Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. This is a criminal provision. We have been using the word ``ethics,'' but it is really a criminal provision, isn't that right, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, I would like to first congratulate Senator Roth and his committee on their effort to reform the Internal Revenue Service. I think they have made great progress, and the bill is to be greatly praised, is long needed, and I am delighted to see where we are discussing this matter. I do, however, feel that it is important to join with Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who spoke earlier this afternoon on his proposal to not waive applicable conflicts of interest laws with regard to individuals who sit on the IRS Oversight Board. I do not believe this is the appropriate thing to do. I believe we need to deal with this forthrightly. It should not be allowed to happen. Mr. President, I spent almost 15 years as a Federal prosecutor. I prosecuted criminal cases on a regular basis. I personally tried judges and public officials for fraud and corruption. My office did many of those cases. It was an insidious thing as it occurred. We have crafted over the years a series of laws that are designed in such a way that those laws protect the public from conflicts of interest and other types of unhealthy relationships that would put that person in office in a position in which his total fidelity is to anything other than the government which he represents. That is what we are looking for. Somewhere in the Book of Ecclesiastes the preacher said ``A bribe corrupts the mind.'' A conflict of interest corrupts the mind. The person is torn. You cannot serve two masters. You can only serve one master. A member of a board of the oversight of the Internal Revenue Service ought to have a clear mind with one motive, and that is to improve and enhance the effectiveness of that institution which is fundamentally necessary. At least under the present Tax Code it is necessary. So I believe this is an important matter. I would like to share with the Members of this body the Code sections of the law that would apparently be violated and could potentially clearly be violated by an appointment of the kind suggested here; that is, a member of the Internal Revenue Service Union on the oversight board. This is suggested in this fashion: It follows under the rubric of bribery, graft, and conflict of interest in the United States Code. It is title 18 U.S. Code, section 203. It makes it a crime to seek himself or agree to receive any compensation as an agent or attorney for a third party when a person is working as an officer for the Federal Government. We are talking about appointing a member to the board representing the Federal Government helping us to develop an effective Internal Revenue Service while at the same time receiving compensation as a union official in an organization that may well have a conflict of interest with the Internal Revenue Service. They are advocates. There is nothing wrong with that. Union members are advocates. Their commission, their heart and soul is committed to getting the maximum return for their members. It is not the same interest as a member of the board should have, which is in the public interest. You can't serve two masters. I suggest that is a potential violation of the law if this member were to be on the board. It is not theoretical. We are talking about real conflict. Section 205 of title 18 of the Criminal Code makes it a crime for any Federal employee to appear as an agent or attorney on behalf of anyone in a proceedings to which the United States is a party. In other words, you can't have a Federal employee of the Government appearing in an action against the Government. Frequently the union is contesting with the Government. So now we have a person on one side of the lawsuit supposedly having his responsibilities solely to the best interest of the public of the United States at the same time being paid to represent his union members who may well be standing against what that interest is. Title 18 of section 207 makes it a crime to make certain communications to an official of the Federal Government on behalf of any other person if the communications are made with intent to influence. It makes it a crime to make certain communications to an official of Government on behalf of any other person if they are made with the intent to influence. This section is a dangerous section for any board member who is an officer of the union. It was designed really to deal with post-employment communications. But in this instance he would obviously be making communications both ways. Title 18, section 208, is the general conflict of interest provision for the United States. It makes it a crime for a Federal employee to participate ``personally and substantially'' in any way in a matter where he himself, his family, a partner or others have ``a financial interest.'' This individual is paid by the union. It is in his financial interest to do the best bargaining he can, the most money and benefits he can for his union members. Yet he is serving on the offer side, the board, that is supposed to be protecting the public interest. I would say, first of all, that I see there is a real danger that this member, if appointed as suggested, would in fact be in violation of any one or perhaps all four of those criminal statutes. If any of these violations are committed--and there are penalties of up to 1 year in jail for violation of them, and if any of them were done willfully the penalties go up to 5 years in jail, and are a felony. What is willful? It is knowingly and with intent to violate the law. I would say, first of all, we have four potential violations of criminal law by this appointment. The Finance Committee to its credit recognized there was a problem. Well, they should have. There is a problem. And it is not theoretical. It is very real because the member they want to put on this board has a conflict of interest. They say, ``Well, let's just change this law. Let's pass as part of our bill a proposal to exempt them from it, and just say it won't apply to this nominee to the board. And that would solve all of our problems.'' Well, I wish it were so simple that we could do that. You can call a cat a dog but it is still a cat. You can say there is no conflict of interest but it is still there under these circumstances. That is what the law was passed for. I think we need to give some real credit to the Office of Government Ethics. Mr. President, I serve on the Senate Ethics Committee. We hear complaints periodically. Many of them are not well founded at all. But we go over them one by one. Staff people analyze them. We read the Code and we see if we have a conflict of interest. If we do, we deal with that. A lot of Senators have been severely damaged because of founded ethics complaints against them over the years. But I would just say to you that it is important for this institution to make sure that what we are doing is consistent with the highest possible standards of ethics and law in this nation. The Office of Government Ethics took the extraordinary step on May 1st of writing a letter dealing with this special project; this very special thing. This is what they said. First of all, they said the criminal conflict of interest laws should not be viewed as impediments to good government. What does that mean? Criminal conflict of interest laws should not be viewed as an impediment to good government. In other words, what they are saying is the criminal ethics laws are for good government. They are not trying to stop good government. They are trying to stop conflicts of interest that lead people in the position that they cannot effectively carry out their duties. They go on to say--I am quoting directly--these laws ``are there for a purpose and should not be waived for mere convenience.'' Mr. President, I totally agree. I know it sounds like, well, we just have a problem. This is just a technical thing. We can just pass this law and exempt this board member from it, and that will be the only board member on the Commission exempt from the ethics law, the only one, but we will just do that because, well, it is convenient. We would like him to be on the Board, and we will just waive the ethics law. But you can't do that and expect it to go away. There is a conflict of interest that the law legitimately was set up to prohibit to make sure that we have an uncorrupted individual on that board. A member who does not have influences on them financially or otherwise that would cause them to do acts that are not in the public interest. I believe very sincerely that we have to deal with this issue and that it will not go away. We must not do this. It would be a downward slope, a retreat from high standards of ethics--actually, a retreat from basic ethics. This isn't some gray area; this is flatly prohibited by present criminal law for which you can get 5 years in the slammer. U.S. attorneys are prosecuting people who do these kinds of things with these kinds of conflicts. To pass a law to say everybody else has to adhere to them except for one individual because he or she is special is a big mistake. I can see how people may have not thought it through. I hope all Members of this body will give it most serious thought. It would be a mistake for us to blithely go along and think this waiver of the ethics law is just a mere technicality and see it as somehow an impediment to good Government. As the Government Ethics Office said, it is not an impediment to good Government; it is good Government. And it is put there for a purpose and should not be waived for mere inconvenience. Mr. President, I certainly know that the members of this committee, the Finance Committee, who worked so hard, are determined to reform the Internal Revenue Service. I know they want to do what they can. I know they want the influence of the IRS's members who have insight into how this enterprise ought to be operated. They have some good insight, and they have made some good, constructive comments to this legislation. But there are other ways, as the Government Ethics Office suggested, to allow them to have input. There are other ways to allow them to be able to shape any kind of rules, regulations or reforms that are made. There are ways to do this without giving up the fundamental principle that a man or woman can only serve one master, not two, and should not be holding public office with a clear conflict of interest. I thank the Chair. I urge my fellow Senators to vote against this proposal. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, I would like to say that I appreciate very much Senator Shelby's suggestion for reform of the unilateral ability of IRS to increase taxes. I would like to ask my fellow Senator from Alabama if he would allow me to be a cosponsor of that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to my raising the question of bribery as being the same in principle as what we are discussing here, I would like to make a statement. Maybe I was misunderstood. I would like to just say that, fundamentally, we are waiving the applicability of sections 203, 205, 207 of the United States Criminal Code. The bribery section is section 201 1. As a matter of principle, I just wanted to make the point that what we are being asked to do here is to waive the criminal law of the United States with regard to this particular individual, and the Ethics Committee has said it is unprecedented. That means this body has never done this in its entire history. This is a legal mistake. I am not here concerning myself with the individuals who make up the board. I am here because it was called to my attention that this problem existed. I am a former Federal prosecutor and a member of the Ethics Committee of this body, and I believe this is a legal mistake--a legal mistake we should not make. That is why I am making my comments now. I am very sorry to interrupt the Senator from New York, but it was important to clarify the record, I thought.

Mr. SESSIONS. I object. I would like to have 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I object, briefly. I wanted to clarify something.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon by recognizing and applauding the efforts of my colleague, the distinguished Senior Senator from Alabama, for all of his efforts in working to ensure that the Supplemental Appropriations bill produced by the conference committee includes badly needed relief for our home state of Alabama in the wake of the terrible natural disasters that have occurred over the past month. Senator Shelby has worked tirelessly to see to it that this document includes assistance for those communities that have suffered so much in the wake of the recent spate of floods and tornadoes that have so severely struck our state. In his position as a member of the Appropriations committee and as a conference to this bill, Senator Shelby has been a true champion for the interests of his constituents. It is fitting and appropriate that his work be generously acknowledged. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and to thank him for all of the assistance he offered during the conference negotiations over the disaster provisions in the bill. It is very likely that without the support and the leadership provided by Senator Stevens, we would have been unable to secure funding for the town of Elba, Alabama. Elba has recently been devastated by flooding caused after rain swollen rivers forced the town's levees to give way. Thanks to Senator Stevens' generous support, this bill contain $5 million in funding to help repair Elba's levee. I can not begin to express how much Senator Stevens' willingness to go to bat for this small Alabama town means to this Senator. Finally, I want to thank my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for your willingness to work with Senator Shelby and myself to ensure that the increased money that this bill provides for Community Development Block Grants will get to those who are direly in need of them. The supplemental bill contains $130 million in Community Development Block Grant funding. This funding, which is important to communities seeking to recover from devastating events, like those events my state has recently suffered through, needs safeguards to ensure that it ultimately reaches those areas where it is most desperately needed. It is imperative that the Department of Housing and Urban Development makes these grants really available to areas within Alabama that have suffered from these natural disasters. Over the last few weeks my office has been receiving requests from communities throughout the state, communities such as Birmingham and Elba, Geneva, Brewton and East Brewton, all asking that these funds be made available to them so that they might begin the difficult task of rebuilding. Senator Bond, your willingness to help work to ensure that this funding gets back to the devastated areas within my state is very generous, and I appreciate your commitment greatly. Mr. President, this supplemental bill goes a long way toward beginning the healing process for the citizens in my state that have recently had to shoulder such a heavy burden. I have personally visited the sites in my state that were the hardest hit, and I can assure you that the scope of the devastation and the scope of the personal, human toll these disasters have taken is beyond my ability to adequately convey. This supplemental disaster bill is a good bill, a solid bill and I look forward to securing its passage so that the relief provided within can be begin to get back to the people of Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12 noon. At noon, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the treaty on NATO enlargement. It is hoped that Senators will come to the floor to debate the treaty and to offer amendments. As a reminder to all Members, a rollcall vote will occur this evening at 6 p.m. on the confirmation of the nomination of Scott Fleming to be Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs at the Department of Education. As a further reminder, a rollcall vote will occur on the State Department reorganization conference report at 2:25 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28. This will not necessarily be the first vote of Tuesday's session, and the Members will be notified of an updated voting schedule. Also during this week's session, the Senate could be asked to consider the supplemental appropriations conference report, if available from the conference committee. In addition, the Senate could be asked to consider, possibly under a brief time agreement, the Work-Force Development Act. A couple of amendments are expected to be offered, and, as always, Members will be notified as the schedule becomes clearer later in the week. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I would like to ask the Senator from Georgia further, to clarify for me, that under this legislation, H.R. 2646, the A+ Education Savings Account Bill, is there no provision in the bill to place private college prepaid tuition plans on equal ground with public prepaid tuition plans?

Mr. SESSIONS. I would just like to convey to my good friend from Georgia, that I was prepared to offer an amendment to his bill that would remedy this inequity, by providing private schools the same fair and equitable treatment as is currently provided to public institutions of higher learning. However, it is my understanding that the Senator from Georgia plans to work with the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Roth, and our other colleagues during the conference on this bill to fix this disparity and provide a level playing field for private universities and colleges. Is this a correct characterization of the Senator from Georgia's intention to do so?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague for his strong support on this issue and I look forward to working with him through conference and in support of this bill once it returns to the Floor. Same-gender Education Amendment

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Georgia in a brief colloquy to discuss extending to all private college prepaid tuition plans the same tax treatment that public college prepaid plans receive. Currently, 16 states, including my home state of Alabama and the distinguished Senator's state of Georgia, have established prepaid tuition plans that allow resident families to lock in today's tuition rates for tomorrow's education. Income taxes on the accrued interest in these accounts are deferred until the account is cashed in to pay for college and these taxes are paid at the student's tax rate, which is typically lower than that of their parents. Mr. President, as valuable as these plans are, however, there are drawbacks. Specifically, the plans typically cover only in-state public universities. Therefore, if a student decides to attend an out-of-state school or even an in-state private school, then the savings accrued in the prepaid plan are less valuable because states typically redeem only the principal and some nominal interest to account for inflation. Mr. President, as my good friend from Georgia would agree, this places private schools at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis their public counterparts.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to congratulate the United States Army Reserve on its 90th anniversary and to recognize the contributions of my good friend Strom Thurmond who served in the Reserves for 36 years. Many of you know Senator Thurmond's distinguished record in war and in peace and the contributions he has made to this institution. He, like the thousands of soldiers in the Army Reserves today, is an example of the best in America. Some years ago, I was a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer in the United States Army Reserve. I served for thirteen years in one of our 82 Alabama Reserve units and organizations, located in one of 19 cities and in 24 Reserve Centers spread across Alabama. Today, Alabama is home to approximately 7000 Army Reservists representing nearly 3\1/2\% of the total Army Reserve Force. I am particularly proud of the fact that we have the 81st Regional Support Command and the 87th Division (Exercise) headquartered in Birmingham, a unit which commands and controls soldiers in a number of surrounding southern states. Like any major element of the Armed Forces, America's Army Reserve has a great history. Let me share just a small portion of that history: Created by statute on April 23, 1908, first of the Federal reserve forces created by Congress, a trained and ready force of citizen soldiers bringing relevant skills into the military, an integral part of today's global power projection strategy, a force which deploy's 20,000 reservists to 50 countries annually, a force which has mobilized and deployed 70% of the reserve forces to Bosnia for Operation Joint Guard, a force which contributed over 90,000 soldiers to Operation Desert Storm, one of which was my Chief of Staff, Armand DeKeyser, and a force which is found in all 50 states, U.S. territories, in Europe and in the Pacific region. Mr. President, we have much to be proud of in America tonight. We can add to that list the United States Army Reserve whose birthday we quietly celebrate. Happy Birthday to the men and women of the Army Reserves. Men and women who quietly man the ramparts of freedom. You are always there when America needs you. For this act of selfless devotion, we as a nation ought to be truly grateful.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The number I have is $1,380.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from New Mexico is exactly correct. Certainly we have more people, more men and women living together without being married today than ever before.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to offer some comments in support of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding the elimination of the marriage penalty. Marriage is an institution to be venerated, and our public policy should affirm marriage and we should have laws that treat married couples on an equal basis with those that are not married. That is the fundamental principle of fairness. The fact is that under our current laws, married couples suffer a financial penalty when it comes to taxation. In fact, married couples pay often substantially more tax than they would pay if they were not married. For example, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that 42 percent of married couples face a marriage penalty under the current tax system. The Congressional Budget Office also found that the average tax penalty amounts to $1,380 per year. That is a $100-a-month tax penalty on people who choose to be married rather than those who choose not to marry. As a result of that, we are taking more of their money to in fact subsidize people who are not married who receive those benefits. I think some people have suggested this is in fact a realistic cause of people not to marry. For example, in 1970, just .5 percent of the couples in the United States were not married. By 1996, that number had risen to 7.2 percent. So, Madam President, I would say that this is a very important debate. And I will not belabor the subject. This is a matter that has been the subject of much debate, with much intellectual and financial study, and the conclusion of these numbers is plain and obvious. Under our current tax system, married couples are being subjected to an unfair financial penalty. This is a matter that this Senate must address. It may be a bit late this year to make those changes. I wish it could have been done this year, but it is a change we are going to have to make. We are going to have to eliminate the circumstance in which a married couple is penalized for being married. It is not just, it is not fair, not appropriate, and it is unbecoming of the laws of the United States. So, Madam President, I support this resolution and yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I would like to say how much I appreciate the Chairman's support for this concept, and for this resolution. I think we can begin now to take the kind of steps necessary to improve the tax laws in this regard.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is exactly correct. That is the average for those who suffer a penalty. That is the average amount of penalty that is suffered, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I express my appreciation to the Senator from New Jersey for his support. I add as original cosponsors of this legislation the names of Senators Roth and Kay Bailey Hutchison, who have asked to be cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent they be added as cosponsors.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased for Senator Enzi to have 5 minutes.