Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Dorgan.

Mr. THOMPSON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to address the pending so-called victims' rights constitutional amendment. There is no question but that there are instances when victims of crimes in this country are not heard as they should be heard. Our criminal justice system does not work perfectly. But these duties are given to local judges and local district attorneys. They are elected officials. In most cases, they are responsible to the people in their jurisdictions. It is in their interest to make sure victims are treated appropriately. Certainly, in most cases, the defendants are not the ones who have the public support on their side. It is certainly the victims. In most cases, it is in the interest of those charged with the responsibility of notifying victims of proceedings in court and treating them as they should be treated in carrying out those responsibilities. Having said that, we must acknowledge that some things slip through the cracks. We have a constitutional amendment that is proposed basically to cover those instances when these local officials let things slip through the cracks and victims are not notified of court dates or sentencing or parole hearings. The sentiment is understandable, but if we look a bit closer, we have to conclude that a constitutional amendment to address this problem is not the way to go. It is constitutional overkill, to say the least. All 50 States have recognized we can do better in terms of victims, we can notify them when important things happen with regard to the trial of a defendant, and all 50 States have passed legislation, constitutional amendments, or both, to address this problem. Even still, we in Washington, DC, say we are going to pass a constitutional amendment, in effect mandating--an unfunded mandate at that--mandating these States behave in certain ways to take care of this problem. People say: State laws and State constitutions still do not always work. There are still some cases where people are not notified, even though the State constitution and the State statute require it. A constitutional amendment will, in some way, solve that problem. I suggest there is no reason to believe whatsoever that in individual cases where this problem still persists, a Federal constitutional amendment will do any better than a State constitutional amendment will do in ensuring those rights. I believe this amendment will interject complexity into the judicial process, will cause increased litigation, and will actually have the effect of harming victims more than helping victims. The primary interest of a victim of a crime is to make sure a guilty defendant is, in fact, found guilty and properly punished. This constitutional amendment will make the procedure by which the DA's around the country are trying to prosecute these defendants more complex, more costly, more time consuming in many respects, and ultimately will harm the very end in which the victim is most interested, and that is seeing justice done and a guilty defendant found guilty by our court system. This constitutional amendment gives nine new rights to a new category of people. The Constitution sets out our form of government. The Bill of Rights basically is restrictions on the power of that Government. It tells the Government things they cannot do because we have been mindful of the down sides of an all-powerful federal government. We have set forth specific things the Government may not do toward individuals. That has usually been the purpose of amendments to our Constitution; that is, again, limiting the Government in what they can do with regard to the individual. This constitutional amendment creates nine new rights on behalf of a new category of people; that is, so-called victims. It has taken, in some cases, 200 years, or thereabouts, to have our courts pass on the issues that have come about because of the wording of our Constitution and the wording of the Bill of Rights--what is a reasonable and unreasonable search and seizure, for example. This will, in language that is more lengthy than most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, create additional complexity and raise additional questions that can only be resolved by courts of law. It will be many years before issues as to how this works are resolved. Who is a victim, how do you define a victim? For example, suppose we have a battered woman who is on trial for stabbing her husband. What if she is the defendant? What if the husband was, in fact, attacking her? Who is the victim in that case? The reasonable notice victims are supposed to get to court proceedings, it sounds good on its face, but what is reasonable notice? We have hundreds and hundreds of cases of trying to decide what is reasonable. In another context, what if a victim is not notified of a court proceeding on time? Or what if they say they are not but perhaps they have been? They may come in and say: This proceeding you have just finished, I did not get notice of it. The district attorney may say: Yes, we did give you notice. They may say: No, you did not. The district attorney may say: Yes, we did. They may say: It was not reasonable notice. The prosecutor may say: We gave you so many days. All of these issues ultimately will have to be decided by a court that should be devoting its attention to the proceedings in the case, along with the district attorneys devoting their attention to prosecuting the defendant and not having these collateral issues making their job that much more difficult. To understand the potential mischief of this constitutional amendment, I think you have to really understand our system and the way it is set up under the Constitution. The Constitution was mindful of the inherent problems with a centralized government. Our founding forefathers' experience with a powerful government, with a king, led them to decide we would have a federal system whereby the States would have certain rights. They decided against a national police state. We have certain defined Federal responsibilities with regard to law enforcement. But there is no inherent police authority in the Constitution for the Federal Government. The basic police authority is out in the States. We do not want a national police force in this country or a centralized policing authority for every kind of crime that might occur. Murder, robbery, rape, burglary--those are crimes that are handled at the State level. Mr. President, 95 percent of the offenses in this country are prosecuted at the State level, not the Federal level. That is not the Federal Government's business. Absent the relatively few truly Federal criminal cases that we have, these State offenses are prosecuted at the State level. They are prosecuted by district attorneys and assistant district attorneys all over the country. They are given a good deal of discretion as to how they handle these cases. Mind you, in most cases these people are elected officials in their local communities. They have every reason to want to do the right thing. They take an oath to uphold the law. They have an interest in making sure everybody is treated fairly. It does not always happen, but it is a system we are dealing with here. We cannot address every particular instance that might come along. It is a system with which we are concerned. This is our system. District attorneys decide when to plea bargain. District attorneys have to decide how strong their case is. Only they will know how strong their case is, in making a decision whether to accept a plea bargain. Sometimes, when you have multiple defendants, district attorneys have to make a decision to make a deal with one defendant for more lenience in exchange for testimony against another defendant. All of these are discretionary things that in our system we give local district attorneys the right to do. It is basically a system involving two parties; that is, the State, or the people, on the one hand, and the criminal defendants on the other. What this constitutional amendment would do is change that whole system in many material respects. Instead of having a two-party system, where you have a prosecutor, or the State, or the people, and a criminal defendant, you would now have three parties. You would have the prosecutor, the defendant, and the victim. At every meaningful stage of the criminal trial, you would have all of these three parties vying for the court's attention to have their interests expressed. It is complicated enough, as anybody who has ever been a prosecutor, an assistant U.S. attorney at the Federal level or assistant district attorney, can tell you. It is complicated enough when you just have two parties. You are trying to do the right thing. You are trying to prosecute the case. For the person who you believe is guilty, who has been indicted, you are going to bring them to trial. The defendant has not been convicted yet, but you believe they are guilty or you would not be prosecuting them. But you also know the limitations of your case. You also know how many other defendants there are out there. You also know whether or not this guy you have before you is a small fry or a big fish. You also know there might be a chance of getting to someone bigger. All those kinds of things you know are very complicated, very difficult. The defendants file motions for continuances. The defendants file motions to suppress evidence, if there is a search warrant involved. There are motions to dismiss and all those kinds of things. Here we come along with this constitutional amendment and inject a third party into the process, third parties who certainly have an interest in the outcome, third parties who are allowed to attend, third parties who want to see that justice is done. But a constitutional amendment would not just say, let's give these third parties these rights, let's try to do them right, let's try to make sure they have their voices heard; we would, by amendment, put this in the Constitution of the United States, just like the first amendment on free speech or the fifth amendment on due process or the sixth amendment on the right to counsel. We would elevate the rights of a victim, with whom we are all sympathetic, up there with the prosecutor and the defense in trying to juggle all of this business of giving notice and having a right to be in the courtroom at every stage of the game. The judge is going to have to decide whether or not notice has been given correctly at all the right times, whether or not the right people are in the courtroom. All this new complexity injected in an already complex system. As well meaning as it is, I think the result of it is going to be, as I said, more complexity, more litigation for people who believe the Constitution has not been followed, that they have not been given the right kind of notice, or they were late for court and they did not get to sit in the courtroom, or something of that nature. It is going to wind up hurting the ultimate interest of victims more than helping. Under the constitutional amendment, the victim, as we would ultimately define a victim--as I said, it is not going to be that easy in many cases--would have a right to come in and object to a deal the district attorney might want to make. Only the district attorney may know certain information. For example, let's say there is a gang involved and you have one cooperative witness. When the victims come in and object to the deal, the district attorney cannot stand up and say, this is the reason we are doing this, because everybody else would hear it. It would compromise possibly another case. Or if the victim comes in and objects to a plea bargain with a particular defendant, the district attorney cannot get up and say, the reason we did this, Your Honor, is we really do not have much of a chance, and we are lucky to get this. He cannot do that because he may have to, in fact, go to trial. As happens sometimes, the judge is sympathetic and says: We agree with the victim. We are not going to accept this deal. The district attorney is sitting there, unable to explain it fully on the one hand and then, on the other, having to go to trial, and in some cases, when in States that have such rules, has gone to trial and actually lost the case. So the attorney, instead of getting some punishment for a guilty defendant, has actually had to go to trial and at the trial, you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--a high standard of proof--and the defendant walks because they were unable to make the deal that they were trying to make. Under this amendment, there is a provision that is extremely troublesome; that is, that it becomes a constitutional right for a victim to be in court at all times during the proceeding. In most cases, in just about all States at one time, it was the rule. In fact, they just call it the rule. Every lawyer knows when you are trying a case, you say: Your Honor, I would like to impose the rule. When that happens, all of the other witnesses leave the courtroom because you don't want your witnesses to be hearing other witnesses testify. It might tailor their testimony. If somebody on your side of the case is testifying a certain way about how something happened, it makes sense that it is not in the interest of justice to have the other witnesses sitting there listening to that so when they get on the witness stand, they are not tempted to tailor their testimony and avoid any contradictions that the other side might take advantage of. It is kind of a horn book procedure. What this amendment would do would say that the victim could sit in the courtroom and listen to all of the other witnesses testify. If the prosecutor decided to put the victim on last, they could listen to every one of the witnesses testify before the victim in the courtroom took the stand. That goes against experience and common sense and common practice for about 200 years in this country. We have to keep in mind that at this stage of the game, this defendant has not been convicted of anything. As angry as we might be at the defendant or as much as we think he might be guilty, we have to remember he hasn't been convicted of anything. In this country, everybody gets a fair trial. If one of our loved ones was accused of something and we thought the accuser had their own reasons for accusing our loved one and we saw them sitting in the courtroom listening to all the witnesses talk about exactly how this happened and exactly how that happened and then they took the stand and kind of melded all the testimony together to make it all consistent and wrap it up in one big bow, I think we would be concerned about that. The trial judge at least ought to have the discretion of making a determination as to who sits in the courtroom and who does not. The Federal Government does not have any business micromanaging the trial of these lawsuits in every general sessions court in every little town in the country. That is what this constitutional amendment would do. It would upset the balance we have always had in this country of a prosecutor, a defendant, tried in a State court with local rules. There have always been constitutional provisions the States have to abide by--there is no question about that--free speech, search and seizure, all of that, but we don't have a unitary government, we have a system of federalism whereby States decide these local cases and State judges make those decisions. We come along with a constitutional amendment that creates nine new rights, about 2\1/2\ pages of new Constitution, and goes totally away from the concept that we have had for 200 years in this country, the concept of federalism. I think this proposal is another step down the road toward a Federal takeover of our criminal justice system. For most of America's history, Federal involvement in criminal law was limited to national issues. Yet in this age of mass media and saturation coverage, Congress and the White House are ever eager to pass Federal criminal laws. Chief Justice Rehnquist has said this. To appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime, the Congress acts in these areas and creates more and more Federal crimes out of what should be State and local offenses. We have reached the point where nobody really knows how many Federal crimes now exist. Nobody can really calculate them, but we keep piling them on, more and more. We have undoubtedly surpassed an old estimate that we had awhile back of 3,000. A hearing I chaired last year reviewed an American Bar Association task force report from leaders in the criminal justice system who counseled restraint in federalizing crime control. Justice Brandeis once said: Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. That is the system we have. States address these issues in different ways. Why should we, as the Federal Government, impose one size fits all on a populace that is not in agreement on exactly what that should be? Why should the States not have the leeway to do what States have always done in our system? Last but not least, this is a solution looking for a problem for the most part. Every State in the Union has addressed this issue. We have become more mindful that in some cases victims are not getting the attention they need. So every State in the Union has taken a look at this. We think the system works out pretty well. For the most part, our public officials are doing what they are supposed to do. Some States have gone so far as to change their constitutions. Some States in the middle have passed legislation. But every State, one way or another, has addressed this, doing what States are supposed to be doing, responding to the demands of their local citizens. My State of Tennessee changed its constitution with regard to this. There is absolutely no need for us to federalize this particular area of criminal law. Finally, my primary concern, besides the ones of upsetting our constitutional framework and system that we have enjoyed in this country for so long, is that--because of the complexity, because of the increased litigation and problems that we can't even anticipate now with a three-party procedure instead of a two-party procedure, questions that will have to be resolved by courts not knowing what kind of delays all this is going to produce and messing up our system and so forth--we will wind up in many cases hurting a victim's interests more than we will help them. As I said from the outset, the victim's primary interest is to make sure that a defendant who is guilty in fact be found guilty in a fair, efficient way that is uncomplicated, uncluttered, and that does not go on forever. Therefore, I urge that we reject this constitutional amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 26. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, tomorrow morning when the Senate convenes, it is expected that the veto message on the nuclear waste bill will arrive. Under the rule, when the Senate receives the veto message, the Senate will immediately begin debate on overriding the President's veto. It is hoped that an agreement can be made with regard to debate time on this important legislation. The cloture motion on the substitute amendment to the marriage penalty tax bill is still pending. That vote will occur immediately following the adoption of the motion to proceed to the victims' rights resolution. Therefore, a few votes could occur tomorrow afternoon or evening.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, Governor Don Sundquist of the State of Tennessee has proclaimed April 16-22, 2000, as ``National Association of Retired Federal Employees Week'' in order to focus attention on the many accomplishments of Tennessee's retired Federal employees. In recognition of the important public service performed by Federal retirees, I ask my colleagues to join Governor Sundquist and me in acknowledging the contributions retired Federal employees have made to this Nation and their continued dedication to our communities. Beginning in 1882, a non-partisan civil service system was established granting Federal employees the protections of a merit system, eliminating the spoils system and basing Federal employment decisions on merit rather than political connection. It is in this spirit that Federal employees, over the course of almost 120 years, have served the public interest. Their professional lives have been dedicated to performing and carrying out the responsibilities of the Federal Government. In an effort to improve the civil service, and in recognition of civil servants' efforts on behalf of the Federal Government, Congress enacted in 1920 the first comprehensive employer-sponsored retirement plan - the Civil Service Retirement System. This system has served the country well since then and its successor, the Federal Employee Retirement System, serves as a benchmark in evaluating pension and retirement plans. As the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I can attest to the effectiveness of NARFE members in making the case for equitable retirement and health benefits for the more than two million federal retirees and their survivors. My State of Tennessee is home to more than 37,000 Federal retirees. These folks, like all federal retirees, served their country through their commitment to public service. Federal retirees deserve our Nation's thanks for the dedication they have shown. I hope all my colleagues will join me today saluting Federal retirees for a job well done.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Government for the 21st Century Act, a bill to establish a commission to bring the structure and functions of our Government in line with the needs of our Nation in the new century. This bipartisan legislation was the result of work done by the Governmental Affairs Committee last Congress and is virtually identical to S. 2623, 105th Congress. The bill has been carefully crafted to address not just what our Government should look like, but the more fundamental question of what it should do. Clearly, the time has come to take a comprehensive and fresh look at what the Federal Government does and how it goes about doing it. Despite these good economic times, polls repeatedly show that Americans have little trust or confidence in the Federal Government. They want the Federal Government to work, but they don't think that it does. Unfortunately, our citizens have ample reason for concern. The Federal Government of today is a cacophony of agencies and programs, many of which are directed at the same problems. Much of what Washington does is inefficient and wasteful. Few would dispute that the government in Washington cannot do effectively all it is now charged with doing. When it comes to specifics, however, changing things is extremely difficult. Virtually every Federal agency and program has an entrenched constituency to shield it from scrutiny and fend off challenges to the status quo. Hence, the familiar axiom that the closest thing to immortality is a Washington spending program. Federal agencies and programs have mushroomed over time, evolving in a largely random manner to respond to the real or perceived needs of the moment. Consequently, duplication and fragmentation abound. There is an obvious need to bring some order out of this chaos. As former Comptroller General Charles Bowsher stated in testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 1995: The case for reorganizing the Federal government is an easy one to make. Many departments and agencies were created in a different time and in response to problems very different from today's. Many have accumulated responsibilities beyond their original purposes. As new challenges arose or new needs were identified, new programs and responsibilities were added to departments and agencies with insufficient regard to their effects on the overall delivery of services to the public. The situation has not improved since then. Just last month, the current Comptroller General, David Walker, recited an all too familiar litany of duplication, waste, mismanagement, and other Federal performance problems in testimony before the Senate and House Budget Committees. The GAO ``high-risk list'' of those Federal activities most vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse has grown from 14 problem areas in 1990 to 26 problem areas today. Only one high-risk problem has been removed since 1995. Ten of the 14 original high-risk problems are still on the list today--a full decade later. Likewise, inspectors general identify much the same critical performance problems in their agencies year after year. Collectively, these core performance problems cost Federal taxpayers countless billions of dollars each year in outright waste. They also exact an incalculable toll on the ability of agencies to carry out their missions and serve the needs of our citizens. Of course, meaningful reform of the Federal Government will not come from simply reshuffling current organizational boxes and redistributing current programs. We need to conduct a fundamental review of what Washington does and why. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a government of defined and limited powers. Imagine their dismay if they knew the size and scope of the Federal government today. We need to return to the limited but effective government that the Founders intended. This means divesting the Federal Government of functions it is not well suited to perform. However, it also means ensuring that the Federal Government does a better job of performing those core constitutional functions for which our citizens must rely on it. The commission established in the legislation we are introducing today is a major step in that direction. It will take a hard look at Federal departments, agencies and programs and ask such questions as: How can we restructure agencies and programs to improve the implementation of their statutory missions, eliminate activities not essential to their statutory missions, and reduce duplication of activities? How can we improve management to maximize productivity, effectiveness and accountability of performance results? What criteria should we use in determining whether a Federal activity should be privatized? Which departments or agencies should be eliminated because their functions are obsolete, redundant, or could be better performed by state and local governments or the private sector? Obviously, these questions involve subjective policy decisions. However, policy decisions should be the product of honest and open debate that stems from objective and fact-based analysis. I am convinced that this analysis can best be provided by an independent, nonpartisan commission that is removed from the normal pressures of Washington. The commission will have many information sources available to it. The first cycle of implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 will be complete by the end of this month when agencies submit their first performance reports. The plans and reports that agencies have submitted under the Results Act, while far from perfect, should provide a more comprehensive framework for reviewing Federal missions and performance than we have had before. I am pleased that Senators Lieberman and Voinovich are joining me in introducing the bill today, and I thank them for the time and staff they have devoted to the effort. I look forward to working with them on this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the Government for the 21st Century Act, along with a brief summary and section-by-section analysis, be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2285 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 761.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House, agree to the request for a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Byrd.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it adjourn until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, March 27, 2000. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the exception for the following: the first 45 minutes under the control of Senator Durbin, or his designee; the second 45 minutes under the control of Senator Thomas, or his designee.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, seventeen years ago today President Reagan first committed his administration and the country to the concept of a National Missile Defense. He rightfully viewed the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction--the prevailing strategic concept of the day--as dangerous to this Nation. President Reagan understood that the only way to protect the American people and our homeland was through common sense, straight talk, and a strong, credible defense, not threats of mutual annihilation. While President Reagan and his Strategic Defense Initiative were mocked by critics, he remained steadfast in his vision and his belief that the American people could achieve anything they committed themselves to doing. Seventeen years later the United States remains vulnerable to missile attack, but from newer and more likely threats, some of which we may not be able to deter: accidental launches, terrorist groups, and rogue states. The United States Intelligence Community and outside expert groups like the Rumsfeld Commission tell us that the threats are real and growing. Less than two years ago North Korea launched a three-stage missile over Japan, demonstrating a North Korean capability to send a missile with a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon to the United States. Meanwhile, other rogue states like Iran, Iraq, and Libya are developing similar capabilities. Despite these real dangers, the current administration has kept the American people vulnerable to attack by failing to vigorously pursue missile defense programs started by previous Republican administrations. It has put the fate of our country and our people in the hands of the 1972 ABM Treaty--a treaty signed with a country that no longer exists, which was written for a vastly different strategic environment, and which codified the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction. It is imperative that the United States aggressively pursue Ronald Reagan's vision of an American homeland free and safe, protected from intimidation, blackmail, and attack by missile-armed adversaries. We can start by putting greater effort and resources into programs like the National Missile Defense program--which has already demonstrated through actual tests that missile defense is technologically feasible-- a fact acknowledged privately by defense officials, and publicly by Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen following the most recent test when he stated that ``the technology is certainly proving to be on the right track.'' The United States should also continue to develop other initiatives which will complement our ground based system and provide for a multi- layered defense. I'm talking specifically about a sea-based system mounted on Navy Aegis cruisers that can be placed off an adversary's coast and destroy enemy missiles immediately after launch; or the Airborne Laser program that seeks to destroy missiles during their ascent; and a space-based system that can shoot down ballistic missiles in the outer atmosphere and vacuum of space. I might also take this opportunity to compliment the Center for Security Policy and the Heritage Foundation that made valuable contributions in the discussion toward these alternatives. The key to such a system is working with the Russians to allay their concerns, address their fears, and modify the ABM treaty to accommodate a robust, multi-layered national missile defense. We must try to convince the Russians that they share the threats we face--limited attacks or threats by rogue states--and that our missile defense plans in no way undercut their strategic deterrent. But ultimately, whether Russia is convinced or not, America must do what is necessary to protect itself. I am concerned that the Clinton administration is currently negotiating changes to the ABM Treaty that will not allow us to fulfill these plans; that they are negotiating to make limited changes to the treaty that will sound good in an election year but will prevent us from building the robust, multi-tiered missile defense we need. This would be unsatisfactory and irresponsible. Marginal changes to the ABM Treaty will only keep America vulnerable to missile attack, mislead the public about their safety, and tie the hands of the next Administration that may choose to do what is right, not politically or diplomatically expedient. Finally, we must work with our Allies to address their concerns, interests, and our mutual defense obligations. We stood guard together during the dark days of the Cold War and eventually defeated communism. We must stand together again now and face the threats of the post-cold- war era. Only through a sustained commitment to a national missile defense system--which can defend the American people from these horrible weapons of mass destruction--can the government fulfill its first responsibility of defending the United States. This is the right and sensible thing to do, and the American people are capable of achieving it. President Reagan understood that almost twenty years ago today.

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

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. For the information of all Senators, following the morning business period at 1:30 on Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of S.J. Res. 14 regarding the desecration of the flag. Under the agreement reached earlier, two amendments will be debated during Monday's session of the Senate. As announced, no rollcall votes will occur on Monday, and therefore the votes in relation to those amendments are scheduled for 2:15 on Tuesday. Any Senators interested in debating this important measure should be prepared to do so on Monday or early Tuesday. Again, the next scheduled rollcall vote will occur beginning at 2:15 on Tuesday.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi very much. I do wish to make a couple of comments in response to the chairman of the Banking Committee, the Senator from Texas. First of all, I appreciate his taking the bill down and giving us an opportunity for further discussions and negotiations. Apparently, there are still some items on which some Members are trying to come together. I must say, and have said to my friends, Senator Gramm and Senator Enzi, that my concern goes deeper than some of the details we are working on right now. Unless some very substantial changes can be made, which I do not anticipate, I could not support the bill. I will not be the one standing in the way of proceeding on the bill, but I reserve all my rights as we proceed and discuss it. It does need full discussion. It is a very serious matter. I am afraid it has not yet gotten the attention it deserves. We will have some amendments, hopefully, to improve the bill as we go along. I agree with my friend from Texas that it is a different time. We are not in the cold war anymore. No one can put the technological genie back in the bottle. But our export policies have quite adequately taken that into consideration. In fact, many on this side of the aisle, people around the country, have been quite critical of this administration because of the liberality or the looseness of the export controls that we are operating under now, under Executive order. As we know, we have not had a reauthorization of the Export Administration Act since 1994. We have been operating basically on Executive orders. I personally feel the Executive orders we are operating under with regard to our export controls are too loose and need tightening. We saw what happened with regard to the exporting of our satellite technology and the Hughes and Loral situation that is under investigation by the Justice Department right now, where we got the Chinese to send our satellites up in orbit but apparently in the process gave the Chinese some very sophisticated technology that would assist them with regard to their missile program. So Congress reacted to that. The Commerce Department had, previous to that, transferred the jurisdiction of satellites from the State Department to Commerce. It was all under Commerce. We took a look at that and said that does not belong in Commerce. Commerce has a legitimate concern about trade and exports for sure, but that is not the only concern. When you are exporting materials that have national security significance, so-called dual-use items that might be militarily significant to countries that you do not want to be helping, then the State Department needs to be concerned, too. So Congress insisted that jurisdiction be brought out from Commerce and given back to the State Department. We have also seen what the administration has done with regard to high-performance computers. They reassess the situation every 6 months. They are increasing the MTOPS level for the export of high-performance computers to countries such as China and other third-tier countries at a very brisk rate. The MTOPS level has gone from 2,000 in 1996 to 12,500 for military, as we speak. The anticipation is that the MTOPS level will continue on apace very significantly. Now we have an amendment this morning, as I understand it, that would cause that review to happen not only every 6 months but every 30 days. The Department of Commerce would be looking at our high-performance computers and whether or not we ought to reassess sending more computers, something that we have had the dominant position on throughout the world, something the Chinese, until recently, had no indigenous capability of developing. We continue to supply them. We take into consideration things such as the abilities of foreign countries. My point is, the Department of Commerce is hardly being guarded as they establish their policies of exports as far as high-speed computers are concerned. Many people, including myself, are concerned that they go too far and too fast because we do not know what the Chinese, for example, are really doing with them. We are told they have clustered together computers of lower MTOPS levels and have come up with something much, much more significant than what, perhaps, we think they have. We were told by the Cox commission that the Chinese are using our high-performance computers for their simulations for their nuclear program. We were told that they use our high-performance computers to assist them in their biological and cryptology programs. The cold war is over, and the last time we reauthorized this act, Jimmy Carter was in the White House. Indeed, the cold war has come and gone, but we have new challenges on the horizon. We do not have the old Soviet Union anymore, but we do have the Chinese who, the Rumsfeld commission tells us and the Cox commission in great detail explains to us, are very aggressively attempting to get their hands on our technology. We know about the situation in Los Alamos. We know about their endeavors, as far as their commercial enterprises around the country. They tell us, in addition to that, they are feeding off our technology that we are exporting to them to use in the most troublesome manner, as they continue to be one of the world's greatest proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. It is not just what they are doing in China, but it is what they are doing around the world. We have every reason to be extremely concerned about our export policies in light of these developments. We were warned by the Rumsfeld commission that we are facing a threat such as we have never faced before in this Nation with regard to these rogue nations and their increasing capabilities. We were warned by the Deutch commission. We were warned by the Cox commission. We were warned by at least two recent national security estimates in terms of the capabilities of these rogue nations. They all say they are getting much of their stuff from the Russians and the Chinese. This is the backdrop against which we are considering reauthorization of the Export Administration Act. My concern is not that we are reauthorizing and taking a look at it, it is that we are looking at it totally from the wrong direction. We should be looking at ways of getting more training for our people who are serving as export licensers. We need to do more on end users. We do not know when we send a high-speed computer or high-performance computer to China what happens to it. Up until 1998, the Chinese would not even let us check on end users. Out of 600-some computers we have sent over there, we have had one end user check. According to the Cox commission, in 1998, we got an agreement with the Chinese to check with the end users, but the administration will not release that agreement. The Cox commission says they have seen it-- they cannot release it--but it is totally inadequate. This is the backdrop against which we are considering reauthorizing the Export Administration Act. What do we do with this bill, S. 1712? The bill does some good things, I think. There are some provisions in it that move in the right direction, but they are fairly minimal. In many important respects, it, first of all, further incorporates into law things this administration has been doing by Executive order and then creates new legal categories, all of which liberalize or loosen export controls. It creates a category with regard to foreign availability. Foreign availability is taken into consideration now by the Department of Commerce in making its decisions as it increases these end-top levels. They take that into consideration. What this bill will do is put it into law and set up a technical group within the Department of Commerce to make a determination if there is foreign availability, and, if so, lickety-split, it does not matter what the end-top level is at Commerce when that happens, it goes out the door. We have seen from hearings in our committee that there is sometimes great disagreement as to whether or not there is foreign availability with a certain item. It is not just strictly a green-eyeshade matter of physics; it is something that ought to be considered very carefully and should not be left up to the unilateral discretion of Commerce. This bill gives Commerce more discretion than it has ever had before. We have been very critical of the practices of the Department of Commerce in this administration in times past. I suggest we consider very carefully whether or not we want to give even more authority to the Department of Commerce as we move forward. Another category is created out of whole cloth: mass marketing. That is not in common practice now; that is not in current Executive orders now. It basically says if it is mass marketed in this country, even if it is not in another country, the assumption is they are eventually going to get it, so let's send it to them, taking into consideration the advantage we might have of at least having a delay as we consider our policies in this Nation, such as the National Missile Defense Program or things of that nature. We are creating mass marketing. We are creating foreign availability. We are creating embedded components: No matter if a component is controlled, if it is part of a larger component, and it is only so much of the value of that larger component, you look at the value and not the inherent nature of the component itself. That is not right. We ought to look at the component, and if it is controlled, it ought to remain controlled whether it is in a larger item or not. It is another category where we are taking additional items out of control. Each of these things can be and, I assure you, will be debated in some detail as to whether or not it is good policy, but I think there can be no argument on two points: First, there is greater discretion in many respects in the Department of Commerce and in the Secretary of Commerce. Second, this bill tips the scales in favor of more exports. That is the reason we are doing it. I personally have not heard any complaints--maybe there are complaints out there; I do not say there are not--from exporters who are not getting things through fast enough. Maybe we need more people. Maybe we need more folks handling the paperwork. Whatever. I do not argue that point. I do not hear any hue and cry that we are not shipping dual-use possibly militarily significant items out fast enough. But one could look at this bill and assume that is the underlying motivation, that we believe we need to loosen up the export controls a little bit. It is an honest disagreement. My friends have worked very hard on this. They have tried to be as accommodating as they know how, but we approach this from a fundamentally different vantage point. I look forward to the discussion when we get on the bill. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. May I inquire of my colleague exactly what he just suggested, that it be placed on the calendar now and that it be brought back up as pending business at the discretion of the majority leader?

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I indicated that I might object to the motion to proceed to the Export Administration Act. It is not my intention to do that. In checking with my other colleagues who have been concerned with this matter, I have learned they are satisfied, as I am, that there have been negotiations in good faith with regard to some of the provisions of the Export Administration Act that cause us great concern; therefore, I will be content to offer amendments tomorrow. But I would like to state for the Record that I do not intend immediately to enter into any time agreement. The chairman of the Banking Committee has indicated that he does not intend to ask for any time agreement going in. There will be amendments. We need thorough discussion of this matter. This is not something we can hastily go into and dispense with. It is very complicated. It is very important. It has to do with our export policy with regard to our dual-use items--very sensitive items which some countries are now using to enhance their nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction capabilities. There is hardly anything more serious than that. My own view is that we have needed to reauthorize the Export Administration Act for some time. But we need to tighten the rules, not loosen the rules. My concern is that this does, indeed, loosen some of the important rules. While I will not object to a motion to proceed, I want it understood that we are going to need a full discussion of the issue. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Tennessee Titans on their outstanding season and tremendous effort in Super Bowl XXXIV. This past Sunday, football fans across America and around the world witnessed the most exciting and hard-fought Super Bowl in recent memory, if not all-time. Trailing by sixteen points in the third quarter, the Titans rallied to tie the game. They fell behind once again, but drove down to the St. Louis one-yard-line before time ran out. The road to Atlanta was not an easy one for the Tennessee Titans. The team has played in four stadiums in three cities and two states in four years. But, despite this adversity, Titans Coach Jeff Fisher motivated his players, orchestrated comebacks and led a team that fought until the last second, the last yard. Ultimately, they ran out of time. Who will forget Kevin Dyson stretching to reach the goal line when the clock ran out on the most important game of his life? Who could ever forget the Titans' ``Music City Miracle,'' the kick-off return that clinched a play-off victory over the Buffalo Bills, the outstanding defensive effort in the win at Indianapolis, the incredible second half in Jacksonville that propelled the team to the Super Bowl, the indomitable will of Steve McNair or the power and determination of Eddie George? The Titans came so close to winning it all, and they have so much of which they can be proud. The Tennessee Titans can be proud of the way they played with heart and introduced the world to a team that many hadn't heard much about. The Titans energized the state of Tennessee and nearly shocked the world. Most important, the Titans gave their young fans an example of the character and sportsmanship to which we should all aspire. And they inspired us with their refusal to give up when they were pegged the underdogs. Mr. President, I'd also like to congratulate my good friends from the state of Missouri on the success of the St. Louis Rams. They too overcame a tough recent history and many nay-sayers to win the most exciting Super Bowl in history. Their wide receiver, Isaac Bruce, a former player for my alma mater the University of Memphis, stunned us all with his winning 73-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter. And the Super Bowl's most valuable player, Kurt Warner, is an inspiration on the football field and in his personal life. I congratulate them both and all of their Rams teammates.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator Lieberman, the Committee's ranking minority member, on an issue of great importance to our committee and the nation--the security of Federal government computer systems. Over the last decade, the Federal Government, like most private- sector organizations, has become enormously dependent on interconnected computer systems, including the Internet, to support its operations and account for its assets. This explosion in interconnectivity has resulted in many benefits. In particular, it has increased productivity, made enormous amounts of useful information instantly available to millions of people, and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s. However, the factors that generate these benefits--widely accessible data and instantaneous communication--also increase the risks that information will be misused, possibly to commit fraud or other crimes, or that sensitive information will be in appropriately disclosed. In addition, our government's, as well as our nation's, dependence on this computer support makes it susceptible to devastating disruptions in critical services, as well as in computer-based safety and financial controls. Such disruptions could be caused by sabotage, natural disasters, or widespread system faults, as illustrated by the Y2K date conversion concerns. The Governmental Affairs Committee spent considerable time during the last Congress on this issue with a specific emphasis on information security and cyberterrorism. We uncovered and identified failures of information security affecting our international security and vulnerability to domestic and international terrorism. We highlighted our nation's vulnerability to computer attacks--from international and domestic terrorists to crime rings to everyday hackers. We directed GAO to prepare a ``best practices'' guide on computer security for Federal agencies to use, and we asked GAO to study computer security vulnerabilities at several Federal agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Social Security Administration, and the Veterans' Administration. As a result of its work, GAO identified many specific weaknesses in agency controls and concluded that the underlying cause was inadequate security program planning and management. In particular, agencies were addressing identified weaknesses on a piecemeal basis rather than proactively addressing systemic causes that diminished security effectiveness throughout the agency. That is not to say that nothing is being done. Many in the executive branch recognize that action is needed to improve Federal information security, and several efforts have been initiated. For example, in May 1998, Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 directed the National Security Council to lead a variety of efforts intended to improve critical infrastructure protection, including protection of Federal agency information infrastructures, and required major agencies to develop plans to protect their own critical computer-based systems. But despite a flurry of activity in this area and a number of statutes already on the books which deal with the issues, we have concluded that a more complete and meaningful statutory foundation for improvement is needed. The primary objective of this legislation is to update existing information security statutory requirements to address the management challenges associated with operating in the current interconnected computing environment. We begin where the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996 left off. These laws, and the computer Security Act of 1987, provided the basic framework for managing information security. This legislation which we introduce today will update and clarify existing requirements and responsibilities of Federal agencies in dealing with information security. The Government Information Security Act: Strengthens the Office of Management and Budget's information security duties, consistent with its existing responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Establishes Federal agency accountability for information security as needed to cost-effectively protect the assets and operations of the agency by creating a set of management requirements derived from GAO ``Best Practices'' audit work; Requires agencies to have an annual independent evaluation of their information security programs and practices to assess compliance with authorized requirements and to test effectiveness of information security control techniques; Provides for the application of a unified and logical set of governmentwide controls by including national security systems within the application of the legislation; and Focuses on the importance of training programs and governmentwide incident handling. We recognize that these aren't the only things that need to be done. Some have suggested we provide specific standards in the legislation. Others have recommended we establish a new position of a National Chief Information Officer. These and, no doubt, many other proposals will be considered as we debate this important issue. But this legislation is intended as a good first step to better define roles among Federal agencies in order to develop a fully secure government. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill we are introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator Lieberman, the Committee's ranking minority member, on an issue of great importance to our committee and the nation--the security of Federal government computer systems. Over the last decade, the Federal Government, like most private- sector organizations, has become enormously dependent on interconnected computer systems, including the Internet, to support its operations and account for its assets. This explosion in interconnectivity has resulted in many benefits. In particular, it has increased productivity, made enormous amounts of useful information instantly available to millions of people, and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s. However, the factors that generate these benefits--widely accessible data and instantaneous communication--also increase the risks that information will be misused, possibly to commit fraud or other crimes, or that sensitive information will be in appropriately disclosed. In addition, our government's, as well as our nation's, dependence on this computer support makes it susceptible to devastating disruptions in critical services, as well as in computer-based safety and financial controls. Such disruptions could be caused by sabotage, natural disasters, or widespread system faults, as illustrated by the Y2K date conversion concerns. The Governmental Affairs Committee spent considerable time during the last Congress on this issue with a specific emphasis on information security and cyberterrorism. We uncovered and identified failures of information security affecting our international security and vulnerability to domestic and international terrorism. We highlighted our nation's vulnerability to computer attacks--from international and domestic terrorists to crime rings to everyday hackers. We directed GAO to prepare a ``best practices'' guide on computer security for Federal agencies to use, and we asked GAO to study computer security vulnerabilities at several Federal agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Social Security Administration, and the Veterans' Administration. As a result of its work, GAO identified many specific weaknesses in agency controls and concluded that the underlying cause was inadequate security program planning and management. In particular, agencies were addressing identified weaknesses on a piecemeal basis rather than proactively addressing systemic causes that diminished security effectiveness throughout the agency. That is not to say that nothing is being done. Many in the executive branch recognize that action is needed to improve Federal information security, and several efforts have been initiated. For example, in May 1998, Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 directed the National Security Council to lead a variety of efforts intended to improve critical infrastructure protection, including protection of Federal agency information infrastructures, and required major agencies to develop plans to protect their own critical computer-based systems. But despite a flurry of activity in this area and a number of statutes already on the books which deal with the issues, we have concluded that a more complete and meaningful statutory foundation for improvement is needed. The primary objective of this legislation is to update existing information security statutory requirements to address the management challenges associated with operating in the current interconnected computing environment. We begin where the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996 left off. These laws, and the computer Security Act of 1987, provided the basic framework for managing information security. This legislation which we introduce today will update and clarify existing requirements and responsibilities of Federal agencies in dealing with information security. The Government Information Security Act: Strengthens the Office of Management and Budget's information security duties, consistent with its existing responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Establishes Federal agency accountability for information security as needed to cost-effectively protect the assets and operations of the agency by creating a set of management requirements derived from GAO ``Best Practices'' audit work; Requires agencies to have an annual independent evaluation of their information security programs and practices to assess compliance with authorized requirements and to test effectiveness of information security control techniques; Provides for the application of a unified and logical set of governmentwide controls by including national security systems within the application of the legislation; and Focuses on the importance of training programs and governmentwide incident handling. We recognize that these aren't the only things that need to be done. Some have suggested we provide specific standards in the legislation. Others have recommended we establish a new position of a National Chief Information Officer. These and, no doubt, many other proposals will be considered as we debate this important issue. But this legislation is intended as a good first step to better define roles among Federal agencies in order to develop a fully secure government. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill we are introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, yesterday, my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and I introduced legislation that is, frankly, long overdue. For more than 2 years, I have been concerned that the Department of Energy was not taking seriously the complaints of a number of workers in Oak Ridge, Tennessee who are ill and who believe that their illnesses are linked to their employment at the DOE site in Oak Ridge. In November of 1997, two years ago, I wrote to the then-Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher, to request that the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, come to Oak Ridge to try to determine whether a pattern of unexplained illnesses was present and, if so, if its cause could be determined. The CDC study, like others before it, looked at a narrow sample of individuals and did not produce conclusive results. Since then, I have been working to get the Department of Energy to acknowledge that there is a problem, that certain of its current and former workers are ill, and that they should work with us to address the situation. This legislation--which we developed in conjunction with the Department--is an important step in that direction. It says, for the first time, that if mistakes were made, and if harm was done to workers who helped this country win the Cold War, we need to act now to remedy those mistakes. It represents a recognition on the part of the government that if people have illnesses that are linked to their employment at a Department of Energy facility, they deserve compensation. That is progress, and I am proud to be a part of it. Our bill has three parts. The first section, the Energy Employees' Beryllium Compensation Act, would provide compensation to current and former workers who have contracted chronic beryllium disease or beryllium sensitivity while performing duties uniquely related to the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons production program. There are approximately 90 Oak Ridge workers who have been diagnosed with either chronic beryllium disease or beryllium sensitivity to date, and a total of 2,200 Oak Ridge workers who were potentially exposed. The second section, the Energy Employees' Pilot Project Act, would establish a special pilot program for a specific group of 55 Oak Ridge workers who are currently the subject of an investigation by a panel of physicians specializing in health conditions related to occupational exposure to radiation and hazardous materials. This section authorizes the Secretary of Energy to award $100,000 each to those Oak Ridge workers whose illnesses are determined to likely be linked to their employment at the Oak Ridge site. Finally, our bill creates the Paducah Employees' Exposure Compensation Fund, which would compensate those current and former workers at the Paducah, KY gaseous diffusion plant who were exposed to plutonium and other radioactive materials without their knowledge, and who develop one of a specified list of conditions linked to radiation exposure. I want to note that there are workers at the K-25 gaseous diffusion plant in Oak Ridge who were exposed to the same contaminants as those in Paducah, and workers in Portsmouth, Ohio who were similarly affected as well. It is my hope that these two groups of workers would be added to this section of the legislation, upon the conclusion of the Department of Energy's investigation into what happened at these two sites, if the facts so warrant. Their absence at this time should in no way indicate that either the sponsors of this bill or the Department of Energy believe that they were not similarly affected. I strongly believe that workers at all of the DOE sites must be treated equally in this process, and I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that that is the case. Let me just remind my colleagues who it is we are talking about. We are talking about workers who participated in the Manhattan Project, men and women who helped to ensure the superiority of America's nuclear arsenal, and who directly contributed to our nation's victory in the Cold War. We owe them a debt of gratitude. And if we put them in harm's way without their knowledge, it's time for us to make that right. This bill is a step in that direction. I look forward to its consideration by the Senate.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) will be celebrating its 60th Anniversary by honoring Elmer B. Staats, who served as Comptroller General of the United States from 1966-1981. The Comptroller General of the United States has enormous responsibility as head of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Much of what we take for granted about GAO's successes in the area of government accountability results from the leadership of each Comptroller General. The commitment required to fulfill the responsibilities of this important position are equally balanced by the excellence we have seen in the occupants of the job. That said, Elmer Staats occupies a special place not only in GAO's history, but for establishing the foundation of improved government accountability and fiscal responsibility so important to the sound functioning of our government. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs I can attest to the importance of Mr. Staats' contributions, because they have crucially shaped the effectiveness of GAO over the years and have been of enormous assistance to the Committee and to the Congress as a whole. Elmer Staats increased GAO's visibility and services to the Congress dramatically. Elmer Staats expanded GAO's work beyond the mere consideration of the legality of expenditures and agency administrative activities, and began examining the effectiveness of government programs. What is important is that he did so by adapting rigorous accounting or ``Yellow Book'' Government Auditing Standards. In fact, when it comes to the Yellow Book, Elmer Staats literally wrote the book. Finally, Elmer Staats set the pace for GAO to be a leader in the fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. As Stephen Barr reported in The Washington Post on Thursday, October 28, 1999, ``For fiscal 1999, the GAO expects its recommendations to produce budget savings and financial benefits worth more than $20 billion. That follows several years in which the GAO's auditing and investigative work has led to annual savings of between $16 billion and $21 billion.'' I applaud ASPA's decision to honor Elmer Staats to highlight its own 60 years of service to our nation, and I extend my personal congratulations to Elmer Staats for receiving such a high honor. I ask unanimous consent that a congratulatory letter from the current Comptroller General, David M. Walker, be entered into the Record at this point.