J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the chairman is quite right. Last year, during the conference deliberations--we had seen, throughout the last couple of years, a considerable accumulation of reports, specifically, the General Accounting Office evaluation of tax system modernization. While it has not all been a loss, there is no question that there has been significant disappointment and the evaluation of GAO is quite negative. I must point out that some of that difficulty is caused by us. Earlier today, we actually had the first meeting of the restructuring of the commission. Commissioner Richardson appeared before that commission, observing that the mission statement itself very often does not connect to many of the things that are identified as great successes. Very specifically, the mission statement of the IRS is to collect taxes in the most cost-effective way possible. One of the things that we often don't look at is what does it cost us to collect the taxes, and how can we do it in a more cost-effective way, not just measuring the money we spend but the money the taxpayers spend to comply with the laws. One of the examples is we have this alternative minimum tax. There are about 4 million taxpayers that are identified as possibly candidates for paying this AMT. What has happened is, of 4 million taxpayers, 90 percent--3.6 million of that 4 million--after they have gone through all the work and hired the accountants to do the calculation of taxes, they discover they owe no taxes at all. The question is, what are the man and women hours and time on task? That is substantial to collect a relatively small amount of money. What we have to do, in my judgment, is not just look at the cost- effectiveness of the IRS versus what they collect, but what kind of friction or cost is imposed out there for that taxpayer, either the households or the business, because they have substantial costs that are imposed. When I say ``sometimes we cause the problems,'' we passed a tax bill with 900 new changes that are required, and the President signed it and it goes into law. I asked the Commissioner this morning if she ever, in the 3\1/2\, or whatever years she has been in office, had a time when she has gone to the President and said, Mr. President, I urge you to veto the tax bill because this is going to make it difficult to accomplish the mix of keeping the IRS a cost-effective, low-cost operation, both in terms of the costs to the taxpayers and the costs to the people that are out there in the community. The answer to the question was, ``no,'' she never has. The day that starts to happen--the day the IRS Commissioner says to the President, you may want to do this for whatever the reason, but here is what it will cost the American taxpayers to fill out the forms and go through that, it seems to me that will be the day you are going to start to see the customer out there, the taxpayer, say they are finally understanding it. We, very often, say here that we have to collect money to accomplish some social or economic good. We don't really think about what that taxpayer out there is going to have to go through in order to comply with the forms, the regulations, and the rules, and all the other sort of things to put in place. But there is no question that we have a very, very serious problem in that we have to go from where we are now, which is we have expended $8 billion or $9 billion, thus far, on TSM, perhaps a great deal more than that, over a bit longer period of time. It depends on when you track it. We are really not much closer to where we needed to go when we started the whole process. All of us understand that one of the most costly things that happen in tax collection is when a mistake is made--not by the taxpayer but by the IRS. When the IRS makes a mistake, that is an expensive thing to try to correct, whether it is giving somebody advice over the phone, or any mistake made in the entire system. Those mistakes are the most costly things of all to fix. So the more they can reduce the mistakes, the better off they are. The least costly environment of all, the least number of mistakes are the mistakes made in a paperless environment. Those transactions that are currently done, a limited number of transactions to be done without paper, have a very, very substantial difference in terms of mistakes versus the ones that continue to be done by paper, through all the processing centers. So I hope, I say to my friend from Alabama, that we are able, in restructuring the commission, to come to the Congress, and all the stakeholders involved, and we are able to make some recommendations so that 10, 15 years from now, at some point in the future, people will say that it was worth spending a million dollars on. You did actually make some recommendations. I point out, Mr. President, that one of the things that I think makes that more likely rather than less, is Congressman Portman and I are cochairs. He is from the House and he is also a Republican. My experience is that more often, some things you can't make bipartisan but we have a difficult subject. If you can make it bipartisan, you tend to make it more likely you are going to be successful. So I appreciate the Senator's support in the hearings. Mr. President, I can tell you that there is no better cross-examiner than Chairman Shelby when it comes to watching out for the taxpayer's money. There is no better cross-examiner than the Senator from Alabama when it comes to trying to make sure that the taxpayers are getting a good dollar's return on their investment, and I appreciate the Senator's support for this effort.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Chairman Shelby, just indicated, we are bringing to the floor of the Senate recommendations on the fiscal year 1997 appropriations for the Department of Treasury, Postal Service, and independent agencies. First of all, I thank Senator Shelby for his dedicated work on this bill. He worked very long and hard on the difficult issues he has just outlined for Members, and throughout the process, as well, he has forged a very cooperative relationship not just with myself but with all the subcommittee members on both sides of aisle. The subcommittee has achieved a balanced approach of dealing with the many programs and activities under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee while staying within the 602(b) allocation. This allocation is $11.081 billion, $1.6 billion below the administration's request. While required to make substantial reductions from the request level, I believe the program funding levels included in the bill are both fiscally responsible and very reasonable. Senator Shelby has discussed the major funding highlights, and rather than repeating those highlights, I will limit my comments to a few areas I would like to emphasize. As Senator Shelby said, the IRS received $6.8 billion, 60 percent of the discretionary allocation, which is $1 billion lower than the administration's request, but it is $200 million above the House mark. The reduction from the request reflects our decision to limit IRS spending to cost-effective and operational efforts. As you know, there have been continuing questions, as the chairman just indicated, concerning the TSM, the tax system modernization efforts, questions I am attempting to answer, as well, through my work on the subcommittee, as well as through the efforts of the newly formed IRS Restructuring Commission. A June 1996 GAO report stated the IRS has not made adequate progress in correcting its management and technical weaknesses, nor have they fully implemented any of the GAO recommendations. In addition, the IRS does not have a process for selecting, controlling, and evaluating its technology investments. It does not have a clear basis for making investment decisions, and it does not have a complete procedure for requirements management, quality assurance, configuration management, project planning and tracking. Finally, it does not have an integrated structural architecture or security and data architecture. The recommended funding in this bill is adequate to support ongoing operations and maintenance and to support those systems that have provided taxpayer assistance, such as Telefile and the Electronic File Transfer System. Of the funds provided IRS, $200 million of non-TSM and $66 million of TSM funds may not be obligated until the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Committee on Appropriations and provides criteria to explain the needs and priorities of the proposed programs. It is our hope that by fencing these funds, the IRS will develop an integrated systems architecture and that we can proceed toward completing a modernized tax system. As I mentioned, I will continue to work with the IRS both through the subcommittee and the IRS restructuring commission to ensure they are moving in the right direction and that a modernized tax system will be provided to our citizens. I believe, second, the administration is moving in the right direction. As the chairman indicated, I, too, strongly support the appointment of General McCaffrey as the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This bill fully funds the administration's efforts. However, I continue to have a number of questions on the direction we are pursuing in the war against drugs. I believe ONDCP must develop long-term measurable strategies for decreasing drug use and drug-related crimes. I want ONDCP to set standards for measuring success. I want these measures to show that the dollars being spent are keeping children from starting to use drugs, reducing the number of hard-core drug users, and limiting the amount of drugs coming into the country. To ensure the law enforcement agencies can work in conjunction with the ONDCP to achieve these results, the subcommittee has increased the law enforcement funding levels to provide additional training and equipment, infrastructure investments in technologies on the Southwest border and, as the chairman stated, a P-3AEW aircraft for interdiction of illegal narcotics. Through the violent crime reduction trust fund, we have continued funding for important crime reduction programs, such as gang resistance education and training, and FinCen enforcement programs. In addition, we have provided funding above the request level to increase participation in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or the HIDTA Program. A third area I want to mention, Mr. President, is the General Services Administration. We have provided, through the GSA, for Federal buildings funds, for the site, design, or construction of five courthouses. Funding for these court facilities is consistent with the courthouse construction criteria we established last year. The application of these criterion allowed us to choose specific court projects, as opposed to applying the House approach of applying across- the-board cuts to the entire construction program. As Senator Shelby indicated, we have also included funding for the five northern border stations, the construction of a Federal office building in Portland, OR, the site preparation for the Food and Drug Administration consolidation, the completion of a Veterans' Affairs office complex, and the environmental cleanup of the southeast Federal Center. I also point out that this bill fully funds the administration's request for the Executive Offices of the President, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Office of Personnel Management. Finally, funding increases are specified for the National Archives repairs and restoration account. These increases will provide much- needed repairs of two Presidential libraries: The Truman and Roosevelt Libraries and the National Archives headquarters facility. The funding level also indicates that we continue to support the Archives electronic access project. The Archives has recently provided us with a work plan for completing this important project to bring their files online and to provide a full catalog system. We are looking forward to the Archives making significant strides toward accomplishing this project in the near future. However, Mr. President, I must raise an objection to the provision which provides funding of $500,000 to cover the attorneys' fees for those fired from the White House Travel Office. It is a genuine disagreement between the chairman and I--I believe the only one in the entire bill. This action, in my reasoned opinion, would set a bad precedent for Congress paying the attorney fees of an indicted individual. This is not a precedent I believe we should set. Mr. President, that summarizes, as I see it, the bill's funding levels. We have tried to accommodate the numerous Member requests, and while it is difficult to always accommodate these requests, we have tried to include all those that were possible given funding restrictions. I also acknowledge the fine work done by the staff on this bill. They are Chuck Parkinson, Diane Hill, Hallie Hastert, Paul Irving, and others. I thank them for their helping in permitting us to bring this bill before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5217 (Purpose: To provide Federal Executive Boards ability to expand funds)

Mr. KERREY. It has been cleared.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5218 (Purpose: To expand flexibility to OPM in providing services to CSRS and FERS annuitants)

Mr. KERREY. It has been cleared.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5219 (Purpose: To provide that the Administrator of General Service have funds available to make payments for the Federal Communications Commission)

Mr. KERREY. It has been cleared. We have no objection.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have no objection to this amendment.

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

Mr. KERREY. I am ready to proceed.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Wellstone, from Minnesota, be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

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

Mr. KERREY. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5215 (Purpose: To define and conform language for expenditure of funds for information systems of the Internal Revenue Service)

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5222 (Purpose: To allow agencies to advance employee FEHB premiums for employees on leave without pay)

Mr. KERREY. It has been cleared. We have no objection.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5221 (Purpose: To strike provision requiring a study of courtroom utilization)

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] is proposed and sold as a simple measure, limited in scope, and based on common sense. It is none of these things. DOMA certainly cannot be called a simple measure when it proposes to have the Federal Government intervene in matters previously reserved to the States. Conservative advocates of States rights should not brush aside this interference merely because they find a purpose which holds special appeal to them. And with this law the Federal Government will have taken the first--and if history is a good guide, probably not the last--step into the States' business of marriage and family law. DOMA certainly cannot be called limited in scope except for those of us who will be unaffected by this abridgement of rights. The small class of citizens affected do not believe this law is limited in scope. Of course the fact that only a relatively few homosexual couples will be affected begs the question: Why should we heterosexuals worry? We have more important business to tend to. Why should we put ourselves at risk for a small minority of men and women who are willing to make a lifetime commitment to another human being but, whose love of someone of the same sex violates others' personal beliefs? Two reasons. First, these couples are not hurting us with their actions; in fact they may be helping us by showing us that love can conquer hatred. Second, we may be next. That's how the rights of the majority are threatened: One minority group at a time. As to the third representation made by supporters, DOMA does not appear to me to be based on common sense. Common sense tells me: Do not pass a law that is not needed. And DOMA is not needed. States can already refuse to recognize marriages that violate their strong public policies. For example, if Nebraska's Legislature chooses to not recognize a marriage contract between under-age couples, it can do so. The courts have upheld that right. The court would also uphold Nebraska's right to not recognize a same-sex marriage in another State although no State currently allows such marriages. In fact, same-sex marriage laws are not sweeping their way through State legislatures. Local politicians are just as nervous or frightened of this issue as we are. Rather than getting ahead of an issue that is heading our way, we are losing our way to save our political heads. So why worry about DOMA? I worry because despite references to the contrary we are doing much more than passing a law that is not needed. We are establishing, in the Federal code, a prohibition against a narrow class of people; a Federal law will preempt State law and discriminate against these individuals by saying they cannot do what all other Americans can legally do. And, we are establishing a means to carry out other Federal remedies to State-level family law problems. I would vote against DOMA if it only did the first of these things. However, it is the second which should strike fear into the heart of heterosexual Americans who wonder if this could affect them some day. The answer is it can and probably will. Even if it is not your loved one who is unable to visit you on your deathbed because laws forbid non-family members from entering your room, this bill could someday touch your life. For example, once this bill has passed and been signed into law, advocates of Federal involvement in personal decisions may propose adding other language. They may say: Let's examine the heterosexual activity which common sense and empirical evidence tells us is a threat to the institution of marriage: divorce. Divorce--not same-sex marriage--is the No. 1 enemy of marriage. And, with a Federal definition of marriage in chapter 1 of title 1 of the United States Code, future Congresses would have a Federal vehicle to attack divorce. DOMA's language, which provides that `` `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,'' could easily be amended to prevent States from recognizing divorce decrees which occurred in the 1st year of marriage, 2nd year, or the 10th year. Beyond divorce, we could add custody language or other Federal requirements on married couples. Supporters of DOMA say they are not creating a Federal certificate of marriage. True enough today. However, they are creating an easy way for us to reach that goal. Supporters of DOMA say a Federal definition of marriage is needed because Federal benefits are at risk. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Even if the same percentage of homosexual Americans were married as heterosexual Americans, 40 percent, the threat to the Treasury would be modest. Approximately 5 percent of the population is gay or lesbian. Therefore, we are only talking about 2 percent of the population that could possibly benefit if same sex marriages were recognized. Further, Congress can choose to exclude same-sex partners from any Federal benefit it chooses, as we did with the family and medical leave legislation. Proponents also say, the current United States Code does not contain a definition of marriage, presumably because Americans have known what it means. Not true. Federal definitions of marriage, divorce, child custody, and other family matters have been omitted because Americans have known what it means when the Federal Government starts to legislate in new areas. Americans know that once we start, we cannot stop. Heterosexual Americans who wonder why they should be concerned with a law that restricts the freedom of a minority class should be advised: The bell that tolls for them could soon toll for thee. Heterosexual Americans should know: Marriage is not under attack from rising numbers of homosexual Americans who are making commitments to each other. Marriage is under attack when a person is too busy, too preoccupied, and too concerned about taking care of No. 1 to take care of No. 2 or 3 or 4. Marriage is under attack in that moment when a man or woman is tempted to forget their commitment to love ``until death do us part.'' My mother and father's generation did not forget. My generation unfortunately did. My children's generation, thank God, appears to be remembering again. And in this remembering lies the hope for marriage and other sacred traditions so important to our Nation. Not a Federal statute.

Mr. KERREY. I yield.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it seems to me, for Members who are trying to decide on this piece of legislation, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, there are really three questions that need to be asked and answered. The first is: Should the Federal Government intervene and preempt State laws? That really leads to the question: Do you support the underlying bill, the Defense of Marriage Act? I do not support the underlying bill, the Defense of Marriage Act, for a number of reasons including the fact it is the first time the Federal Government will be intervening, preempting State laws on family matters. Divorce, child support, all sorts of other things will now be opened up and legitimate objects of concern for new Federal legislation. But for those who have answered that first question yes, then this amendment is, it seems to me, an appropriate remedy to 41 States that currently continue to permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So that is question No. 1: Do you think the Federal Government should intervene? If you support DOMA you already support intervention. You already support an act of intervention, which DOMA is. DOMA preempts State laws. So does ENDA. The second question is a very difficult one. I think--I am not sure of this--I think the origin of some of the differing views between the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Utah--I am not certain of it--is: Do you believe sexual orientation is a trait, a characteristic, or do you think it is behavior? Do you think you are born with a particular sexual orientation or do you think you choose it, that you decide you want to be gay? Apparently, I guess from the letter written by Colin Powell, he believes race is benign but sexual orientation is not benign. That is the implication one gets from the letter from Colin Powell. I disagree with that. I would say sexual orientation is also benign. I do not believe that because I am heterosexual I am not benign. I do not think my orientation is an indication of what I intend to do, at least in regard to what Colin Powell is suggesting. But it is a very important question. There are some who believe that sexual orientation is chosen, it is a behavior. If you believe that, then you say it is the same thing as smoking or the same thing as drinking or other things and you do not think you are discriminating. You think it is legitimate. But the overwhelming number of people who have looked at this say sexual orientation is a trait. You do not choose it. You do not wake up one morning and say, ``I think I will be homosexual''--or heterosexual, for that matter. It is a very important question. Because, it seems to me, if you believe it is a characteristic, that it is a trait, if you do believe that, as I do, if that is your conclusion--and Members need to ask themselves that--if you believe it is a characteristic, if you believe it is a trait, if you believe that is the way you are born, then you do have to treat it, at least in some ways, the same as race. It is a benign thing. You do not go out and decide this is what you are going to do with your life. So that is question No. 2. I answer the question that it is a trait, it is a characteristic, you are born this way and you orient that way as a consequence. Question No. 3 is: Is this the right solution to discrimination? If you want the Federal Government to intervene --as I said, I think it is a mistake to be intervening, at least in the fashion we are doing with DOMA. If you want the Federal Government to intervene, if you believe it is a characteristic you are born with, the next question is: Do you think this is the right solution? I must say, I think the sponsors of this legislation, the drafters of this legislation, have done a very good job of trying to draft it in a narrow way so it does solve the problem, because it is a relatively small problem, I will say, Mr. President. I do think that there is discrimination against gays and lesbians in America today. But I do believe employers are increasingly saying it is not a threat at all, it is not a problem, it is a trait, and that gay and lesbian employees are not a threat to their business, they are not a threat to the morale of that company and so forth. But, nonetheless, discrimination is occurring. So the drafters of this legislation have gone through and said ENDA does not require an employer to recruit or advertise job offers. ENDA expressly states no disparate impact cases may be made, meaning that discrimination cases cannot be made based on statistics alone. ENDA specifically prohibits quotas that would compel employers to meet percentages of hiring and provides exemptions for nonprofit religious organizations and the military, and ENDA does not require that companies pay benefits for domestic partners. I think this legislation, again, if you support DOMA and you have already reached the conclusion that it is OK to intervene in State family matters; if you believe homosexuality is a trait that one is born with, it orients just like you do if you are heterosexual, if you believe it is a trait; and if you are looking for some way, as the Senator from Utah is, to narrowly draw a law that will prevent this kind of discrimination, I think you can vote no other way than yes on what I consider to be a very carefully drawn piece of legislation, a very targeted piece of legislation, one that should not provoke a great number of lawsuits, that does, it seems to me, treat homosexuality different from race. It does not provide disparate impact cases be filed. I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. Especially for those who support the underlying bill, it seems to me an easy thing to support, an easy thing to vote ``aye'' on. I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. KERREY. Perhaps 5 minutes?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Would the Chairman encourage FEMA to strengthen existing Midwest teams, as they start new teams?

Mr. KERREY. I am concerned that the Lincoln team has been underfunded. At the same time, this bill calls for five new teams. Is it the Senator's intention to start five new teams prior to adequately funding existing teams?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wanted to bring to the chairman's attention a fine urban search and rescue team in Lincoln, NE. It was the first team to be recognized by FEMA and has been ongoing since 1991.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, when I took to the floor to discuss the bombing at Khobar Towers several weeks ago I stated someone is making war on us. I would like to reiterate that point. We are in active conflict, Mr. President, and this is not the time for politicians safe behind secure barriers to publicly snipe at the way our Government is fighting this battle. Yet I note the Speaker of the House of Representatives is accusing the administration of having undermined and crippled one of our principal weapons against terrorism, the human intelligence capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency. This charge is baseless, Mr. President. In fact, the greatest build- up of our human intelligence capability occurred under the bipartisan leadership of Senators Boren and Cohen several Congresses ago. They understood that growing stronger in human intelligence is a long-term enterprise. It involves the recruitment and development of people over many years, and it is one of the activities of government which are not much affected by sudden infusions of money. The Speaker's inference that the Clinton administration has allowed the nation's intelligence capabilities to deteriorate is not supported by the facts. He has clearance, as does every Member, to examine the budget numbers and see that the Clinton administration has requested, and Congress has generally supported, a very robust intelligence capability for the United States. Mr. President, the Speaker's comments are an effort to draw short- term political advantage out of some of the painful events in a long- term conflict. I would suggest another approach: To take a long view of why we Americans are vulnerable to attack, why this war is being waged, and to examine whether our adversaries are having much effect. We are likely terrorist targets for at least four reasons. First, more than any other country, we are uniquely present in the world. We are the only superpower, our military is by far the most deployed military on earth, and our businesses are also present everywhere. I trust the Speaker is pleased with America's forward presence; I certainly am. It is both a sign of, and an essential component of, our power. Second, we are a country that takes strong positions in foreign policy matters. Strong positions buy you enemies, and some of those enemies are terrorists. We stand up for Israel, the only democracy in its area. That buys us enemies. We are publicly allied with Turkey, another embattled democracy in a tough neighborhood. That, Mr. President, buys us more enemies. We are leading the global fight against international narcotics trafficking, and some violent people take umbrage at that. We should be proud of these strong policy positions. I am. Third, we are the most open society in the world, which is a main reason it is such a delight to live in this country. I do not advocate changing our openness--but it does make us more vulnerable to terrorism. Fourth, we are the world's greatest capitalist nation. We represent the power to make life better by improving your material circumstances, and by enjoying the wealth you produce by your own labor. To many fundamentalists--not all of them Moslem--that makes us the ``great Satan.'' Still, I trust no politician would want to change this element of our character, even though it does buy us enemies. Mr. President, despite this vulnerability, I submit we Americans are still safer from terrorism than any other people on earth. When it comes to terrorism and political violence, I challenge anyone to name a safer country. As for Americans abroad, I do not constitute that our people overseas are in any greater risk from terrorism than they have ever been in peacetime in our history. Why this anomaly, when we see how uniquely vulnerable we are? One reason is our superb intelligence. It is present everywhere in the world, working closely with our allies to actively track terrorist organizations and individuals far from atrophying under the Clinton administration, it is a potent instrument to keep Americans safe. Rather than fear of failure, we should recognize we are living in a period of successful action against terrorism. We should praise the Americans involved in this shadowy struggle and support them, and continue to give them what they need. Saying they are crippled is neither constructive nor accurate, although it may give false comfort to our enemies.