J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Likewise, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY. The Senator from Iowa and Senator Pryor were partners in developing that legislation. Did the two of you work together on the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights II?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, Senator Grassley not only was on the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, along with myself and Congressman Portman and Congressman Cardin on the House side, but long before I ever became interested in this issue, Senator Grassley, along with Senator Pryor--indeed, Senator Grassley may want to offer some historical reflections on this--has been involved with trying to change the law and put the law on the side of the taxpayers, to give them more rights. I believe, I say to the Senator, the first taxpayers' bill of rights legislation was enacted, was it 1994? I ask the Senator from Iowa, the first taxpayers' bill of rights--I know Taxpayers' Bill of Rights II was 1996.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This is an initiative that I have been involved with since my days as Governor of Nebraska from 1983 to 1987, and it is something I am proud to see come to fruition in the Senate. All of us understand that in today's global economy, this kind of legislation represents an important step in helping individual Americans achieve their shot at the American dream. One of the most satisfying efforts for me is to help, as a public official, some individual acquire the skills they need to earn a good wage so that they can support themselves and their families. Investments such as vocational education, job training, and adult education play a major role in this effort. But in order to be more effective, these programs need to be streamlined and coordinated in such a way that they work together to provide individuals the information and resources they need to be successful in a job market that demands an increasingly higher skill level. In 1994, along with Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, I introduced legislation to consolidate 91 job training programs into a single authorization called the Workforce Development Act. The bill also sought to reconnect job training, training-related education, and actual jobs. It also provided States greater flexibility in designing job training systems. Mr. President, I take great pleasure and am pleased that these concepts represented in this legislation are also incorporated into S. 1186. S. 1186 also encourages statewide partnerships consisting of the business community, the education community, the Governor, and local and State elected officials. A key responsibility in this partnership is the development of a State plan. The legislation also encourages one-stop customer service centers which will provide a central point of entry to job training programs. In the last few years in my State of Nebraska, Congress has increased its commitment to preparing individuals for the workforce. We have seen in our State an increase in Federal funding for job training of approximately $1.5 million since 1996; for vocational education, we have seen an increase of about $700,000; and for adult education, about $460,000. Mr. President, I would like to call this to the attention of my colleagues. I suspect, if they are like me, sometimes these program names get confusing, and I wonder whether or not they have any impact. In Nebraska, the $6.276 million allocation of Federal job training funds in 1997 provided 4,000 of my citizens with the skills they need to become more productive and to earn a higher living and satisfy the market demand, as the Senator from Vermont identified. There are many jobs out there that are unfilled simply because we cannot find people with skills. Mr. President, 4,000 of those jobs were filled; 4,000 of those people are happier. In addition, vocational and applied technology education grants assisted 70,000 secondary students and 47,800 post-secondary students who now have higher skills, a technical education they otherwise would not have had. They are going to get a shot at the American dream. They are going to be happier. They are going to be healthier. As I said, there are very few things that are more gratifying than having an individual say to you, ``Thank you for helping me get a shot at the American dream,'' and 17,340 adults in a single year were assisted in my State as a consequence of the $1.7 million in addition education. This is an investment with an excellent return. The legislation will not only help more individuals achieve the American dream but will also help our Nation become the best educated, most productive country in the world as we enter the 21st century. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act represents a good bipartisan effort to increase opportunities for American citizens. I look forward to seeing it move through Congress, and I congratulate and thank sincerely the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, and the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Senator Wellstone, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator DeWine. On behalf of the tens of thousands of Nebraskans who will receive the benefits of this program, I thank you. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Internal Revenue Service Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 will touch the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. More Americans pay taxes than vote. The perception of how our government treats us--its citizens--is rooted more in our contact with the IRS than with any other U.S. agency or entity. How we are treated by the IRS--and our tax laws--effects our perception of whether or not we believe we have a fair shot at the American Dream and whether or not we are a government of, by and for the people. During our deliberations this week, we must be mindful of Congress's complicity in allowing the IRS to become what it has become. The IRS is not Sears & Roebuck--we are its Board of Directors. We write the tax laws, we are responsible for the oversight and it was on our watch that the IRS became the mess we now try to clean up. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that Congress has changed the tax code 63 times since 1986, and these changes have created a tax code that costs the American taxpayers $75 billion a year to comply. We do so without considering the cost for the IRS to administer it, and without considering the cost for taxpayers to comply. If you doubt that we have made things difficult I challenge you to take a look at this year's Schedule D on capital gains and losses. A few years back Dave Barry noted that we were making progress in our mission to ``develop a tax form so scary that merely reading it will cause the ordinary taxpayer's brain to explode.'' He cited Schedule J, Form 118 ``Separate Limitation Loss Allocations and Other Adjustments Necessary to Determine Numerators of Limitation Fractions, Year-End Recharacterization Balances and Overall Foreign Loss Account Balances.'' If that is not complicated enough, I'd suggest he go back and take a look at this year's Schedule D. The American public knows that Congress plays a leading role in all of this. In a recent poll, 72 percent of Americans blamed Congress for the ills of the IRS, and not the IRS itself. According to a special Harris Poll conducted on April 15th, ``[t]ax evasion is believed by most people to be more widespread than harassment by the IRS.'' The poll also found that by a margin of 50 to 33 percent, Americans believe more people ``get away with not paying all the taxes they should'' than pay ``all their taxes and are unfairly harassed by the IRS.'' Willful noncompliance with our tax laws cost those of us who do comply an estimated $100 billion annually. IRS Commissioner Rossotti testified last week that taxpayer noncompliance costs the individual American taxpayer $1,600 annually. Today 85 percent of Americans comply with our tax laws willfully, without incident. If we do not adequately address the issue of noncompliance, we will be sending the wrong message. It is our responsibility to not only change the culture at the IRS so that those who do comply are treated fairly and with respect, but we must also change the law to allow Commissioner Rossotti the authority to make the changes he needs to and to provide the IRS with the proper resources to catch those who choose to break the law. I urge my colleagues to consider the overall importance of the bill before us this week. What we do will have a profound impact on the IRS, how Congress writes tax law and how Americans perceive this body and our government. Let us move forward, swiftly and in a cooperative manner, and give the IRS the overhaul it needs, provide the congressional oversight that is required, the IRS Commissioner the statutory authority he lacks, and the taxpayers the relief they deserve. Mr. President, I know from the hearings in the Finance Committee held by the distinguished chairman, Senator Roth, last September, and over the last several weeks--very, very needed and very, very worthwhile oversight hearings--that among other things which were focused on in those hearings were the actions taken by the Criminal Investigation Division. I know that there were an awful lot of citizens--in fact, every single member of the Finance Committee--who were outraged listening to some of the stories told about how the strong arm of the law was used to go after not necessarily innocent but certainly taxpayers that were not a threat to the life and limb of their neighbors. There was a substantial amount of force used in all of the cases. I don't pass judgment as to whether or not the IRS was right in the claim itself. But there is no question that there are times when the IRS uses more force than is necessary to carry out its function under the Criminal Investigative Division. We hope that the changes in our law and instructions to Commissioner Rossotti will enable us to reduce and eliminate that kind of excessive use of force. Mr. Rossotti himself has indicated that he is going to ask former FBI Director William Webster to evaluate the Criminal Investigation Division and come up with a set of protocols that will enable them to eliminate the times when they use unnecessary force to enforce the law. Let me caution Members who are outraged to be careful when they come and propose amendments to that particular section of this law. The caution needs to be based upon our desire, I hope, to keep the streets safe for Americans. It is my judgment that mission No. 1 for a government is to protect its citizens. We don't have public safety if we do not have citizens feeling safe when they are walking the streets, or when they are engaging in commercial transactions. If that doesn't occur, we have anarchy, and citizens not only are going to be quite concerned but they are apt to throw all of us out of office. All of us know that a combination of events has reduced crime across the Nation. Americans like that. They want to feel safe. They don't want to feel they are at risk, having people preying on them for a variety of reasons. The IRS is an important part of our effort to get that done. All Members who are concerned about the Criminal Investigation Division and who may have some changes they want to make in that division, I am likely to support those if it will reduce the incidents of force being used against citizens who pose no threat but will oppose those that I fear will make it easier for drug dealers, money launderers, and other sorts of criminals who are preying on the American people. If Members come to the floor and want to weaken the capacity of the Criminal Investigation Division to keep Americans safe, I will introduce into the Record, as I did in the hearings, 14 examples, and more if necessary, to show this body what the Criminal Investigation Division is doing to keep Americans safe. If there is somebody out in America who is a drug dealer or a money launderer, they don't have on their forehead ``drug dealer'' or ``money launderer.'' They are apt to look normal. One of the things we very often fail to do is get both sides of the story when we hear stories of abuse. I could bring every single person who is in Nebraska's prison system in front of any committee here in Washington, DC, and every single one of them will tell you the government abused their rights. There is nobody who is guilty in our prisons. They are all innocent. They are all abused by the government in some way, shape or form. So let's be careful as we evaluate the Criminal Investigation Division. We have Mr. Webster who has been assigned by Mr. Rossotti to examine their procedure and protocol, but let's be careful that we don't change the law to make it easier for people to prey on Americans to get their job done. All of us understand there is an amendment to the Constitution, the fourth amendment, that provides us protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. I am encouraged that many who have been silent on this protection that is guaranteed to all citizens are now starting to understand that it can be a substantial problem to infringe upon that fourth amendment right. But if a law enforcement entity has probable cause and gets an arrest warrant as a consequence of having probable cause that somebody is violating the law--a drug dealer, money launderer, and so forth--again, walk down the street. These people don't stand out for you and say, well, there's somebody who is a threat to our society. If they have probable cause, if they believe it is necessary to get a search warrant, they don't call that person up and say, hey, Jim, next Wednesday I am going to be over to get the evidence, because they know that unless they have the element of surprise, the evidence is going to be destroyed. I believe the legislation before the body today, the variety of things that are being done, will substantially improve the operation of the IRS and will give the American people better service, will shift more power to the taxpayer. In title I, there is a section I may end up reading on this floor. I am a cosponsor of the bill. It was originally introduced by John Breaux. The Taxpayer Advocate will be much more independent, have much more power, and I guarantee you that the taxpayers will know the independence that the Taxpayer Advocate has; that he will be required annually to come to us and say, here are provisions of the Tax Code that are causing the IRS special problems. These are problems and difficulties that we are facing as a result of the laws that you all pass and make recommendations for changing those laws. So that, again, the goal ought to be to write the law so that the IRS presumes all Americans are law-abiding citizens willing to voluntarily comply. They just want to know the size of their tax bill so they can pay it but reserve the authority and power of the IRS to go after individuals who either intentionally do not want to comply or, worse, are criminals who are preying on innocent Americans in a variety of different ways. I hope during the deliberations we will have a constructive debate. I know we are waiting for the caucuses to find out what Members are going to do with both nongermane amendments as well as germane amendments that could kill the bill. I say, again, the importance of this cannot be overstated. The citizens' confidence in Government of, by, and for the people is at stake. We now have a declining number of Americans who believe the IRS is getting the job done. It is one of the least popular agencies at the Federal level. We have a significant role in creating that unpopularity because we wrote the law to begin with. The law that governs the IRS has not been rewritten since 1952. It is long since passed the time it was necessary to rewrite those laws. I thank Senators Roth, Moynihan, Grassley, Congressman Portman, Congressman Cardin, and many others who have been involved in this from the very beginning. It started way back in 1995 when Senator Shelby, the distinguished manager, and I were managing an appropriations bill. We had attempted to fence an appropriation dealing with tax systems modernization in 1994. It failed. We got it fenced in 1995. We didn't believe it was enough. We saw the taxpayer money being wasted. We created in the appropriations bill the National Commission for Restructuring the IRS. That Commission deliberated with Congressman Portman and 16 other people for well over a year. Senator Roth, last year, picked the ball up and had wonderful oversight hearings, and did so again this year. It is time to get the bill passed. The House bill passed 426 to 4 last September. The bill that is before us today is a substantial improvement over that bill in what the House has done. I say on behalf of 200 million Americans who pay their taxes every single year, let's get this thing done as quickly as possible so they can have these new powers that they will have under the law and so the IRS Commissioner has the power and authority he needs to manage this agency. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Louisiana. I have done it a couple of times previously. I was pleased to be able to cosponsor his legislation having to do with strengthening the Taxpayer Advocate in this bill. If we can keep the nongermane amendments off and stick to the business of changing the law to give the taxpayers this new authority and power with this one provision, the Taxpayer Advocate, it will be noticed immediately. This Taxpayer Advocate will be truly independent, with separate phone numbers, separate faxes, a separate operation, with the capacity to organize taxpayer advocates in each of the 50 States, to operate independently, not only settling problems that taxpayers have but bringing to Congress' attention repetitive problems that they identify that they think need to be solved by us either changing the law or changing some other procedures. We have had the Taxpayer Advocate created before under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, when it was created. The change from Taxpayer Advocate to National Taxpayer Advocate is not by accident. I hope colleagues have a chance to look at this particular section of the bill as they consider how we are going to proceed this week. Look at the language in this particular section and ask yourself the question: Do I want to give the taxpayers in my State this kind of Taxpayer Advocate, this kind of power, this kind of representation? Do I think that they will appreciate the changes they will see in the way IRS operates and the kind of service they get from that IRS? I think Senators will look at that and say, ``My gosh, I don't want to slow this bill down. We need to get this thing done. We have waited long enough. We need to get this bill done so these new powers can be felt by the taxpayers in my State.'' Again, I appreciate very much what the Senator from Louisiana has done. This is one of the most important sections of this bill. It is not in the House bill. Senator Roth, the chairman of our committee, talked many times about the need to make certain we took the House bill and made it as strong as we could. I was constantly pressing that we move in an expeditious fashion. This is one of several examples where the House bill has been substantially improved. I hope colleagues, as they look at this bill, will remember we are trying to give the taxpayers in all the States in this Nation new power, new authority, and an IRS that will much better serve their needs in a much more courteous and expeditious fashion. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming for his excellent statement about the need for this legislation. All of us involved in this over the years, including the distinguished chairman, hope the debate that we are having will be constructive and lead to enactment and passage by this body as quickly as possible after conference with the House and the signature of the President for substantial new powers, and the reason to believe that this change in the law will improve the quality of service that every single American taxpayer gets, and cause all of us to want to make certain that this bill passes as quickly as possible. Mr. President, the legislation we begin debate on today--the Internal Revenue Service Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998--will touch the lives of every taxpaying American. The law which authorizes the federal agency known as the IRS to collect taxes affects more Americans than any other. Before I discuss what is in this legislation I must offer praise to several who have played key roles in developing the bill before us today. First among them is Senator Bill Roth, Chairman of the Senate's Finance Committee. Chairman Roth's enthusiasm for protecting American taxpayers who fear this agency, his desire to make certain the Commissioner of this agency has the statutory authority to manage it, and his willingness to accommodate the ideas of all members of his committee made it possible to produce a unanimous vote of support. Likewise, Senator Moynihan, our ranking member stood steadfastly with our Chairman to make certain our rhetorical excesses did not lead to changes in the law which would have the perverse effect of increasing the tax burden on law abiding Americans who experience no difficulty with the IRS. One of the most difficult judgments we have to make is to separate the legitimate and constructive complaint from those who simply do not want to pay their taxes. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: ``Injustice is not so difficult to bear as people say; it is justice that is difficult to bear.'' In addition I want to thank Senator Richard Shelby, Chairman of the Treasury Postal Subcommittee of the Senate's Appropriations Committee. His support in 1995 for the creation of the National Commission of Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service--along with Congressmen Jim Ross Lightfoot and Steny Hoyer--was in response to the IRS having wasted $4 billion of taxpayers' money on a failed investment known as Tax Systems Modernization. Mr. President, I also want to praise the work done by Congressman Rob Portman, who was my co-chair of the National Commission. Congressman Portman and I became partners in this year long effort during which we received extensive input from American taxpayers and experts on the IRS and tax system, holding 12 days of public hearings and spending hundreds of hours in private sessions with public and private sector experts, academics, and citizen's groups to review IRS operations and services. In addition to holding three field hearings in Cincinnati, Omaha, and Des Moines, the Commission met privately with over 500 individuals, including senior level and front-line IRS employees across the country. Mr. President, let me also congratulate the men and women who served on the National Commission beginning with Senator Grassley and Congressman Ben Cardin who cosponsored the House legislation. Together, we worked hard to ensure this effort remained bipartisan and bicameral. Restructuring this agency so that taxpayer satisfaction becomes paramount at the new IRS by making certain this agency initiates contact with a taxpayer only if the agency is prepared to devote the resources necessary for a proper and timely resolution of the matter is not a partisan issue. Americans of all political persuasions are demanding we change this law. Finally, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin and President Clinton. While our early disagreements about governance were getting public attention, Secretary Rubin was making substantial changes in the operation of IRS in response to the National Commission's work. Most notable was the decision to break with precedent and nominate a person with business and management experience to be the IRS Commissioner, Mr. Charles Rossotti. The last time this law was changed was in 1952 in response to the problem of widespread fraud and allegations of bribery. This time a key reason for taxpayer frustration with the IRS is the lack of appropriate attention to taxpayer needs especially when compared with service from comparable private sector financial institutions. To increase customer service without causing a deterioration in the IRS's ability to collect the taxes Congress has directed the agency to collect is not as simple as it appears. Multiple changes are needed. The key areas where this legislation makes changes are in executive branch governance and management of the IRS, Congressional oversight of the IRS, personnel flexibilities, customer service and compliance, technology modernization, electronic filing, tax law simplification, taxpayer rights and financial accountability. Each add to a whole which I believe will be noted by taxpayers as improving the service they receive and reducing the abuses they report. As we debate this legislation remember that the IRS collects 95% of the tax revenue this Congress uses to pay for spending this Congress has authorized. Last year we appropriated $7 billion to the IRS to collect $1.6 billion. This represents less than half of one percent of total revenues and makes the U.S. Tax collection agency the most efficient amongst all our industrial competitors. We would not be debating this bill if we believed that we could not do better, but it is useful to understand the challenges presented to the IRS and to give this agency credit for the successes it has achieved. Mr. President, it is also useful to remember that a majority of Americans (including those who testified before the National Commission) believe that when it comes time to apportion blame, Congress is more at fault than the IRS. And, given our enthusiasm for constantly changing the tax code and inconsistent oversight, the American people have figured this one out right. The just passed Education IRA bill for K-12 expenses, would be the 64th tax law added to the books since 1986 and will add significantly to the nearly $75 billion spent annually by taxpayers in an effort to comply with the tax code. It is also an example of how Congress passes tax law without considering the cost of administering this new tax law and its real impact on the American taxpayers it is supposed to help. The prospects are dizzying. I am not on the floor to argue the merits of this legislation, but I would like to discuss instead the facts of its results. This legislation allows for tax-free withdrawals from education accounts for room and board, uniforms, transportation expenses, or supplementary items or services, but only if these things are required or provided by the school. So this new law will not only require families to have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the law before they take their money out but will require the IRS to become even more invasive in their efforts to make certain that parents can justify their expenditures with detailed records. Anyone who expresses surprise that the IRS will be asking taxpayers to submit busfare receipts and clothing bills with their tax returns is not paying attention to the connection between the tax law and the actions of the IRS. And the confusion does not end there, because when the bill sunsets in 2002, we will have established three separate rules governing education savings accounts. This year, we have education savings accounts that can be used for higher education but not K through 12. Next year and through the year 2002, we have different rules which allow tax-free withdrawals from these accounts. After 2003, K through 12 withdrawals could be made, but only from the contributions and earnings from 1999 and 2002. So how will the taxpayers know what they are to take out is tax free? How will the IRS know and how will the IRS attempt to explain these new rules to taxpayers, and who will understand them? Indeed, will anybody understand them? But that is the challenge the IRS will face. We pass a law; they have to write the changes in the code; they have to disseminate those changes to the taxpayer; and then they have to judge whether or not the taxpayer is abiding by the new rules and abiding by the new code as written, as dictated by changes in the law that we have just passed. There are no shortages of examples of actions taken by Congress to change our tax laws that result in increased burdens on the American taxpayers coupled--and I say it again. It isn't just an increased burden on the taxpayer, but every change we make in the tax law says to the IRS: We want you to invade even more and find out more of what the American people are doing before you allow this tax break to occur. I urge citizens, if they are in doubt--we have the bill itself. That is what we are debating, a change in the law--Title VI of this law, this bill before us today, is called Technical Corrections. Now, most of these technical corrections are to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. And lest anybody think I am down here taking a shot at someone who voted for it, I voted for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. With an interest in saying that we balance our budget, I voted for the bill. But all the provisions and technical corrections are technical corrections as a consequence of confusion in the law, and that confusion increases the burden on the taxpayer, increases their requirement to go to accountants to figure out what the Tax Code is, and increases the likelihood when there is a dispute between the IRS and the taxpayer, the taxpayer is going to come to us with a complaint about the invasive nature of the IRS. I urge citizens to read what is called ``Explanation of Provision'' in the Finance Committee report, the much smaller document that is available to citizens as they follow this debate, especially those who are staff of Members on the floor. Read the ``Explanation of Provision.'' You get an understanding of the difficulty that the American people are having and why they are right to conclude that, in spite of our rhetoric, we have created many of the problems they experience with the IRS. Now, Mr. President, I would like to go briefly through the provisions of this proposed new law to make the point that Congress has finally got the message from the American people. With the enactment of this legislation, we will make dealing with the IRS much easier than it has been in the past. The first of the four titles is the most relevant. Title I, Mr. President, deals with executive branch governance and management of the IRS. In addition to directing the IRS to revise its mission statement to provide greater emphasis on serving the public and meeting the needs of taxpayers, there are five major changes in this title that deserve attention. First, the IRS Commissioner would be directed under law to restructure the IRS by eliminating or substantially modifying the present law three-tier geographic area structure and replacing it with an organizational structure that features operating units serving four groups of taxpayers with similar needs. Mr. President, this three-tier structure was created in 1952, and what the Commissioner has proposed to do is follow the lead, the recommendation, of the Restructuring Commission to organize by four functional categories--that is to say, individual taxpayers, small businesses, large businesses, and the tax-exempt sector. Under this structure, each unit will be charged with end-to-end responsibility for serving a particular group of taxpayers. Today, each of the 33 district offices and then 10 service centers are required to deal with every kind of taxpayer and every type of issue. The proposed plan would enable IRS personnel to understand the needs and problems affecting and protecting groups of taxpayers and better address those issues. I am going to digress a bit and talk about an amendment that is going to come before this floor to knock out a provision that would have on the nine-member oversight board a member of the Treasury Employees Union or someone who represents a large number of employees. This provision is why there needs to be a Treasury employee representative on there. This will require significant personnel changes. This is not an easy thing for the Commissioner to do. We, I think, are quite correct in putting in statute that we want him to do that, that we direct him to either eliminate or substantially eliminate this three- tier system. But this will require significant personnel structuring. I believe we need to have that representative on the inside of the tent when these decisions are made. It is much more likely that a satisfactory result will occur. So my colleagues will understand, both Congressman Portman and I support this. And support for the idea came from a number of other people who have gone through this, most notable of which is Australia. When they restructured their tax collection agency, they found lots of personnel issues that were surfacing, and they made the decision early on. They testified that it was a sound decision to put that employee representative on the governing board.

Mr. KERREY. Yes.

Mr. KERREY. I appreciate it. I thank the Senator. The present-law structure impedes continuity and accountability. I emphasize this. This is one of the big complaints to the Restructuring Commission and the hearings that Senator Roth had. We heard repeatedly from taxpayers that they just didn't know what was going on; something would start and stop. They did not get continuity and accountability under present law. For example, if a taxpayer moves--let's say a taxpayer decides that they would rather live in Omaha, NE, than Portland, OR--a logical move, it seems to me. They decide they want to go from Oregon to Nebraska. Responsibility for the taxpayer's account would move to another geographical area. It would transfer to the Nebraska area. Every taxpayer is served by a service center in at least one district. So in addition to the new service area, there is a new service center. Thus, many taxpayers have to work with different offices on the same issue. Thus, again, they fail to provide the continuity. They fail to provide the accountability that everybody expects when they are dealing with any private sector organization. The proposed structure would eliminate many of these problems. Not only would this proposed structure eliminate that problem, but it is much more likely the Commissioner is going to be able to come to us with some real exciting changes. For example, by putting all small businesses together, I believe it is likely--every other tax commissioner that talked to us about this said that its likely the Commissioner will come and say, We have got 35, 40, maybe 50 percent of our small businesses that are paying no taxes but they are spending $1 billion or so, they are spending a lot of money, complying. We can reduce the cost of compliance without reducing the amount of money coming in to us by simply exempting a significant number of people. Likewise, if there is a huge difference between the problems faced in collecting taxes from individuals, most of whom have withholding accounts--and 99 percent of the American people who have withholding comply with the Tax Code. They are the easiest to collect taxes from. They are just trying to figure out what the amount is so they can get it paid in an expeditious fashion to factor it into the family budget. Whereas a large business, $600,000 to $1 million or more, they have a complicated set of circumstances, much more labor intensive, much more likely to have accountants and lawyers, and so forth, working with them. What the Commissioner is proposing to do is get rid of this three- tiered structure, and what we have done with this legislation is incorporate it into law. Let me say the chairman and I have had many disagreements about the timing of this thing. The Senate has made substantial improvements to its bill, and this is one of them. This is an area where we have substantially improved what the House passed by incorporating the recommendation of the Restructuring Commission to knock out this three-tiered system and go to a functionalized system. I predict that for small business, large business, as well as nonprofit, they are going to find a big improvement in the way they get services from the IRS. I think we are going to find happier customers and we are going to find ourselves with an IRS that costs even less on a unit basis than it currently does. (Ms. COLLINS assumed the Chair.) Another major change made by this law, Madam President, is the creation of a new executive branch oversight board. This bill sets up a nine-member, public-private board to oversee the IRS in the ``administration, management, conduct, direction and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.'' There are some specific references to what is not covered in this legislation, what this board would not be doing. It is not expected to be micromanaging. It will not be given information about taxpayers' returns, except in unusual circumstances where they need to know. They are not going to be involved in procurement. They are not going to be involved in personnel issues. There are lots of things that are specifically excluded. They are going to be subject to all the conflict-of-interest laws that any executive branch appointment would be. All these things have been laid out in the legislation and are worth reviewing by Members who are wondering how this new oversight board is going to operate. Specifically, Madam President, the board will review and approve strategic plans for the IRS, review the operational functions of the IRS--including plans for tax administration systems modernization, review and approve major reorganizations and review operations of the IRS to ensure the proper treatment of taxpayers. Madam President, we tried to avoid what I think is a common mistake when creating boards like this, and that is to specify precisely what each member has to be in order to be nominated. What we did was we set out a half a dozen or so different areas that we think are important, different knowledge bases that we think are important in order for this board to be able to do its job, and we give the President a substantial amount of authority to make those decisions. We stagger the appointment terms so that eventually you get to a point where everybody is on a 5- year term. They can be extended for 5 years. We stagger the Chair as well. I think we have created an administrative structure that will dramatically increase the accountability and will make it much easier for us in Congress to do good oversight of the IRS. This title I also, Madam President, establishes a 5-year term for the Commissioner of the IRS. That has been discussed before. We need increased continuity. Both the Commissioner and the Assistant Treasury Secretary, who has principal first line authority over the Commissioner, have, over the last 10 years, been on the job somewhere like an average of 2 or 3 years. This presents serious continuity problems. We establish a 5-year term for the Commissioner and we require the Commissioner to have demonstrated ability in management. This title also gives the Commissioner a great amount of flexibility in hiring those persons necessary to administer and enforce the Nation's tax laws. Another important part of title I is the way that this title beefs up and makes more independent, the taxpayer advocate. Later, if the floor is vacated, I may come down here, I may stand here and read the various provisions in this part of title I. Colleagues need to understand that this taxpayer advocate is going to be completely different than the current taxpayer advocate. The bill gives the IRS oversight board input into the selection of the taxpayer advocate. It limits prior and future employment of the advocate with the IRS, and gives the advocate broad discretion to provide relief with regard to taxpayers. It provides a problem resolution system with local taxpayer advocates who report directly to the national taxpayer advocate. Currently, we have a thing called a taxpayer advocate. We are going to have a national taxpayer advocate and I guarantee every single Member is going to find that this taxpayer advocate provides a much different kind of service, much more independent service than with what we are currently dealing. The advocate is required to report to Congress on a variety of compliance problems, identify those repetitive problems that may be there as a result of the code, may be there as a result of the law. This is a very, very powerful new position, Madam President. I thank Senator Breaux of Louisiana. He is the principal author of this change. I would put it second on the list of things that the Senate changed in the House bill that are substantial improvements. My guess is Congressman Portman and the others on the House side, Chairman Archer, will accept these changes. Senator Breaux made it a point to figure out how to better help taxpayers with a complaint about their treatment by the IRS. This section is a substantial improvement. Another improvement was made by the chairman, which establishes a new, independent Treasury inspector general for tax administration within the Department of Treasury. Currently, we have two. We have an inspection division in the IRS; we have an IG over Treasury. We still have an IG at Treasury under this new law, but we move the IG for tax administration over to Treasury. We leave the audit function in the IRS. There will be two IGs. The IG for Treasury will be responsible for Treasury items and the tax administration IG will be responsible for the IRS. It is a big improvement over the current status quo. We have had difficulty finding out who is responsible, going to point the finger back and forth as to who had the authority. This makes it clear who does and who does not have the authority for doing IG reports and investigations of the Internal Revenue Service. As the committee report notes, Madam President, this will give the IRS Office of the Chief Inspector ``sufficient structural and actual autonomy from the agency it is charged with monitoring and overseeing.'' That is the goal. It is the hope of the chairman, and indeed the hope of the entire committee, this provision will improve the quality as well as the credibility of IRS oversight. Madam President, in title II we deal with an arcane issue that I consider to be quite important, and that is the issue of electronic filing, where the potential for increasing efficiency and decreasing complaints is substantial. Indeed, I envision the IRS in this legislation being the first of a long line of Government agencies migrating from the old world of paper transactions to the new world of electronic commerce. Indeed, my vision also includes the law enabling the Commissioner to establish rules and regulations so the private sector has a substantial opportunity to compete for businesses from the customers who it is already handling. We had some very exciting testimony in this regard from the IRS in the National Restructuring Commission about what the private sector is doing already to try to help taxpayers reduce the cost to comply with the tax law. It is very important to point out that for most American taxpayers, if not all American taxpayers, the largest bill they pay every year is their tax bill. It is important for them to understand what that tax bill is and to get it paid for in an efficient fashion in order for them to do financial planning for their families. I hope that this electronic filing provision, by stating the goal of promotion of electronic filing and setting a long-range goal of 80 percent of all tax returns by the year 2007, will make it more likely that taxpayers, as they migrate to this electronic field of commerce, will have lower costs and an easier time of complying. Title III is a portion that has been given a lot of attention. As I said at the beginning, there are lots of parts to this overall whole. There is no question that taxpayer rights are important. Senator Grassley and Senator Pryor, while he was still in the Senate, were sort of alternating chair and ranking members of the Subcommittee on Finance that dealt with a piece of legislation called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights I, Taxpayer Bill of Rights II. This is effectively Taxpayer Bill of Rights III. Also, I want to call attention to the fact that for an entire year, Congressman Portman, who was my cochair of this Commission, steadily made me a convert of the need to extend additional powers to taxpayers. There are lots of them in this title III. The goal of this change in the law is to reach a point where all taxpayers are presumed to be law-abiding citizens who just want to know the amount of their tax so they can pay, rather than presuming that all taxpayers are criminals or cheats. But the goal is also to preserve the important law enforcement functions of reducing the threat of drugs, money laundering, and fraudulent commercial transactions. None of us want to change the law and then find out 2 years later that we made it easier for drug dealers, money launderers, and commercial cheats out there to do business as a result of decreasing the power of the criminal investigation division of the IRS. We must also make certain that the IRS has the authority and the resources to go after those citizens who intentionally avoid paying taxes. We need to make certain the IRS has the full force of law to leverage against them. Madam President, there are seven provisions in title III that are worthy of comment at this time. First is the burden of proof. Once a dispute reaches Tax Court under this new law, the burden of proof in a civil case shifts from the taxpayer to the IRS. There are a lot of concerns expressed about this from the standpoint of actually increasing the cost to complying taxpayers. We have limited the opportunity for this shift. I think it is a responsible provision in the legislation, and I am hopeful it will be retained as is. Second, the bill increases the leverage of taxpayers in civil proceedings by expanding the authority to award costs and certain fees and increasing potential civil damages for collection actions. A lot of people on the administration side, not this administration but who administer tax law, were concerned about this provision. I think it is a terribly important provision if we are going to try to get to a point where, when collection notices are send out, the IRS knows with certainty they are going to be able to devote enough resources to be able to get the collection, because very often what happens is they send a collection notice out, start an action, and then they don't have enough resources, they stop, it drags on for years and years and years, and that is where you end up with taxpayers spending an enormous amount of money trying to comply with something the IRS, at the end of the day, finds out they didn't think was much of a case anyway. This will, I think, create a healthy amount of constraint on the IRS from sending collection notices out knowing there is an expanded right of action and expanded right, as well, to collect civil damages if negligence can be proved. Third, the bill provides significant relief for what are known as ``innocent spouses'' and for taxpayers who are unable to manage their financial affairs because of disabilities. Fourth, the bill gives the taxpayer new protections against the piling on of interest and penalties. Fifth, title III contains protections for taxpayers subject to audit or collection activities. Sixth, this title requires better disclosures to taxpayers. One of the most important things we heard repetitively was that the taxpayer simply didn't know what the case was, didn't understand what was going on. This requires the IRS to make full disclosure so that the taxpayer can better accommodate the needs of the IRS. Seventh, the bill authorizes establishment of low-income taxpayer clinics. This is very important. There are an awful lot of Americans who simply don't have the resources to either hire a private sector individual or to do it themselves. They are confused about it. Our law ought to always be written so that everybody has a shot at the American dream, and they should not be precluded from achieving that American dream because they don't have enough resources to understand how the IRS works. Title IV of this legislation deals with congressional accountability. Most of the changes which the Senate Finance Committee has made in the House bill have made the legislation better. I indicated several of them already. However, I don't believe title IV represents an improvement over the House bill. The goal of congressional oversight must be to overcome two substantial barriers that the Restructuring Commission found. Barrier No. 1 is that the IRS has 535 members of its board of directors, many of whom don't know what the IRS does or what the budget is. It is easy to complain about what the IRS does, but the IRS gets inconsistent signals--we want you to go out and collect the taxes; we don't want you to be too aggressive; we want you to be more aggressive, less aggressive; Congress changes, new Members come on board with new ideas, and it is inconsistent oversight that comes as a consequence of all these kind of changes. The second barrier is that the Commissioner, now required to have management expertise, when he or she comes to Congress with their plan of what they want to do, they have to go to six different oversight committees--three in the Senate and three in the House. What the Commission found repeatedly--again, remember, we started this whole thing with Senator Shelby and I saying $4 billion wasted on tax system modernization is a call for action. One of the things we heard both from public sector and private sector people is that if you can't get shared consensus about where it is you want to go with technology--as the man said, any road is likely to take you there--you are apt then, as a consequence, to make mistakes. It is this increased activity from all the different congressional oversight committees that may have good intentions but also may make it difficult for us to achieve consensus. We recommended in our bill and the House-passed bill that some kind of super-oversight occur on a biennial basis with these consolidated committees. It may be the Finance Committee can simply change its internal rules. I made a recommendation last week in the Finance Committee. It may be there is some way we can deal with that. But let's not pass a bill which restructures the executive branch and then doesn't restructure anything we do. Remember, if you ask the American people who the problem is, 70 percent say it is Congress. We write the laws and determine what kind of oversight IRS gets, and one of the problems is inconsistent oversight. My hope is we can take a look at title IV and look for ways to strengthen the congressional oversight. There is a tax complexity analysis in title IV which I consider to be terribly important. I cited earlier the example of the education IRA. There was no discussion of the impact upon the taxpayers, no discussion of complexity analysis, no attempt to measure whether or not the IRS is going to be more invasive or less invasive. There was no cost analysis done at all. The Commissioner is not at the table when the tax laws are written. Under this new law, the Commissioner will be empowered to comment. It could be the President stands up and has some new tax law idea--HOPE scholarships, for example. It could be ``Senator Blowhard'' giving a speech about some new idea that he or she has. Whoever it is who has some change in the Tax Code, typically it is designed to give an audience some sense of, we are doing something without spending any money. We have to be very careful that we don't, in the process of doing something that is earning a round of applause, do something that will increase the cost to the taxpayer to comply, as well, Madam President, as increasing the invasiveness of the IRS. I appreciate very much there is a tax complexity analysis and the Commissioner is given new authorities to comment on tax bills, but I believe we can go a bit further in increasing the oversight and the accountability of the Congress. In title VI, as I said, these are mostly what are called technical corrections, but it is a real window into this problem of tax complexity. I don't know what the vote was--maybe the Senator from Minnesota remembers--but there was a big vote on the Balanced Budget Act, with 80 votes. I voted for it. We passed this thing, issued press releases, ``The budget is balanced.'' Most of these technical corrections in title IV deal with the complexity that we created and the confusion that we created. It is an effort to clarify what we tried to do last fall. I want to point out that the members of the Finance Committee and the staff of the Finance Committee, both on the majority and minority side, have scrubbed this section very carefully to ensure that all the provisions in this title are appropriate and relatively noncontroversial. We have not added new loopholes or some new, special provision. These are only technical corrections that clarify what we intended to do mostly, as I said, in 1997. In brief, these are the provisions of the bill that we are considering today. I no doubt will have plenty of opportunity to come down again and describe some further detail that is in this proposed law. I will end as I began, by praising the outstanding leadership and work of Senators Roth and Moynihan as well as the longstanding work on taxpayers' rights performed by Senator Grassley. With the 426-to-4 vote last fall by the House of Representatives and the support of President Clinton, we should be able to change the law and achieve our objective of giving the American people an IRS that is more user friendly and customer oriented. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Resolution of Ratification currently pending before the Senate. I do so with less enthusiasm than I wished, and more doubts than I prefer. I will vote yes because Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary will strengthen NATO's resolve and improve the chances that a post-Cold War NATO will be the same stabilizing force for peace it has been for the past half-century. I will vote yes because the requirements for NATO membership, such as civilian control of the military and democratic rule, especially domestic laws that protect minority rights, make it more likely that external conflicts are resolved peacefully. I will vote yes because the benefits of doing so appear, on balance, to outweigh the potential liabilities. My vote of support is also based on my belief that denying the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland entry after their expectations have been raised so high would do more harm than good. Further, I believe these three countries - on account of their passionate understanding of what life is like under the iron fist of a dictator--will stiffen the resolve of NATO to be a force for peace. NATO has no will to fight unless consensus can be achieved amongst all members, and it is the will to fight which will do the most good in deterring future military conflicts. Too often during this debate I have heard the argument of some advocates who presume enlargement as a necessary insurance policy against the risk of Russia becoming an expansionist military threat again. These proponents often speak as if the circumstances of 1998 closely resembled those in Europe when NATO was created. This vision is flawed. It is flawed because it misrepresents the comparative conditions of 1949 and 1998. It results in the subordination of other more important foreign policy goals such as assisting the Russian transition to democracy, reducing nuclear weapons, and confronting the threat posed by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to the less important task of adding three new members to a Cold War military alliance. Consider what President Truman and Congress faced in the wake of the Second World War. In 1949, when they led America into the North Atlantic Alliance, only thirty years separated them from the end of the Great War, the war which was supposed to end all wars. Only twenty years had separated the end of this terrible war and the beginning of the next. Twenty years. Imagine what our attitudes would be if a war as savage and futile as World War I had been concluded on November 11, 1968, and then in 1988, the enemy we had vanquished rose to the attack again. Both those wars were within memory's reach of President Truman and the Congress on April 4, 1949 when the Washington Treaty was signed. Europe lay in ruins. Their economies had been destroyed. Food and medical supplies were in short supply. Political uncertainty and instability were the order of the day. The Red Army was threatening in the east and their belligerence well established by the Communist coup d'etat in Prague in February 1948 and the Berlin Blockade which began in June 1948. All of this combined to justify the creation of a powerful military alliance. It is worth noting that even with these factors, NATO at first had no military structure. Only after the Korean War began in June 1950, did the idea of a worldwide communist offensive gain credibility. This led to the establishment of a NATO military force, the major element of which is the Allied Command Europe. In December 1950, General Dwight Eisenhower was appointed the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). The command's headquarters--the Supreme Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) - was located in Brussels. President Truman was 65 years old in April 1949 when the Washington Treaty was signed. But certainly he must have remembered the day in mid-January 1919 when he was bivouacked near Verdun, France awaiting the demobilization orders needed before he could go home. In Paris, U.S. President Wilson, English Prime Minister Lloyd George, and French President Clemenceau had begun their discussions of terms and conditions for peace. In a letter to his fiance, Bess Wallace, Truman had written: It's my opinion we'll stay until uncle Woodie gets his pet peace plans refused or okayed. For my part, and I'm sure every A.E.F. (American Expeditionary Force) man feels the same way, I don't give a whoop (to put it mildly) whether there's a League of Nations or whether Russia has a Red government or a Purple one, and if the President of the Czecho-Slovaks wants to pry the throne out from under the King of Bohemia, let him pry, but send us home . . . For my part I've had enough vin rouge and frog-eater victuals to last me a lifetime. Mr. President, in our modern age of see and invade-all journalism, this letter would probably have surfaced to embarrass Truman when he entered national politics a decade later. However, it is also likely that cameras manned by brave men and women would have broadcast 1919 street scenes of Berlin, Moscow, Paris, Warsaw, Budapest, Vienna, and Prague. I believe these scenes would have made Americans less anxious to withdraw from the devastating instability of starvation, demobilized and poorly led Armies, and the sudden collapse of the old order of the Kaiser, the Romanovs, Hapsburgs, and Ottomans. Yet only thirty years after he wrote this letter, Lieutenant Truman had become President Truman, and he faced a world that looked not all that different from 1919. As he considered what policy would guarantee the peace after 50 million lives had been lost in the Second World War, he saw a Europe as devastated as it had been in the First. He saw a threatening Soviet Union in the east. Withdrawal, pacifism, and demilitarization were the failed policies of the 1920's and 1930's. Political engagement and military strength were logical and correct alternatives. Forty years later, as communism collapsed and our former enemies embraced democracy, Truman's vision and path was vindicated. Mr. President, too many proponents of expansion have tried to cast this vote as a vote about our future engagement in the world. I am not persuaded by the preposterous either/or arguments used by these proponents. You are either for NATO expansion or you are for repeating the mistake we have made twice in this century to withdraw from Europe. You are either for NATO expansion or you are for appeasing the Russians. You are either for NATO expansion or you are for allowing instability to reign supreme on the European continent. What nonsense. If NATO were to disappear tomorrow--as it almost did by refusing to become engaged in Bosnia--America would not withdraw from Europe. We are becoming more and more connected through travel, trade, and telecommunications. Any comparison of the political, economic, and social conditions of 1998 and 1919, or 1998 and the 1930's should be greeted with raised eyebrows and laughter. Mr. President, many times during this debate I have heard my colleagues say that NATO has been the most successful military alliance in history. I do not disagree with their assessment. But the statement leads me to ask a question: why has NATO been so successful and what does that mean for the future of the Alliance? Ultimately, NATO was successful during the Cold War not for any military operation, but for its military power and the willingness to use it. For nearly 50 years, NATO has served as the vanguard of peace and security in Europe. For forty of those years, NATO forces stood ready to engage in the defense of Europe from the very real threat posed by Warsaw Pact forces on the other side of the Iron Curtain. The reason NATO was able to maintain the peace and never had to fight a hot war in Europe came from the recognition by our adversaries that NATO, despite the horrors of a potential superpower conflict, was prepared for real military action. Equally as important as the will to act, NATO commanders understood the importance of maintaining a formidable capability to fight. Throughout the Cold War, NATO's military forces were highly motivated, superbly trained, and equipped with the latest weapons and technology that made the Alliance a force to be reckoned with. Beyond the success of the Cold War, I believe that NATO has survived in the post-Cold War era, despite many predictions to the contrary, because it was prepared to change to reflect new realities. First, NATO has begun the difficult task of restructuring and downsizing its force and command structure. As we in the Congress are well aware, following three rounds of U.S. base closures, making the necessary decisions to downsize the military is politically difficult. NATO deserves credit for what it has accomplished in this area, but more work will be needed in the future. NATO has also been successful because of its willingness to address the challenges of the post-Cold War world. NATO has made significant progress in tackling difficult new issues such as arms control, regional ethnic instability, and creating partners out of former enemies. In this final area, the Partnership for Peace program has made tremendous progress in encouraging civilian control of the military and promoting military transparency, each of these essential in creating greater confidence between nations. Each of these steps have contributed to transforming NATO into the Alliance that we have today, an Alliance that serves the interests of each of its members and promotes cooperation and stability. However, as NATO officials admit, the Atlantic Alliance must continue to evolve. We must ask ourselves: what must NATO do now if it is to be relevant in the future? First, NATO must continue with the difficult work of reforming its force and command structure to reflect changes in its mission and strategic concept. Second, as during the Cold War, NATO must maintain a credible force and the will to use that force when diplomacy fails. These are the core elements of the Alliance that must be carried into the future. But I believe NATO must also be prepared to take on new missions. It will have to be ready to address future threats to regional stability like Bosnia in an efficient and timely manner. Mr. President, the true lesson of the Dayton Accords is that sometimes force, or the credible threat of force, precedes diplomacy. I do not believe the Dayton Accords would have been possible had NATO not reached consensus to respond militarily, albeit late, to Serbian aggression in Bosnia. I hope we have learned the lesson of Bosnia, and I hope these three new members will help strengthen our will to react to Bosnia-style aggression in the future. The recent memory of the Solidarity movement, the moral leadership of President Vaclav Havel, and the impact of the 1956 uprising in Hungary will be extremely beneficial contributions to the diplomatic decision-making that occurs in Brussels. We may find the newest members of the Alliance will soon play a critical role in leading NATO into the future. Mr. President, having addressed the history and future of the Alliance, let me restate that I will vote in favor of this Resolution of Ratification because I believe that NATO enlargement is a positive step forward for the three invitees and for the future of the NATO alliance. The enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic is a statement of the success of their transition to free- market democracies. Each of these countries have experienced the peaceful transitions of democratic government, established the rule of law in the interaction of people and institutions, and implemented strong civilian control of their militaries. We should not forget the difficulty with which each of these countries has made these changes, nor should we underestimate the political leadership that was necessary to make the decisions involved in transforming from a command-style economy to free-market democracy. Mr. President, NATO membership, along with eventual membership in the European Union, will re-establish their contacts to the West and help solidify the political reforms in place today. Furthermore, the benefits of collective defense will limit the need to reconstitute national defenses and allow for continued focus on strengthening their economies and rebuilding the infrastructure necessary to compete in the global economy. I also believe that these countries will benefit from NATO enlargement through the promotion of regional stability. The prospect of NATO membership has already caused Central European nations to re- examine their relationships with one another and to address age-old political and ethnic disputes. The resulting treaties and bi-lateral agreements will lessen the chance of border and ethnic conflicts in the region after these three nations become full members of the Alliance. Mr. President, I also believe NATO will benefit from the inclusion of new members. Each of these countries will bring a unique set of capabilities to the Alliance. To be sure, each still needs to make significant progress in bringing their militaries up to NATO standards, but they are not starting from zero. Initial estimates show that following their own military restructuring, these countries will bring an additional 280,000 troops to the Alliance; this will undoubtedly boost NATO's ability to perform future missions. An example of this enhanced capability for NATO can be seen in the contribution each of these three countries have made to the IFOR/SFOR mission in Bosnia. Poland is currently providing SFOR an airborne infantry battalion, the Czech Republic has provided an engineering company and is maintaining a mechanized infantry battalion, and Hungary has contributed an engineering battalion. Hungary has also leased the Taszar airbase to the United States which provides a critical point of entry for U.S. forces into Bosnia. I am confident that when these countries become full members of NATO, we can expect that they will continue to provide a strong commitment to NATO operations. In my duties as Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I joined with my colleagues in reviewing the security consequences of bringing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the Alliance. In directing this review, Senator Shelby and I did not for a moment suspect the sincerity or the commitment of these countries to be loyal members of the Alliance. But because some of their intelligence professionals and other military and civilian personnel had served in similar positions when their countries were dominated by the Soviet Union, we felt duty-bound to examine how well these countries would meet NATO security requirements, especially with regard to handling NATO classified information and protecting intelligence sources and methods. We determined that, even in these narrow security terms, the new members will be a major net gain for the Alliance. They have the expertise and the dedication to protect the information which NATO will share with them, and they bring intelligence capabilities to the Alliance which will make NATO stronger. To help measure and assist the transition of the new members to NATO security standards, Senator Shelby and I proposed a condition to the resolution of ratification which would require two reports: one to be rendered by the President next January on the progress of the new members in meeting NATO security requirements, and another to be rendered in phases by the Director of Central Intelligence identifying the latest security procedures and requirements of the new allies and assessing how they compare with those of other NATO members. In my view, these reporting requirements are prudent and should help the expanded Alliance more quickly reach a common security standard. Mr. President, I am encouraged by the prospect of membership for these three countries. However, this is a major change in U.S. policy, and a very real commitment that should not be entered into without a full understanding of its meaning. The American people must understand that membership in NATO for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic carries with it all of the commitments of the 1949 Washington Treaty. In particular, by ratifying this change to the Washington Treaty, the United States extends full Article V protection to each of these countries. Article V states: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them . . . will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such actions it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The quantitative result of this treaty is that the United States has pledged to defend an additional 15% of European territory in the event of an attack. The qualitative result is that we as Americans pledge to send our young soldiers to defend Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest. However, let me state, Mr. President, my firm belief that enlargement of the Alliance will in fact reduce our chances of having to fight a war in this region of the world. By solidifying democratic reforms, encouraging regional cohesion through the Partnership for Peace program, and limiting the need for national defenses, we will promote cooperation and limit the threat of war. Like many of my colleagues, I also have concerns about the costs associated with NATO enlargement. Wide discrepancies in the assumptions on which the various cost estimates have been based have left us with, at best, an incomplete view of what enlargement will cost current and future members. I am hopeful that after the vote, the Administration will continue to work closely with Congress to address our remaining concerns regarding costs. At a time in which our military is being called on to protect against threats to U.S. security interests throughout the world, we must carefully scrutinize additional spending commitments. Mr. President, I am concerned with the slowness with which the European Union has moved to address the needs of the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. I strongly encourage the EU to catch-up to NATO by quickly completing negotiations over their own expansion. In the long-run, the success of the former-Soviet bloc countries will hinge more on their ability to access the economic benefits of the EU than membership in NATO. While I support NATO enlargement for these three countries at this time, we must also ask how do we define our future foreign policy priorities. For the past year, members of the Administration have worked tirelessly to ensure ratification of NATO enlargement. I believe it is time for the United States to shift our foreign policy focus: our number one priority must become the successful transition of Russia to a stable, free-market democracy. I for one am very optimistic about the prospects for Russia. I think at times we suffer from the inertial effects of Cold War thinking that limit our ability to see the world for what it is today. Just as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are not the Warsaw Pact, Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russia no longer poses the immediate threat to our survival as expressed in Cold War rhetoric of Josef Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev. It is a new era, and we should use this opportunity to our utmost ability to work with Russia to ensure the establishment of the rule of law, to assist with the ethical privatization of state owned enterprises, to promote the continued development of the democratic process, and to realize meaningful progress on arms control. We already have positive examples of what cooperation with Russia can accomplish. Mr. President, few may realize the Bosnia mission is the first time in which NATO troops have participated in an actual military engagement. Few would have guessed during the dangerous days of the Cold War that NATO's first military mission would have occurred with Russian soldiers working alongside American soldiers not as the enemy, but as partners. The Bosnia mission demonstrates the potential we have when we work with a democratic Russia to solve disputes. Another positive sign is that in recent months the Russian government has stepped up its participation in the Partnership for Peace program and I am hopeful about the possibility for continued dialog through the Permanent Joint Council as established under the Russia-NATO Founding Act. Mr. President, I encourage both the Congress and the Administration to address the future of U.S.-Russian relations with the same vigor with which we have worked to achieve NATO enlargement. At no point in the future do I want to look back to this unique point in history and have to ask if we could have done more to ensure a peaceful, democratic Russia. Mr. President, I encourage all of us to take a long-term view of history. We should consider how the world has changed from the chaos and danger that led President Truman to create NATO in 1949 to the sweep of democracy that liberated Central and Eastern Europe from communist control. We should consider how these same nations have transformed themselves into stable democracies ready to become full members of the Atlantic Alliance. And finally, we should consider how we want the world to look in fifty years, and then set our priorities to ensure our children will have the benefit of living in that world.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations on the upcoming 50th Anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. Throughout Israel and the United States, people will gather together to commemorate this anniversary, to reflect upon the accomplishments of the Israeli people, and to look forward to the new millennium. Not unlike the founding of our own nation, a small group of leaders gathered in the Tel Aviv Museum at 4:00 on May 14, 1948 to realize a dream by formally declaring the creation of the state of Israel. Few Americans may be aware that within 11 minutes of that declaration, President Harry Truman had taken the necessary steps to offer formal diplomatic recognition to this new nation, making the United States the first nation to recognize Israel as a sovereign state. From that point, the United States and Israel cemented a friendship based on our common bonds: from cultural and religious ties to a mutual belief in the power of democracy to the assurance of a peaceful, prosperous future. Each time I have visited Israel, I have been impressed with the hope for the future expressed by her people. This hope exists despite the challenges Israel has faced from the moment of its creation. In many ways, I believe these challenges have helped the Israeli people create a society that serves as an example to all nations. It is a society based on democracy. In a region where the seeds of democracy have not fully taken root, Israel has a vibrant democracy with strong public participation. It is a prosperous society. Despite a wide variety of economic challenges, Israel's economy has grown to the point where per capita income rivals that of most Western nations. Finally, it is a society based on opportunity. Like our own country, Israel is a nation of immigrants. It is a nation that has gathered people from around the world with the promise of political and religious freedom. Today, Israel continues to face challenges as it prepares to move into the 21st Century. As the people of Israel seek to achieve economic independence, ensure their security, and create a lasting peace with their neighbors, they do so with the assurance of the continued strong relationship with the United States. Mr. President, the words Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion delivered in his address to a new nation still ring true today: Whatever we have achieved is the result of the efforts of earlier generations no less than our own. It is also the result of unwavering fidelity to our precious heritage, the heritage of a small nation that has suffered much, but at the same time has won for itself a special place in the history of mankind because of its spirit, faith, and vision. Mr. President, again, I offer my congratulations to the people of Israel on this 50th Anniversary. We share with them the bond of democracy and the hope of a peaceful and prosperous future.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the Resolution being debated on the floor this afternoon. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important statement of Senate support for the Northern Ireland peace agreement. Like my colleagues, I believe the settlement in Northern Ireland is an historic opportunity to bring peace to a remarkable people that have suffered from violence for far too long. And as a nation with deep cultural ties and personal attachment to Ireland, I believe we can all take a moment to be hopeful that a new era of peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland is now possible. First, I would also like to use this opportunity to offer my congratulations to our former colleague George Mitchell for his role as Independent Chairman of the multiparty talks. Despite long odds and numerous setbacks, Senator Mitchell has demonstrated diplomatic skills that can only be learned by being Majority Leader of the Senate. His actions have truly been a credit to our nation. Mr. President, for the first time in centuries there is hope that a lasting peace can be achieved in Northern Ireland--I think our words today fail to capture the importance of this opportunity. The agreements that led to the April 10 accord are the result of brave actions by both Protestant and Catholic political leaders, and the desire to find a solution to the cycle of violence that has virtually imprisoned all of the people of Northern Ireland for decades. I am confident, when given the chance to vote in the May 22 referendum, the people of Ireland will take the opportunity to send a strong message to their political leaders of their desire to continue to move forward in this process. In our euphoria over the recent agreements, we must not forget that lasting peace will only come with continued diligence. We must not allow the opponents of peace in Northern Ireland to use terrorism to destroy what has been painstakingly built so far. Mr. President, with our strong support for this resolution we send an unmistakable signal of our willingness to continue to work with any and all people in Northern Ireland dedicated to bringing about a peaceful and lasting settlement.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to talk about an exceptional, innovative effort in Nebraska; the creation of a $5 million Nebraska Cultural Preservation Endowment. Last week the Nebraska Legislature approved, and Governor Nelson signed legislation to make Nebraska the first state in the nation to establish a combined funding source for arts and humanities programs. I am very hopeful that this pioneer endeavor will safeguard Nebraska's cultural programs from the uncertainty of federal funding and private donations. And I have high hopes that this permanent state resource will provide the Nebraska Arts Council and Nebraska Humanities Council the flexible, broad-based kind of support that they need to do the best job possible. Moreover, the foresight, diligence and creativity of those who conceived of this venture will undoubtedly ensure that future generations of Nebraskans will benefit from a vibrant cultural life, historical tourism and economic development which this public-private partnership will foster. At this time, I would like to applaud the efforts of those who made this Endowment possible. Governor Ben Nelson, State Senator LaVon Crosby, of Lincoln, Jennifer Severin Clark of the Nebraska Arts Council and Jane Hood of the Nebraska Humanities Council are all to be highly commended. Thank you for your leadership, commitment and courage in this endeavor and congratulations on a job very well done.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will talk for 1 minute. I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee on the floor. This is an amendment that this body ought to act on IRS reform legislation prior to our leaving for the recess. I believe this legislation has been considered long and hard. The taxpayers have a deadline of April 15; 120 million of them will have to file their taxes. We need to pass IRS legislation without delay. We need to give taxpayers new powers. I note with considerable interest that every single freshman in the House sent a letter yesterday to Majority Leader Lott and to Democratic Leader Daschle asking that the House bill, or something that can be conferenced, be taken up before we leave. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the taxpayers of the United States have a deadline of April 15. All of us know it. We hear about it when we go home. As I said, 120 million people have to have their taxes filed by April 15. There are 140,000 collection notices that go out every single day of the week. Every single working day that the IRS is in operation, 140,000 collection notices go out. There are approximately the same number of Americans who call the IRS every day. The way it currently operates is, about 40 percent of them cannot get through, and of those who do get through, about 25 percent of them get the wrong answer. There are many other reasons for to get the laws governing the IRS changed, and get them changed soon. My hope is that the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member will meet as quickly as possible with Mr. Archer, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Rubin. Let's get this bill conferenced as quickly as possible so that the American taxpayers, who have waited an awful long time for this piece of legislation, will get the power they deserve--indeed, the power they need--in order for them to have confidence that this is still Government of, by, and for the people. Mr. President, I thank you for this wonderful opportunity to speak, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, for the first time in a quarter century this budget resolution is being debated in an environment, where rather than talking about getting rid of the deficit, we are able to talk with great enthusiasm about what to do with the surplus. We are talking about tax cuts and various spending programs. There is no question that the recovery of the economy of the United States of America--deficit reduction efforts in the past in combination with tremendous changes on the part of entrepreneurs and businesses and individuals out there--has produced the best economic scene I have seen in my entire lifetime, with increases in productivity, growth in the number of jobs, and a reduction in welfare rolls. You have to look long and hard to find bad economic news out there. In 1990, this Congress debated a deficit reduction act that was largely a result of President Bush's leadership. We put in place at that time the mechanism that we still use today. It has caps on spending that we, for the most part, have lived within. It is that discipline that is required by the law, it seems to me, that requires every time somebody wants to do a new program, they have to find a way to pay for it. You just cannot come down here and throw new spending on a budget or new tax cuts on a budget without having an offset someplace. It is that discipline, coupled with the 1993 act and the 1997 act, that I think the American people appreciate very much. It has produced enormous benefits for the American economy. But we are now in a state where, unfortunately, rather than merely talking about the easy things, we now need to start facing some very difficult problems that are occurring inside the budget itself. One of the things I find comforting in life is when things don't change. The most impressive force of all in that regard is gravity. It has an increasing impact upon me, my body, and my ability to move and so forth. It stays constant. I am impressed with it. One of the things that stayed constant over the last 30 or 40 years, indeed a bit longer than that, is that the percent of the entire GDP that we in Washington, DC, use for a variety of spending programs has stayed relatively constant--in the 19 to 20 percent range. This does not go all the way back to the years of the 1940s when, during the war, we went up above that 20 percent mark; but in the 1940s, most of that spending was for plant, for equipment, increases in the productivity of this Nation. Indeed, many have cited that as a principal reason the United States of America came out of the Great Depression, the significant investments that occurred during those war years. So you see that 20 percent figure stayed relatively constant over that lengthy period of time. This resolution that I have offered up requires us, the Congress, with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, to look out in the future more than the 10-year budget window that we currently do. You may say why, Mr. President. The reason is that if you look out for 10 years, from 1998 to 2008, that takes you just before the baby boom generation begins to retire. You look out to 2008 and life looks relatively good. It doesn't look very difficult. It looks like we ought to be able to manage relatively easily, and the reason it looks like it is going to be relatively easy is that the number of the Americans over age 65 grows relatively steadily, from about 34 million to about 39 million in 2008. But, from 2010 to 2030, the number of people over age 65 grows by 30 million. The number of retirees will increase by 25 million while the number of workers only increases 4 million. What happens during that period of time is that the mandatory programs--that is the red, or the entitlement spending; and the yellow is the net interest, the interest on the national debt--they continue to grow until they completely displace the entire Federal budget, until it is 100 percent of the budget at that point. Indeed, in the year 2027, 100 percent of the budget will be mandatory spending programs. This is a trend. I heard some--perhaps most notably former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who is on from time to time--criticizing this evaluation, saying there are going to be increases in productivity or immigration or other things that are going to take care of it. But it has not taken care of it yet. In 1963, John Kennedy went to Rice University. He gave a speech in the summer of 1963 in which he said that we were going to put a man on the Moon. Why? He said not because it is easy but because it is hard. In 1963, 70 percent of this budget was discretionary and only 30 percent of the budget was mandatory. In 1973, it had grown to 45 percent mandatory; in 1983, 56 percent mandatory; in 1993, 61 percent mandatory. And in this budget, 68 percent of the budget is mandatory and 32 percent of the budget is discretionary. Even over the next 10 years, the amount that is available for discretionary--and we allow it actually in the second 5 years to grow at the rate of inflation, which is not likely unless we are going to bust the caps in the second 5 years--at the end of that 10-year period, the amount available for discretionary spending will be approximately 26 percent. I ask any of my colleagues what that 26 percent figure means. If you budget it this year and say we are going to give the Appropriations Committee 26 percent of available revenue to appropriate, that will force approximately $115 billion in spending cuts. What is happening is that we are seeing our capacity to build our Nation's defenses, I say to the distinguished occupant of the Chair, who has talked about how our military is being spread pretty thin--it is spread pretty thin right now. We debate from time to time new things we want our military to do. Both our military and intelligence efforts are stretched substantially thin at the moment. But that is not the only area in discretionary spending where people come to the floor and would like to spend more money, whether it is on education, on health care, or the environment, or NASA, or Veterans Administration. On all these things, they may come down and say, ``We have to fight the battle against crime, we need more people on our border, we a stronger law enforcement effort.'' All of these Federal efforts come out of discretionary spending. Unless we as a Congress begin to understand these trends and the fact that they are not going to go away, it is not likely we are going to do anything about it. I observe the reason we are not doing anything about it, the reason we are not debating it on this floor, is we only have a 10-year view. The law says to take a look at 10 years--what does it look like in 10 years? Life looks pretty good. It looks like we can handle it. I challenge anybody to construct a discretionary budget with only 26 percent available revenue. Unless we believe this Congress is going to raise taxes beyond the 20 percent mark--which I don't think it either will or should--what we are faced with, even at 26 percent, is, it seems to me, the unlikelihood of being able to construct a budget with that relatively small amount. Unless we look out to 30 years instead of 10 years, we do not see this crisis coming, we do not see the problem coming. So what do we do? We do nothing. We do not even debate it or talk about it. Most of us have seen the movie ``Titanic.'' In the movie, people were on the bow, standing watch for icebergs, and they did not have binoculars. It is very much like us. We do not have binoculars either. We can see 10 years, but we cannot see 30. As a consequence, we do not see the iceberg that is out there in the form and shape of the baby-boom generation which, from 2010 to 2030, will convert 100 percent of the available money we will tax and collect from the American people--100 percent of that budget is going to go to mandatory programs. There is a price, a big price, for delay, and the price will be paid by the baby-boom generation, who will find themselves saying suddenly, ``Oh, my gosh, I have two choices: Either I take substantial cuts in my current benefits or my kids have a tax increase'' that raises their taxes beyond what is, I think, by any standard, a reasonable level. We will see demands on this system, in short, Mr. President, that are going to put us in a position where we are going to have to ask current beneficiaries, if we do not make reasonable adjustments today, to pay a rather substantial price. I know the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has talked about this an awful lot. In fact, he can blame himself for me caring about entitlements. It was he and Senator Nunn who used to traipse down here once a year and offer amendments. The first time the Senator from New Mexico offered an amendment to control entitlement spending, I voted against it. The second year, the light bulb went on, and I said, ``Oh, my gosh, this guy from New Mexico might have something right.'' And, indeed, he persuaded me the second year, and I voted with him. In 1994, Senator Jack Danforth and I chaired a commission for an entire year looking at the problems of entitlements, and I have not been the same since. I annoy people; I frustrate people. They can ask me what do I think about the weather, do I think Nebraska is going to have a good football team, and as soon as I talk about the weather and our great football team, I find myself immediately talking about the problem of mandatory spending and what it is going to do to our capacity to say that we are securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and posterity. We are squandering, it seems to me, an opportunity to say we are endowing our future, and instead we are putting ourselves in a position of saying, ``Make certain I get my deal covered, that I get what I am entitled to, and the heck with the future; don't worry about our kids.'' Amendment No. 2215 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding passage of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997)

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

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will allow them merely to be accepted. I was going to ask for a rollcall vote on mine. At some point, my fear is, without a rollcall vote, I say to the distinguished Senator and chairman of the committee, it doesn't necessarily focus people's attention as much as it should. I am not sure it will by making them vote either, for that matter. I know the chairman of this committee is very enthusiastic about this issue and has spent a lot of time on it as well. I just think this whole budget deliberation occurs in a never-never land where we are talking about surpluses and talking about how good everything is and we literally are ignoring this enormous problem. As I said, the people who are going to suffer the most are that baby- boom generation, and they will find themselves in a heck of a dilemma if we do not act sooner than later. I appreciate the Senator's willingness to accept my amendment and Senator Burns' amendment. I agree to allow that to go forward. Vote on Amendment No. 2214

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senate Finance Committee, since last fall, has been holding hearings on the Internal Revenue Service. We now expect to mark a bill up sometime next week, though we have not yet seen the bill. I appreciate very much the leadership of the chairman of the Finance Committee. However, Mr. President, I must say that I believe we are doing what is commonly referred to as ``making the perfect the enemy of the good.'' In other words, we are taking a good piece of legislation that passed the House last November in a 426-4 vote, which would give taxpayers substantial new powers. Over 100,000 collection notices are sent out every single day. There are over 238,000 incoming phone calls to the IRS every single day and, by some estimates, over 40 percent of them are not answered, and a very high percentage of those calls that are answered are answered incorrectly. The collection notices go out with no concern about whether or not negligence has occurred. So fearful are the American people when they receive a collection notice that former Commissioner Richardson--when she came before the Finance Committee this year, she said that her first paycheck came with an IRS return address and it terrified her to open it. She was the Commissioner of the IRS, and she was practically too frightened to open a letter from the IRS. About 114,000 collection notices go out every single day. The bill that passed the House would say that, if an error has been made, the taxpayer can recover the cost that they put into trying to defend themselves against the IRS. If the IRS is negligent, the taxpayer would be able to collect up to $100,000 in punitive damages. For the first time, we change the environment in which the IRS sends out its collection notices. In addition, the IRS would be required to publicly say: Here is the objective criteria for our audits. Today to get that information, you have to put in a Freedom of Information Act request. Thus, in the hearings we have had, both in the Restructuring Committee as well as the Finance Committee, through this Freedom of Information Act request, we had an opportunity to see substantial differentials between the bases of audits in one State versus another State and examples where the IRS agents were actually given quotas and incentives to go out and get more, even though there was no basis for it. There are all sorts of examples of abuses that are corrected in the bill that passed the House. The chairman of the Finance Committee is trying to improve that bill. I think that is terrific. He has a lot of terrific ideas that he has pulled from the hearings he has had. I think that is all well and good. Mr. President, I hope the Republican leader will say to the chairman of the Finance Committee that we need a process that will meet the deadline that the American people have. The deadline they have is April 15. That is after we go out of session next Friday. But for 120 million taxpayers, they have to have their taxes paid by the 15th of April. I hope we can put together an expedited process that would have the chairman of the Finance Committee meeting with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Archer, the ranking members of both committees, with the administration, sometime early next week, because if we can pass a bill in the Finance Committee and on the floor of this Senate which could be conferenced quickly with the House and signed by the President, we could give the taxpayers of the United States of America a tremendous bonus on the 15th of April--more power, more certainty that, if the IRS sends a collection notice out, they are going to send a notice out to the taxpayer that actually owes additional money rather than one that doesn't. In addition, this new legislation, again, was passed by the House with some good improvements that the chairman wants to put on this bill, which would give the commissioner authority to manage the agency. This is a terribly important issue, Mr. President. Currently, we have regions, districts and areas, and we organize the IRS geographically. What the Commissioner indicated he wants to do is restructure the IRS so that it is organized around the category of taxpayer--small business, large corporation, individual payers, as well as nonprofit. That way the Commissioner is going to have an opportunity to not only run the IRS more efficiently, but to reduce the cost to the taxpayer to comply with the Tax Code. By organizing it by category of taxpayer, the Commissioner has indicated, and I think quite correctly, that he is going to be able to say to some taxpayers that it costs us more to collect the money than we get from you; thus, we are going to provide regulatory relief, especially in the area of small business, in situations where the cost exceeds what we are able to collect, be able to manage the problems that large businesses have, that nonprofits and individuals have, in a much different way than we currently see. Next, with that authority, and especially with an oversight board that is independent from the executive branch, and hopefully a restructured congressional oversight--and, remarkably, some have actually proposed that we strike the consolidation of the oversight in the Congress. We had hearings in the Restructuring Commission with Congressman Portman, a Republican from Ohio, and I for over a year, and almost every witness said problem No. 1 is Congress. Remember, the IRS is not Sears & Roebuck. This is not a private-sector organization. They have 535 members of their board--the Congress. There are six committees that have oversight responsibility over the IRS, and what we were told repeatedly, both with anecdotes and with data, was that they need to consolidate the oversight so the Commissioner, with a new independent board, can meet and achieve consensus on what the vision and the purpose of the IRS is going to be. Why? For a variety of reasons, Mr. President. One is making certain that funding is going to be constant, but, more importantly, to make certain that the investment in technology is done right. This whole effort started a couple of years ago. Senator Shelby and I, in oversight hearings on the Appropriations Committee, noted with considerable concern that almost $4 billion of taxpayer money had been wasted in a thing called ``tax system modernization,'' trying to get the computers to operate, to talk to one another so the stovepipes would not prevent the conversations back and forth. Tax systems modernization, Mr. President, is very difficult to do, unless you have a shared consensus between the executive and legislative branches, with consolidated oversight on the congressional side and with an independent board that is able to act on behalf of the taxpayers. In that kind of environment, it is much more likely that technology investments will be made right. Most importantly, I hope the majority leader will instruct the Finance Committee chairman, let's get a meeting next week with Mr. Archer, Mr. Rangel, Senator Moynihan, and Mr. Rubin, and whatever we pass in the Senate committee, let's do it in a fashion that enables us to meet this April 15 deadline. Mr. President, there are important things in this legislation. I have behind me a chart which I call the IRS Reform Index. I will mention some of the things that are on that chart. The date the IRS reform legislation passed the House with 426 votes to 4 was November 5, 1997. The date by which the Senate Republican leadership promised to bring the IRS reform to the floor is March 30, 1998. I think the majority leader understood why it needed to be done then--because we need to set a deadline of April 15 to complete our work, and I very much appreciate that that in fact is what is possible for us. Still, if we expedite the process, rather than putting something out of committee that has no chance of being conferenced and perhaps won't be signed by the President as well--again, one of the worst mistakes here is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Since November 5 to March 30, over 17 million Americans have received a collection notice. That is a huge number of people who have received a collection notice without the power of the law that has passed the House, as well as some significant new powers the chairman wants to provide. That legislation would pass 100-0 if we brought it up quickly, 34 million Americans called the IRS since November 5, nearly 17 million did not get through and of those who did, over 1 million received wrong answers. We have 40 cosponsors in the Senate, and 14 of the Finance Committee's 20 members are cosponsors of the bill. All this is to say that, if we want to pass good, strong legislation and meet the April 15 deadline, there is absolutely no legislative reason for us not to. I am hopeful that sometime early next week the majority leader will talk with the Finance Committee chair and say meet with Mr. Rangel, meet with Mr. Archer, meet with Mr. Moynihan and Mr. Rubin; let's have a joint meeting so whatever we pass out of the Finance Committee we can pass here on the floor of the Senate, conference it quickly with the House, get it on to the President for signature, meet the April 15 deadline that 120 million American taxpayers have imposed upon them under current law. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, what is the current business?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, do I need to ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business?