William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have reviewed the proposed change in this amendment. As I understand it, it requires a study to be made on informant payment, that the study must be completed within a year. As I said earlier, we found there are some serious problems in this area, and the modified amendment is satisfactory to this side.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I think I will make a point of order that a quorum is not present and try to reach agreement on the specific language. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, if the Senator yield. I find it very difficult to hear what the distinguished Senator is saying.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. President, I, too, join my colleagues in paying my respects to the distinguished Senator from Missouri. He brings a wealth of background and experience, so his comments are always welcomed and listened to with great care. While I completely agree that the IRS oversight board must be adequately structured, I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which would make the IRS oversight board a full-time board. In my judgment, the board should be a part-time board. The purpose of the board is to provide ``big picture'' oversight over the IRS, provide specific expertise to IRS management to ensure accountability at the IRS, as well as to ensure that taxpayers are being treated and served properly. The purpose of the board is not to micromanage the IRS. Commissioner Rossotti is a management expert, unlike his predecessors who were experts in tax law. As I have said many times on the floor, I think we are very fortunate in having an individual of his qualifications, his expertise, not only in management but high tech as well. I believe we should support the manager and provide a board that will help him turn the troubled agency around. It is my judgment a full-time board would destroy the delicate balance we tried to include in this legislation. The Commissioner, not the board, should manage the IRS. A full-time board would bog down in details, diffuse accountability, and I fear very much probably not include the type of individuals, the experts, the background, and vision that are necessary on the board. Also, I have to say that I would doubt that Commissioner Rossotti might remain with the IRS if the board were full time. The very basic question is what would be the point? While I agree with my colleague's objectives, I do not believe that a full-time board would enhance the prospect of turning this agency around. In fact, making the board full time could very well undermine the purpose of this legislation. As my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, has pointed out, the board is sunsetted. There will be an opportunity in the future to see how this board is functioning, whether it is working in the manner that we hope and believe it will. I urge my colleagues, Mr. President, to vote against the full-time board. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, Mr. President, I am pleased at this time to yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada that that is a very positive step, a very sound way of addressing the problem. It has been the practice in Government, as he well knows, that contingent fees are sometimes made available, not only in the IRS, but I believe in other areas of activity as well. As we all witnessed last week, this practice was used in an extremely abusive manner--a manner that should be dealt with. So I can understand the Senator's concern and interest in this matter. I appreciate it and would find it acceptable, as far as I am concerned, if he would modify this to make a study, and within a limited time come back. I think we do have a new commissioner that is very effective and is bringing about change. This would help give him direction, and we think this is a matter of critical importance.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the expiration or yielding back of time on the pending Bond amendment, it be temporarily set aside and a vote occur on, or in relation to, the Bond amendment at 1:15 p.m. today.

Mr. ROTH. Let's wait on the rollcall votes. We can go ahead with the Reid amendment.

Mr. ROTH. That is fine.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what we are proposing for unanimous consent is 40 minutes for consideration of the amendment to be divided between the two sides, that it be agreed that the distinguished Senator has 10 minutes remaining on his side of the 20 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Let's agree on the Bond amendment first; the agreement being 40 minutes divided between the two sides, and that Senator Bond would have the remaining 10 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. And no second-degree amendments.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as I indicated before the distinguished Senator from Missouri spoke, we had a tentative agreement of 40 minutes for this amendment, with 20 minutes to a side. I ask that we unanimously agree to that with the time that the distinguished Senator used to discuss the amendment being deducted from the 20 minutes. I understand that is roughly 13 minutes. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama that I appreciate the fact that he is not raising it on this legislation before us, because it is not relevant. But I also sympathize very much with the problem he has identified. I, indeed, would be happy to work with him because I do not think it is appropriate to legislate by regulation. I think that is what he seeks, and that is what I would be pleased to work with him on in the future.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first, I would like to say I regret I cannot agree, on this particular issue, with my distinguished friend from Iowa, for whom I have the greatest respect. We are, more often than not, on the same side of an issue. But, because of the overwhelming arguments, at least in my judgment, to the contrary, I must rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senators from Tennessee and Alabama. This amendment would strike the special waiver of all the criminal conflict of interest laws that were necessary to accommodate having an IRS employee representative on the IRS oversight board. Let me say that what I say today in no way is in disrespect to the individual who would probably be the employee representative, Mr. Tobias. By all reports, he is a most dedicated, informed man. But, as I said, the problem is that this amendment would strike the special waiver of all the criminal conflict of interest laws that were necessary to accommodate having such a representative, and waiving all the conflict of interest laws is bad policy. It establishes very bad precedent. When this issue was debated during the Finance Committee markup session, the Deputy Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the office that was set up and created to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise in the Government, testified that she was not aware of any case where all the criminal conflict of interest laws have been statutorily waived for a single person. Last Friday, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, in identical letters to the majority leader, the minority leader, Senator Moynihan, the ranking member, and myself, said that waiving the conflict of interest laws for one board member, ``is antithetical to sound Government ethics policy and thus to sound Government. Such across-the-board statutory waivers for someone other than a mere advisor is unprecedented and, we believe, inadvisable.'' Let me repeat, this statement that it is inadvisable comes from the Office of Government Ethics. I ask unanimous consent a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Senators note importantly, I think, how we are a nation of laws and we are, indeed, a nation of laws. When it comes to Government service, perhaps the most important set of laws is the criminal conflict of interest laws. Many of these laws trace their origins back to the Civil War era. They were enacted in the 1860s in response to misconduct in the procurement process. These laws embodied the principle that a Government servant, even a part-time servant, has an overriding responsibility to serve the best interests of the American public. The punishment for violating this public trust includes imprisonment of up to 5 years and penalties of up to $250,000. The severity of the penalties reflects the critical importance that these laws play in our Government. They serve to protect the public's trust in Government employees and the laws are designed to prevent Government employees from taking actions that could jeopardize this public trust. Let me give a few real-life examples of what could happen if the conflict of interest laws are waived for the IRS employee representative. Just suppose that a representative of the IRS employees union serves on the oversight board and the union files a lawsuit against the oversight board. If the conflict of interest laws are waived, the union representative could work with the union in preparing the lawsuit and at the same time--at the same time--work with the oversight board in defending against the lawsuit. Taxpayers would be outraged by this conduct, and rightfully so. Just suppose the union is asked to make a formal presentation to the oversight board. The union representative can make the formal presentation and then participate in the oversight board's deliberations with respect to the presentation. What message does this send to the taxpayer? What does this do to the public trust in Government employees and in what Congress is trying to do to improve the IRS? Let me quote again from the letter by the Office of Government Ethics: The criminal conflict of interest laws should not be viewed as impediments to good Government. They are there for a purpose and should not be waived for mere convenience. Mr. President, the criminal conflict of interest laws should not and must not be waived for a single individual. To do so would seriously erode the sacred trust that the public has placed in its employees to do what is in the Nation's best interests. For these reasons, I strongly support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Yes. A bribery law is part of the criminal code. I would not exempt it.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. Let me say, on this question of completion of consideration of this legislation, I strongly agree that we want to move as expeditiously as possible. It is my intent that we will complete the legislation tomorrow, staying as late as may be necessary. Mr. President, I would like to respond to some of the earlier comments made on the granting of waivers to the conflict of interest laws. I would like to point out that the waiver granted Mr. Rossotti was made by the same Office of Ethics that made a very persuasive argument here that we should not waive the criminal conflicts of interest as has been done under the legislation. Let me point out that there is a major difference between receiving a specific agency waiver under section 208 of the ethics law, which is what the Senator was referring to, and a wholesale statutory waiver of all the conflict of interest laws, which is what is contemplated in the IRS bill. Again, what Mr. Rossotti got was a specific agency waiver under section 208. To get a specific agency waiver under section 208, the employee must disclose the situation which gives rise to the conflict, and the agency need only to determine that the conflict--and I quote-- ``is not so substantial to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from the employee.'' The problem with the IRS employee representative is that the conflicts are so substantial and pervasive that the representative would almost never qualify for a waiver. And that is not my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the Office of Government Ethics. Quoting from their letter dated March 27, 1998, the director wrote: While section 208 does contain a waiver provision, it applies only where the financial interest involved is ``not so substantial'' as to be deemed likely to affect an employee's service. We believe that it would be almost impossible for an officer of a union to legitimately meet the test set forth in the statute because of his own and the union's financial interest that would be affected by the matters before the Board. The director repeated this point in his letter dated May 1, 1998, saying: For those conflicts laws that do provide for waivers (not all do), we believe that it would be extremely difficult for a reasonable person to determine that the interests this individual Board Member will undoubtedly have through his or her affiliation with the organization could meet those waiver tests. The quoted language also raises a second important point, which is that some of the conflict of interest laws do not provide for waivers at all. Mr. President, the bottom line is this: A statutory waiver of all the criminal conflict of interest laws for one person is simply wrong, it is very bad policy, and it establishes a dangerous precedent. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 7, 1998. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then resume consideration of the Thompson-Sessions amendment No. 2356 to H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of the Thompson-Sessions amendment to H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill. Under the previous order, the time between 9:30 and 10 will be equally divided for debate on the Thompson-Sessions amendment. Following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate will proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendment. Senators are reminded that a unanimous consent agreement was reached limiting amendments to the IRS bill. It is hoped that following the 10 a.m. vote, Senators will come to the floor to offer their amendments under short time agreements. The cooperation of all Members will be necessary in order for the Senate to complete action on this very important piece of legislation. Therefore, rollcall votes will occur throughout Thursday's session with respect to the IRS reform bill or any other legislative or executive items cleared for action.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.