permit 26, I agree strongly that Congress must address the Section 404 program legislatively. We should not continue to let the program bob and weave and stray in response to interpretations or policy preferences of each successive court decision or agency action. The law is unpredictable and it is not fair to the agencies administering the law or the landowners impacted by the law. Based on accounts of the oral arguments in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and subsequent conversations my staff has had with various officials, it appears very possible that the lower court decision on the ``Tulloch'' rule will be upheld. The ``Tulloch'' rule extends regulation under the Section 404 program to activities like ``drainage'' and ``excavation'' that harm wetlands. The lower court held that expanding the Section 404 program to cover these activities might be very good public policy, but the current statute does not cover these activities. Legislation expanding the program will be needed. In its successful attempt to obtain a stay of the lower court decision, the Federal government filed documents suggesting that the failure to regulate ``drainage'' and ``excavation'' would be an environmental catastrophe. Thus, if the Court of Appeals upholds the lower court decision, legislation will be necessary to cover these activities. My colleague from Louisiana and I have released a series of proposals in a ``discussion draft'' to encourage discussion of these difficult issues. One proposal in the draft would expand the activity regulated under Section 404 to include ``drainage'' and ``execution.'' This draft signals our commitment to engage in a constructive process with all parties to develop legislation that will stabilize the Section 404 program, expand the program to cover activities that are destructive to wetlands and make a number of common sense changes to the program that will make it more acceptable to private landowners on whose property 75% of these regulated areas are located. Senator Breaux and I released our discussion draft last summer. Time is growing short in this session of Congress, yet there is still time to act if there is a willingness of the various stakeholders to negotiate constructively and the will for us to legislate. I believe that I speak for my colleague from Louisiana when I pledge our cooperation in any reasonable process to develop Section 404 improvement legislation that will earn the support of a majority of our colleagues and will be good both for the environment and the regulated community. Mr. President, I agree with the Majority Leader. Twenty years without legislative attention is long enough for the Section 404 program. The time has arrived to tackle this difficult issue.